Response to a Classmate's blog post

A classmate of mine recently posted a blog about the controversial issue of gun control. Christy points out how Jersey City created an ordinance in 2006 limiting the number of guns an individual could buy to one per month; however, an appeals court overturned this law. The Supreme Court will soon hear the case and decide whether or not it is constitutional for a city to create such laws, since states already monitor the sale of handguns. Currently, New York is the only city with a limit on how many handguns one can purchase, limiting it to one every 90 days. If the Supreme Court sides with Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy, Jersey City will be the second city in the United States to have laws restricting the number of guns sold to an individual.

I agree with Christy when she poses the question, “how many handguns does one really need?” If someone is buying several guns every single month, I see that as a reason to be alarmed. As Christy said, if handguns are being distributed for their original purpose of self defense, it seems ludicrous that someone would need countless different handguns to protect themselves. People who are buying numerous handguns every month raise sheer suspicion in my eyes, as they are most likely illegally selling and distributing them to those who are not able to purchase them, especially in urban cities where crime rates are high, such as Jersey City where the debate is taking place. The Jersey City mayor even stated himself that people with clean records are buying guns for gang members, and that this law is necessary to limit the amount of guns a single person can purchase each month.

Opponents of the law maintain that such a law is an infringement on the Second Amendment, a right to bear arms. I see it differently, though. The law is not stopping the amount of guns that can be sold, it is merely limiting it per month. If you want to buy handgun for protection and self-defense, go buy one. The law is not stopping you. However, if you want to buy ten more of the same gun just a week later, that is where the law steps in. Opponents in urban cities should realize that this law is only helping to keep them safe. I agree wholeheartedly with them that every single person in the United States who is legally able, should be allowed to purchase a handgun for self defense, there is no question about that. However, I feel that cities—especially those of high-crime and violence—should be able to set their own laws limiting the number of guns sold per capita, per month. Who else knows the best way to protect a city more than its own mayor and council?

Christy ends her blogpost with a quote from Republican state senator Marcia Karrow who tried to legitimize her stance on how it is wrong to limit the sale of handguns by stating, “You can’t wear more than one pair of shoes at a time but lots of women have them,” she said.” I agree with Christy when she responded by saying it is completely inappropriate to compare lethal weapons to fashion accessories. This is like comparing apples to oranges. A wide array of shoes is totally normal, as there are specific shoes that go with specific settings—running, hiking, professional, formal. There are not, however, a wide array of settings that are appropriate for specific genres of handguns. You load the bullet, pull the trigger, and a shot is fired… every time. I believe that Karrow completely ruined her defense on this issue by making such a ridiculous comparison. In the end, I feel that it is appropriate for governments of high-crime and violence-prone urban cities to set their own standards for gun sales, as ultimately the law is keeping their cities much safer in the long-run.