In a CNN article, Phillip Alpers believes there will be stricter gun control laws regardless of who wins the Presidential campaign. This a surprising claim, considering Trump has taken a firm stance on protecting the Second Amendment and has even been supported by the NRA. Throughout the article, Alpers attempts to use other examples like the Road system and public health campaigns to show that overtime gun legislation can change and will eventually save lives. Though Alpers does present evidence, it seems that these examples might be too polar, causing the audience to reject the message.

Flawed Reasoning – Must be Unified to Succeed

Firstly, Phillip Alpers uses the reasoning that legislation will eventually pass for gun control because other legislation was eventually passed for safer roads, tobacco reduction, and HIV/AIDS. He stated, “Other US-led successful public health campaigns…saved countless…lives, all in the face of years of denial and quasi-religious opposition from self-interested groups.” Though there are laws, like texting and driving, that have been enacted to prevent car accidents, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be laws enacted on gun control. Most people believe texting and driving is bad and should be stopped to ensure the safety of Americans; however, people have strict stances on gun control. Where there is a unified agreement on reducing tobacco and HIV/AIDS, there is not a unified agreement on gun control. This shows that Alpers’ reasoning is flawed.

Adequate Evidence – Follow in the Footsteps

However, Alpers does use adequate examples with regards to gun violence by referencing the actions of other nations. He stated, “Latin Americans…suffer gun death rates to make your toes curl. For this reason Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia joined Australia…in mounting massive national disarmament and firearm destruction programs, each followed by fewer gun deaths.” This seems to be sufficient evidence because in an article, “A new law banned guns above a .38 caliber…and added qualifications for buying a gun…The country saw a 13 percent reduction in gun deaths between 2003 and 2010.” Alpers urges the United States to follow the global trend and tighten down on firearms.

Alpert presents insufficient evidence about HIV/AIDS but does present a good example of other nations. Regardless of who is the next president, no one can tell if gun control will be enforced. However, in order for gun-related crimes to be controlled, we must have a unified agreement on the issue, and gradually make gun restrictions a norm.

The gun control debate is still occurring and it seems that Legislators are simply bickering, as opposed to getting anything done. A good example of this is when Democrats had a Sit-In for more than 24 hours on the House floor with no vote by Republicans on gun control. It seems that there is a misunderstanding on the issue of gun control, and Republicans are trying to protect individual rights, while Democrats are trying to ensure safety. It is crucial for legislators to begin viewing the issue from both perspectives so that something can be implemented to ensure citizen’s rights and safety.

Democrats: Humanitarian Perspective

According to an article by NBCNews.com, Rep. John Lewis stated, “‘Time and time again we ask for compassion…Our people are sick and tired of a do nothing congress…”‘ It seems that Democrats are approaching gun control from a humanitarian perspective. While trying to push for this vote, “…lawmakers held photos of victims of gun violence,” as an aesthetic strategy to show Republicans that this is issue is about safety and not individual rights. In the same article, Nancy Pelosi further illustrates the humanitarian perspective when she said, “‘We have little time to save lives. What more important thing does any of us have to do than stay here and pass a law to save laws?” This clearly shows that Democratic Legislators are taking a humanitarian approach to gun control.

Republicans: Individual Rights

In terms of Republicans, they believe “…that American citizens have the right to own, carry, and use guns.” Also it is stated, “Republicans generally believe that changes in sociological norms have no bearing on the rights and freedoms defined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” It is clear that Republicans are viewing this issue as an individual right that should not be altered in any way.

Overall, it seems that gun control is a black-and-white issue to Republicans; however, Democrats believe it is a gray area. Democrats believe that as society changes, so should the laws to protect the safety of Americans; while Republicans think gun control is a freedom that should not be altered in anyway. Both parties need to be open to both stances, so that laws can be implemented for the better of everyone.

 

Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, has taken a stand on gun control and believes that “Restrictions on gun ownership will only encourage outlaws to have heavy ammunition and high calibre weapons.”Also, in terms of gun-free zones, he believes that the majority of shootings are happening because they are located in gun-free zones.

What is interesting, however, is Johnson’s Vice President William Weld. Johnson explicitly takes a conservative outlook on gun control, whereas, William Weld has taken the opposite stance in the past. In 1993, Weld urged bans on most assault weapons in Massachusetts and the sale of handguns to anyone under 21. He also proposed a five-day waiting period for all handgun purchases in Massachusetts to allow for background checks.

Now Weld states, “Today…I would make some different choices. Restricting Americans’ gun rights doesn’t make us safer, and threatens our constitutional freedoms.”

Much like Trump defending himself against allegations of him groping women eleven years ago stating that he’s changed, Weld uses the same strategy. Weld states that, “Today, almost 25 years later, I would make some different choices.” Though this might have been an effective strategy if Weld wasn’t involved in politics, Weld took a stance on restricting gun rights and it’s not likely that his personal beliefs have changed. Weld did provide a defense stating, “…frankly, the people I represented were demanding action.” But this defense makes the public view Weld as noncommittal to his ideas and wavering in his stance on important issues.

Like Trump, it seems that the past plays a significant role in choosing to vote for a specific candidate. Because Weld actually took action in 1993 and urged an assault weapons ban, it’s likely that people will see Weld as a supporter of gun control and not an advocate for the Second Amendment. Weld’s defense could hinder the validity of the Johnson-Weld team because it would appear that the Libertarian candidate’s position on issues, like gun control, are only determined by what the public is saying at that particular time and not based on their beliefs.

In an interview about an Orlando shooting of a nightclub on June 14, 2016, Gary Johnson made his stance on guns clear: Gun Restrictions will not stop gun violence.

