Post #3: Gun Control - Due 2/1
There is a national discussion about gun control. The president, Rep. Gifford, the NRA, and others are all weighing in on whether US gun laws are too loose or strict enough and what causes atrocities like school shootings. This debate is an excellent opportunity to examine how public policy is created. For your post answer the following questions:
- Do you think the US needs new gun laws and if so which ones and why? If not, why not?
- Do you think the president will be successful at getting new gun control legislation through Congress? Why or why not? In your answer be sure to consider the role of gun control and gun rights groups.
This post is due on Friday, Feb. 1st but feel free to post early. Your post needs to include at least 4 sources. I look forward to reading what you have to say.
posted by Ms. Aby @ 7:59 AM
36 Comments:
In 2012, there have been sixteen shootings that have left at least 88 people dead. These were fatal mass shootings in which the victims were chosen indiscriminately (1). These tragedies also took place at random places like courthouses, movie theatres, churches and most recently an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut (1). Now it is the time for the federal government to get serious about gun control and take action to prevent these fatal blows to society from ever happening again.
The U.S. most certainly needs new gun laws that are common sense approaches to solve a widespread and prospective problem. First, Congress needs to reinstate the assault weapons ban. In 1994 this bill was passed by gun control advocates and was signed into law by Bill Clinton; however, when the White House was controlled by Pro-gun Republicans, the ban expired (2). The problem is, “you can for example walk into most big-box sporting goods stores and buy an AR-15 assault rifle. (This is what Holmes, the Colorado shooter, did) (2).” This is obviously a problem as assault weapons are widely used in mass killings such as the ones we have seen in 2012 (2). The second bill that needs to be passed is the banning of high capacity magazines. Reports state that, “at most ninety seconds passed between the first 911 call in Aurora and the apprehension of the suspect. Yet he was still able to shoot seventy-one people—in large part because his AR-15 rifle had a 100-round drum capable of firing fifty to sixty shots per minute (3).” Not even a sportsman needs this number of rounds, but the fact is, the large magazines are getting into the hands of killers that put innocent lives at risk (3). Next, we need to regulate sniper rifles. These are among the most dangerous weapons that are currently sold in America inclusive of the .50-caliber rifle (4). These can include large rounds and have been adopted by the armed forces as long-range sniper rifles. These rifles need to have taxes levied on the manufactures and transfer, and must be registered with authorities (4). According to a Congressional Research Service report, these weapons—freely available at most gun retailers—“could be used to shoot down aircraft, rupture pressurized chemical tanks, or penetrate armored personnel carriers” and “have little sporting, hunting, or recreational purpose (1).” Another proposal that should be taken into consideration is the prospect of universal background checks. Using criminal background checks for all gun sales would essentially close loopholes which enable 40% of all gun sales to take place without any questions asked (5). Convicted stalkers, suspected terrorists, and the mentally unstable should be put on the list of those barred from purchasing a firearm (5).
Even though it will be difficult as everything is, due to partisanship, I believe that Obama will be able to pass new gun control legislation through Congress. In the aftermath of Newtown, Obama took a vow to “rally public opinion” to urge Congress to take actions like banning assault weapons and expanding background checks (6). He recognized that the legislative fight would be difficult, and took immediate steps of issuing a series of executive orders (6). Obama and his administration are so adamant on passing legislation, that “The White House is planning a multifaceted effort to sell its plans, including speeches around the country by the president and vice president and concerted lobbying by interest groups to influence several dozen lawmakers from both parties seen as critical to passage. The White House created a Web page with video testimonials from victims of gun violence and a sign-up for supporters to help advocate the president’s plan (6).” Obama’s plan includes 4 legislative proposals as well as 23 executive actions. Even though the Republicans and the NRA have criticized Obama for not taking into consideration the proposal of placing armed guards in each school and realizing that the second amendment is nonnegotiable, Obama made a strong statement and a decent start to his long road of gun control by signing his executive actions which would toughen the enforcement of existing laws and encourage federal agencies and state government to share more information (6). The public will see these actions as the step in the right direction and as Obama will rally the public support, he has major leverage in the future and Congress will have to succumb to these common sense legislative proposals.
