ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

Why Are So Many Afraid of Gun Safety and Background Checks? Gun Responsibility should be Society's Major Concern

Updated on January 8, 2016
Columbine Crime Scene
Columbine Crime Scene

Violating My Rights By Not Utilizing Gun Control and Background Checks

I am in shock and very sad to think it is 2016 and we are living with people who feel as though we should go back in time and live in the Wild Wild West. Are you serious? This must be a joke but somewhere along the line I certainly missed the punch line.

Is our society really that sick, and demented that shooting, death and assault rifles should be a daily part of our lives and in our news in such rapidly rising proportions? Protecting yourself is a given right and I am definitely pro self protection. I was born and raised in the country where guns were a part of our lives. I am not against guns, I am however against a Cowboy Wild West thought process within our society. There is absolutely no pertinent use for assault rifles in what is suppose to be a civilized society. Assault rifles are for warfare, not hunting or self protection that does not include war.

I realize there are individuals who find target practice and other types of gun use as a hobby. They enjoy collecting guns just as I collect antique furniture. However, they too should have their background checks completed and their fire arms registered. Boating on the weekends is a hobby but your boat has to be registered to be legal. Riding a Motorcycle is a great hobby which I personally enjoy, but I have to have a license and my motorcycle has to be registered to be legal. Why should a firearm be any different?

I am not ignorant, blind or naïve enough to think we can stop everyone that would cause undue harm with weapons with a background check, just like we cant completely eliminate the doctors, nurses, foster parents, adoptive parents, teachers, priests, police officers, daycare workers and other individuals from committing a crime or harming someone else even with a background check but at the very least we should be committed to our due diligence to lessen the chance. Completing a background check with fingerprints when someone is purchasing a weapon which can cause bodily harm or death to someone else seems undeniable and indeed necessary. There should be no loop holes in this safety check. There should be harsh penalties for those who don't abide by the law. Individuals who choose not to abide by the background check regulations should be viewed as a public menace just as driving while intoxicated or a sexual predator stalking your neighborhood playground.

Individuals with a mental illness which could make them a threat to themselves or others should not be allowed to purchase a gun. Why would anyone want to provide someone who could put themselves or others at risk with a weapon? Where is the difference between law enforcement and employers being granted information regarding crimes, while we leave others bound to silence. In many cases our Mental Health professional are not allowed to disclose pertinent information which could play a huge part in participating in individual safety as well as the safety of our society.

Individuals who have felony convictions are not allowed to vote. Employers can deny someone employment in regards to their criminal records no matter how long ago it may have happened or what the circumstances may have been. Regulations regarding individuals who are facing mental issues of instability and anger are not being punished by restricting them access to guns but rather they are being assisted and supported in their efforts to stabilize and possibly overcome their illness. We owe all individuals with any type of illness, appropriate care and safety.

In many states, mine included, if you have a seizure, it is a FELONY to drive for three months. There are many restrictions which come along with Epilepsy and Seizure activity for a designated amount of time set forth by the American Medical Association and your physician. Many illnesses have restrictions, some are due to medications which are being administered. Other restrictions are due to physical impairments, or the healing process, yet these restrictions are not considered abusive or an invasion of our constitutional rights. These restrictions and guidelines are considered "appropriate medical care and concern." Yet restricting an individual who has been diagnosed with a Mental Illness from purchasing fire arm is considered a violation even when their healthcare provider deems them a risk due to their specific condition.

Would you allow your 2 year old or your 70 year old father with dementia to handle scissors, a razor, a knife, lighters or a gun for that matter? Of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't allow it for their safety, they are not capable of understanding the dangers, rationalizing the consequences and effectively utilizing safety skills. Age plays only a small part in this equation. Their mental capacity and stability engulfs your decision process. Even the 2 year old toddler will argue that they can do something when in all good conscious you know they are not capable and as a loving parent or grandparent, you remain steadfast with your decision and do not sway.

Believe me, I am not against sanctions being placed appropriately to maintain safety and security within our workplaces and our society as a whole. I regard the safety of our society at the utmost importance. I am however completely against prejudice and eliminating others rights but I am also insulted by the thoughts that I should allow others to take away my right to live or my family's right to their lives simply because an angry coward chooses to point his gun and shoot.

It makes me wonder why anyone would hesitate to have a background check unless they are hiding something! I would proudly have a background check, I have nothing to hide. I am not trying to sell or purchase guns through the black market. To me, why would I not want to register my gun and have a background check, I have to do this in many aspects of my life.