He stated, “I understand how so many people can believe that if you restrict this kind of weapon you can prevent this kind of incident…But there’s just no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it makes us any safer, and in fact restricting guns makes things less safe, that’s the camp that I’m in.”

He also stated, “…all of these atrocities, including what happened in Orlando, all of these shootings were in gun- free zones. The theater in Colorado, the nightclub in Orlando, the college campus shootings, Fort Hood of all places being gun-free, that’s where they are all happening.” Johnson uses many examples as a rational argument to show that even though many think it is important to create more gun-free zones, Johnson is showing that gun-free zones are areas that are being targeted.

The implications of his stance won’t seem to matter. With voting less than a month away, this race is mainly between Clinton and Trump. However, it is possible for some people who were in support of Trump’s gun policies could switch over and be willing to vote in favor of Johnson if voters aren’t in favor of Trump’s other policies. Likewise, Johnson holds a majority of votes from socially liberal populations, so it is possible that Johnson could also lose some support because he wants to decrease gun control and take away gun-free zones. If some supporters do decide to switch, the support will likely go to Clinton, which will put her further ahead and make her the likely candidate to win this election.

According to an article, “Strong pro-gun statements…will be welcome news for libertarians and conservatives.” Johnson’s stance on guns will mostly effect Moderate Conservative Voters who believe that Trump is too polar. “…libertarians and conservatives should be encouraged that Johnson is not moderating on guns…it appears that the former Republicans are holding their ground on the issue.”

Did Trump really say that?

In early August, Trump appeared at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina claiming Clinton would take away the Second Amendment. He stated, “…if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know…” Although his wording is very ambiguous, many people thought Trump was promoting Second Amendment people to use violence to stop Hillary Clinton. Trump’s campaign responded saying, “Second Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power. And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.” So what were the reactions to Trumps off-the-cuff comment?

Immediately, the Rep. Eric Swalwell called for the Secret Service to investigate Trump’s statement.

Donald Trump suggested someone kill Sec. Clinton. We must take people at their word. @SecretService must investigate #TrumpThreat.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) August 9, 2016

According to an article posted by the Wall Street Journal, “the Clinton campaign declared his remarks ‘dangerous,’ charging that they amounted to a car for an attack against his opponent.” Hillary Clinton even posted on Twitter the same day,

"A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way." pic.twitter.com/Uu55CBCqdK

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 9, 2016

The US Secret Service communications director, Cathy Milhoan, told CNN, “You’re not just responsible for what you say. You are responsible for what people hear.” Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, stated, “A person seeking to be president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way.” Even some supporters like Ryan Williams, a former aide to Mit Romney, and House Speaker Paul Ryan, stated, “He makes it harder every day to continue to support him…It’s almost like he wants people to denounce him.” Ryan also stated, “It sounds like just a joke gone bad…I hope he clears it up very quickly, you should never joke about something like that.”

Though a lot of people are attacking Trump for his comments, some people continue to support him.

Sen. Jeff Seesions of Alabama, said it was an “awkwardly worded call” to call for gun owners to be a political force. The National Rifle Association also backed Trump a posted on twitter making the focus on on Trump’s comment but that, if elected, Clinton will appoint anti-gun Supreme Court Justices.

.@RealDonaldTrump is right. If @HillaryClinton gets to pick her anti-#2A #SCOTUS judges, there’s nothing we can do. #NeverHillary

— NRA (@NRA) August 9, 2016

Overall, Democrats believe it was a call for violence, while Republicans believe it was a call for political unification. One thing that we all can agree on, Trump caught Republicans and Democrats off guard with his statement.

Wrong. He doesn’t get it. Throughout the political campaign, Donald Trump has taken a firm stance on gun control; however, after the recent debate on Sept. 27, it seems Trump has changed his mind on certain aspects of gun control like no fly-lists and watch lists. This has created some confusion among the public and begs the question, what exactly is Trump’s position on these issues?

Trump and the NRA

No Fly-lists and Watch Lists

Towards the end of May 2016, NRA executive director Chris Cox officially endorsed Trump for President. Grover Norquist in an article by the New York Times stated, “Trump in his public statements, in his speech at the convention, is the most pro-Second Amendment presidential candidate of either party in living memory, and we haven’t had a presidential candidate declare war on the Second Amendment community as aggressively as Hillary.” However, in the debate, Trump actually agreed with Clinton’s stance on watch lists in terms of gun control by stating, “…I think we have to look very strongly at no fly-lists and watch lists.” Trump actually agreed with Clinton’s position on no fly-lists and watch list over the stance of his endorsers, the NRA. It seems that the NRA thought Trump was fully committed to eliminating gun control; however, Trump has now taken a stance for gun control. Trump then plans to meet with the NRA to clarify his position on gun control and watch list and no fly lists.

I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2016

Gun-Free Zones

In terms of Gun-Free Zones, that issue has also become opaque. During a speech for the NRA Leadership Forum, Trump stated, “We’re getting rid of gun-free zones…” He stood firm on his stance for gun-free zones; however, Trump again had to clarify his position. He clarified in a CNN article, “I don’t want to have guns in classrooms, although in some cases teachers should have guns in classrooms, frankly…” It seems pretty evident that Trump does not know what he truly stands for, and gun-free zones is another example proving his confusion.

So, What does Trump stand for in terms of gun control? Who knows. Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America stated in an article by the Daily Dot that, “Trump is not at all satisfactory He’s not consistent. Sometimes he’s conservative, and sometimes he’s not.”

So what do you believe, Mr. Trump?