1.http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead#
2.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/assault-weapons-ban-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html
3.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-frank-lautenberg/post_1905_b_845590.html
4.http://www.vpc.org/graphics/whyregulate50s.pdf
5.http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-12/politics/36312205_1_gun-sales-gun-laws-gun-violence-task-force
6.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/politics/obama-to-ask-congress-to-toughen-gun-laws.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Several events have unfolded in the recent months and years to make gun control a big issue in the United States. The Newtown school shooting, the movie theatre shooting over the summer, the shooting of Representative Gabriel Giffords, assaults on places of worship, and most recently a shooting at a high school in California (2). The United States and Yemen are the only two countries that “consider civilian ownership of a firearm a basic right” (1). The United States has one of the most laid-back gun control policies compared to other developed nations (1). The US does need to rethink its gun control policy. Gun violence is a major threat in urban areas. Gun owners who shoot recreationally or go hunting and live in rural areas are the most worried about their gun rights not being upheld (3). The gun control policies that I believe will be effective are the limits on the magazine capacities and the banning of assault weapons and also having every gun be registered (4). When else are these kinds of weapons used except to injure a person or a large group of people? These kinds of guns being legal have no effect on people who enjoy hunting as a hobby. It does however prevent the circulation of guns that are used to murder people. The one policy that I do not think will make much of a difference is the background check. If you are a criminal, you will find another way to get a gun. Public opinion in favor of guns is at an all time low. The recent events have pushed this issue into the forefront. Obama has the people behind him on this issue. The legislators are now needed to put the public’s opinion into action. However, I believe that the NRA, one of the most powerful interest groups in our country, will give Congress members such a hard time that gun control laws will have a very hard time getting passed. If their one motive is to keep the rights of the American people while possible endangering everyone in the process, that is their problem. As a movement for the greater good, I believe that the NRA should back down, give reasonable compromises, and let the gun bans pass. If I had to say if the gun bans will pass I would say they will because people with no strong feelings for either side will pressure their representatives into passing the laws because they have seen all the horrible things that can happen when guns become out of control.
1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/us-guns-statistics-outlier_n_2331892.html
2)http://www.salon.com/2013/01/10/breaking_shooting_at_california_high_school/
3) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57566051-10391739/obama-gun-control- supporters-must-listen-more/
4)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/27/obama-gun-control_n_2561677.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Since the incident at Newtown, Connecticut, talks about gun control reform have increased dramatically. As of 2010, 40-45% of households own a firearm (1). Also, 460,000 violent crimes were committed with guns resulting in over 10,000 murders (1). Although these numbers seem a little dated, I think they are still a reliable teller on this issue because laws in 2010 were similar to those we have now. In light of a recent chain of events, I feel that gun control is something that should be pursued by the United States; although, it should be done so carefully. It is likely that the institution of background checks and intensified scrutiny would prevent deadly weapons from reaching the hands of those most likely to commit heinous crimes and thereby lower the number of murders in the United States (2). Furthermore, the prohibition of dangerous assault rifles will protect against mass killings (2). A handgun with several bullets is enough to defend a household, but high powered military weapons only lead to the deaths of many.
I think that gun control laws will be particularly difficult to pass. Even though the number of control advocates seems to be growing every day, groups such as the NRA have also seen an unprecedented spike in membership (3). Over 250,000 members have recently joined, which is a large fraction of their overall membership of 4.25 million (3). While I am inclined to agree with the pro control argument, it is never easy to pass legislation when dealing with rights listed explicitly in the Constitution. Despite whether or not Congress is able to take action, President Obama has already begun to do his part to strengthen gun control (2). He has announced 23 steps that he is taking immediately through his power as our nation’s executive (2). Amongst these are increasing background checks, lifting the federal ban on gun violence research, and increasing the number of councilors and resource officers in school.