When I go to renew my drivers license, they check to make sure you are not suspended, revoked or have been denied a license. When I purchase a car, it has to have a clear title, be registered and verified and in our state yearly, you are required to meet certain registrations processes. When I renew my EMT license, they check to make sure there have been no criminal judgments against you or complaints which would go against your licensure. Upon entering many facilities such as schools and sports arena, I have to verify my identity by showing my drivers license or a state ID. When I apply for life insurance, they check your medical records and now they check to see if you have nicotine or other substances in your body which might cause a financial risk for them. When I apply for a job, they check my background, references and criminal record. When I applied to be a Foster Parent, they did a complete background check and reference check. When I attempt to take a 45 minute flight to visit my mother and father, I have to stand in line for up to two hours to be checked for weapons or other illegal contraband.

Are these processes time consuming--of course. Are these procedure unnecessary in my case--absolutely. Have I ever been denied access or been restricted--Never. However frustrating these safety systems may seem, they are in place for a reason, for our security, for our constitutional right for life and the pursuit of happiness. If you have nothing to hide and you are not trying to avoid the law and complete activites below the grid, there should be no reason to object to a background check for weapons who can ultimately take the life of yourself, your spouse, a friend or God forbid an innocent child.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Elizabeth Ashland profile image
      Author

      Elizabeth Ashland 19 months ago from Texas

      I am not a particular party, but I do seem to lean toward the Democratic way of thinking. I agree there should be a cultural change implemented.

    • Elizabeth Ashland profile image
      Author

      Elizabeth Ashland 19 months ago from Texas

      I am not a particular party, but I do seem to lean toward the Democratic way of thinking. I agree there should be a cultural change implemented.

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 19 months ago

      I totally agree with background checks as do most people, even conservatives, but people are wary to back Obama on his cry for Gun Control because they simply don't believe him when he says he would stop with AR's. Do you know why? Simple logic. Assault rifle's represent a percentage of 1% of murders. Handguns are at the heart of most murders with a gun, so if the premise of gun control for the sake of safety, then naturally you would want to take away the type of weapon that kills more, right? If not, then why even bother with the legislation?

      I know that there are those that say it is worth it if even one life is saved, but if that was the stance of the US, then maybe we would have that same approach with American hostages overseas. I guess what I am saying is that I am not buying it and most people with common sense don't either. America is not afraid of gun control. President H.W. Bush placed a temporary ban on AR's and other types of automatic weapons and Bill Clinton enacted that policy as law. This was not done in the disguise of solving the problem of mass shootings; it was put in place because of good old fashioned common sense. No uproar, no fanfare like today.

      As a matter of fact, mass shootings were rare in the 80's when AR's were legal, yet when we had gun control in place in the 90's, mass shootings began to rise. I am not saying that gun control caused it, I am just saying it doesn't solve it.

      In the end, people don't want gun control now because of the way that Obama is presenting it; as a solution to a problem. Yet most people know that is not the solution, so what would be the purpose? We don't know, so why take a chance.

      That is just my common sense answer. I am a gun owner, but I have no desire to own an AR. My answer to Gun Control is not to pass legislation, but to change the culture. We have done that with cigarettes and abortions, so why not guns? It may seem like a simple minded statement, but when you think about how many AR's are sold every time Obama makes a plea for gun control, then it may seems to make a little more sense. I mean, if I were the president and I knew that gun sales went up every time I spoke about trying to pass legislation, guess what? I would stop talking about it! That should be the first thing he should do. lol

      Anyway, I am sure there are some in here that are going to bash me because they are partisan to a political party, but that is OK; it will still not make the majority support Obama's plan to enact Gun Control on his terms. It has to be on our terms.

    • Elizabeth Ashland profile image
      Author

      Elizabeth Ashland 19 months ago from Texas

      I completely agree.

    • Austinstar profile image

      Austinstar 19 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

      That's a good suggestion! I will star using 'gun responsibility' from now on!

    • Elizabeth Ashland profile image
      Author

      Elizabeth Ashland 19 months ago from Texas

      Wording is everything sometimes--I understand what you are saying and you may very well be right but I agree the government is not trying to take away our guns.

    • gregas profile image

      Greg Schweizer 19 months ago from Corona, California.

      If they would refer to the subject as "gun responsibility" instead of "gun control" I don't think it would raise as many hairs. When they hear "gun control" they think the government wants to take the guns away. To me, that's not even close to the government plan. Greg