One argument that I found interesting while researching this issue was that video games are at the heart of the gun control crisis (4). From a young age, children and teenagers have been killing people virtually through the vast number of shooting games available to them. Some say that this is polluting their minds and causing instability that could lead to them becoming gun using criminals (4). While this thought intrigued me from a psychological standpoint, I think it would be almost impossible to tackle this politically as there is little evidence of a direct correlation between video games and gun violence.
1) http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
2) http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/16/us-usa-guns-idUSBRE90F0NU20130116
3) http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/politics/gun-laws-battle/index.html
4)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324907204578183391365867704.html
I firmly support new gun regulations and laws. I believe that it is unacceptable for us to suffer so much tragedy, in the form of massacres, but also in the daily violence that occurs in our cities, when we have a choice about it. Primarily, I support President Obama’s plan for gun control. First, an assault weapons ban, which would makes 19 types of military-style weapons illegal. Second, a ban on high-capacity magazines, defined as any magazine with over 10 rounds. Next, universal background checks, meaning every gun purchaser will have to undergo a background check, regardless of where they’re buying the firearm. Furthermore, an increase in funding for background checks and for research into gun violence. Finally, an upgrade to our mental health system, which will expand coverage and open up access for treatment. (1) I believe that each of these elements can contribute to our increased well-being without sacrificing any rights or an undue amount of utility. In fact, the vast majority of Americans support several of these measures. 90% support universal background checks, and 85% of NRA households support the checks. Over 60% support the ban on high-capacity magazines and 53% support the assault weapons ban. (2) I find it rather humorous how out-of-touch NRA leadership is, after NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre testified against all of Obama’s proposals, including the background checks. He stated, “When it comes to background checks, let's be honest -- background checks will never be universal because criminals will never submit to them.” To which Democratic Senator Dick Durbin responded, “Mr. LaPierre that's the point, the criminals won't get to purchase the guns because there'll be a background check. We'll stop them from the original purchase -- you missed that point completely. I think it's basic." (3) However, I am rather pessimistic about the chances of radical changes in our gun-control system. The NRA is the most powerful interest group on Capitol Hill and their pressure will make it impossible to pass anything that isn’t supported by a super-majority of Americans. Furthermore, since this issue will take time, I am sure that the memory of the deaths of all the children in Newtown and many other tragedies will quickly fade and with it so will the public support that has so far held the NRA at bay. At best, I suspect Obama will succeed in getting the background check passed, possibly reform to our mental health system, and increases in funding for security, but very little actual restrictions. (4) After all, the people who are suffering the consequences of our policy are not the same people who are resisting changes. As long as it’s not their sons and daughters, (and it isn’t, since I suspect there is a very small overlap between people who enjoy hunting and/or own a gun and defend their “fundamental right” with those who, probably, live in the cities) most Americans will never support serious changes.
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57564192/what-are-obamas-gun-control-proposals/
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/us/poll-shows-school-shooting-sways-views-on-guns.html
3. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/30/nra-lapierre-to-tell-congress-more-gun-laws-not-serious-solution/
4. http://www.krdo.com/news/Obama-s-gun-control-plan-meets-resistance/-/417220/18147230/-/15232or/-/index.html
The only reason this issue is coming up is for hysteria purposes. The 2nd Amendment isn't for hunting, it's to defend ourselves against foreign and domestic tyrannical governments. This idea that we need a "common sense approach," states that the person saying it has no common sense. Switzerland hasn't fought a war in 300-400 years. Every citizen is armed to the teeth with their military equipment that is mandatory they know how to use and operate. This includes their automatic rifles.
Now I wouldn't be so worried about the Gun Control if they weren't assaulting ever other right of our Constitution as it is. Here's the reality check. Hunting rifles used for killing deer are calibered in .308 almost always. AR-15s are calibered in .223. The higher the caliber the more damage will do to an object. Both weapons are semi automatic only. This means that it would be better to shoot someone with a hunting rifle than a "scary" AR-15.
Another thing that irritates me to no end is this. Look at Britain, they are the crime capital of Europe and they have a total weapons ban. In Britain, They have 4,100 cases of Violent crime for every 100,000 people. That's a 4.1% rate. In the United States, we have 475 cases of Violent Crime for ever 100,000 people. that is a rate of .475%. That makes Britain about 10X worse than us when it comes to crime committed with a weapon.
In Israel the people open carry AR-15s and the teachers themselves are armed and they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This is also the case with Switzerland. These countries know that big brother isn't going to help them out when they are looking down a barrel of a gun.
The Federal Bureo of Statistics put out a statistic 6 months ago that stated the average number of deaths in a mass shooting when the police need to stop it is 26. Whereas they said the average number of people killed when a civilian stops it is between 3-6.
If I hear the term "Universal Background" checks one more time I'm going to puke. It doesn't mean that everyone gets checked. It means that anything the government is involved in can say whether or not you can own a firearm. Just 2 weeks ago I went into my doctor and he for the first time ever asked whether or not I had firearms in the house. According to him he is supposed to ask due to the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare).
I have a solution that any Bleeding Heart would agree with. 74% of all crime committed with a gun in the United States is gang related. Gangs are funded by illegals drugs which is fueled by the War on Drugs. So a "Common Sense Solution" would be to end the war on drugs and we would watch crimes committed by firearms crash quickly do to the disbanding of violent gangs.
* Unfinished*
1. http://crime.about.com/od/stats/a/blbjs040912.htm
Hello, my name is Josh and I like to leave myself logged into computer 14 in the library. I also love frolicking in fields of corn and jumping off of small stools. Please vote for me for "best dressed." Go Panthers! On the topic of gun control, we should totally control guns. I mean, if we just let them run loose, they would become undomesticated and stop coming when called. Electric fences would be a good solution so that we can control guns but still allow them to get their exercise.
-Love, a benevolent prankster
p.s. Josh is actually a pretty cool guy.
Since the school shooting tragedy in Connecticut on Dec. 14th 2012, it’s appropriate to say that gun control has been a hot topic for the United States during the past few weeks. Personally, I believe that gun violence has gotten out of control. Massacres seem to be occurring every few months, and this makes citizens of/travelers to the US fear for their safety. President Obama has plans to reduce gun violence. He has stated, “We won’t be able to stop every violent act, but if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events, we have a deep obligation, all of us, to try.” (1) His plan includes: requiring background checks for gun sales, strengthening background checks, passing a ban on assault weapons, limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, get armor-piercing bullets off of the streets, giving law enforcement more resources to prevent and prosecute gun violence, ending the freeze on gun violence research, creating better emergency plans for schools, and ensuring mental health treatment is covered (1).
I think that the US does need new gun laws. Like Obama said, we cannot always stop gun violence from occurring, but we can definitely try to prevent it. To highlight what I think are two of the most important issues Obama has stated, I think it would be very effective in the fight against gun violence to make it illegal for the common citizen to own an assault weapons. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “68% of the 16,929 murders in 2007 were committed with firearms“ (2). Though this statistic is a little dated and it does not state which type of firearms, it is possible that many murders were committed with an assault weapon because they are specifically for shooting many things in one sitting (3). Another law that I think would be very helpful is to have quality mental health coverage for everybody. Many people who commit large-scale crimes with guns are found to be mentally unstable. If such people were treated, it could prevent many future attacks.
I’m unsure of whether the president will be able to get new gun control legislation through Congress. Since the NRA is an extremely powerful group, they could make it very difficult, or even impossible, to get laws passed regarding gun control. It will have to take the majority of Americans to be able to get what Obama wants passed. Some of the laws that are “easier” to pass would probably pass, such as: a stronger background check, giving the law enforcement more resources, ending the freeze on gun violence research, and creating better emergency plans for schools. Another thing that would make it difficult for certain gun laws to be passed would be that many citizens believe that the issue is simply “the right to owning a gun,” when in fact, it is much more complicated than that.
1.http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence#what-we-can-do
2.http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm
3.http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
4.http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-28/health/bs-md-psych-reporting-20130128_1_mental-health-law-enforcement-gun-violence
The second amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms i.e. own guns. How does this right affect others in the country who want nothing to do with guns? The recent tragedy in Connecticut has brought this issue conveniently to the attention of politicians (1). The shooting is interesting to the media and the public because of the type and number of victims (26 children (2)) and the fact that the act was carried out using an especially dangerous weapon by a mentally unstable illegal carrier. I believe that enacting legislation to limit guns is a smart idea. Throughout history, the government has been able to limit citizens' rights if it is determined that the government is not taking away that right. The limits proposed seem to me to be reasonably within bounds. Advocates of guns state that there are several reasons why they should be able to own military-style guns. Mainly for hunting and for historical or vanity reasons (3). However, in the words of a good, admittedly outspoken, friend of mine, if it takes more than 10 shots for you to kill an animal, you shouldn't be allowed to shoot a gun; point being that a restriction on clip size would not and should not be too devastating to the hunting crowd. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA argues that: one, the government does not truly enforce gun control laws already in effect so more restrictions would lead to an over-complicated bureaucracy and two, the criminals who commit crimes are mentally volatile and usually make regular, law-abiding citizens take the blame for ineffective mental help (4). I agree that an increase of mental help programs would be a good way to cut down on violent crime as a whole and let more people lead happier lives in general. However, I disagree with LaPierre on restriction policy. The increased background checks would help the situation way more than hurt and effectively checks for mental stability. Finally, limiting the supply of guns to the public as a whole makes it harder to commit crimes of passion. The culprit in Connecticut was able to access high-powered weaponry "far too easily" (5). This event subjected small children to traumatic experiences that they had the right not to observe or be a part of. Pathos: first-graders crawling through the lifeless, bullet-riddled bodies of their peers and teachers in desperate escape (5).
(1)http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/why-this-gun-control-debate-has-been-different/
(2)http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/50403374#50653715
(3)http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/21/us/military-style-weapons-ireport/index.html
(4)http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/politics/congress-guns/index.html
(5)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/newtown-families-gun-control-laws_n_2589407.html
Part 2: Of Obama and Congress
(OMG my congress person for the assignment was mentioned in one of the articles!!!1!)
It is unlikely that the gun ban in its entirety will pass. It is many representatives and advocates of gun rights stress that more limitations don't solve the problem, but actually enforcing limits "already in the books" would be an actual step to reduced gun violence (2). THe NRA states that while 76,000 have been denied gun permits, only 44 have actually been prosecuted (3). Second, these same groups say that they would vote for the bill if it involved mental health fixes, not gun fixes (2). While 60% of Americans support stricter legislation (2), I don't believe this will be enough support for the bills to pass. The Congressmen wish to please their constituents and this is a too controversial and split topic to take a side on at this point. Some legislatures will vote for the passing if their district does not own many guns and vote against if their district does. I believe that the prediction of The Daily Beast dot com is reasonable: Congress will pass more background checks but not the ban on assault rifles (1).
(1)http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/31/how-obama-and-the-democrats-could-win-on-gun-control-by-losing.html
(2)http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57564380/does-obamas-gun-control-plan-have-a-chance/?pageNum=2
(3)http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/politics/congress-guns/index.html Reuse from last post
I believe that the issue of guns and gun control is a very hot topic right now. The fact there have been so many deaths resulting from violent massacres needs to be addressed and that is why I believe that there needs to be stricter gun control. There news to be adjustments made to the system we have in place right now because it is not working. There are many things that I believe are practical and necessary to do so we can prevent gun violence from occurring even more. First we can restrict assault weapons, which would mean bringing back legislation similar to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. The weapons ban made it illegal to manufacture assault weapons for private citizens while also restricting the size of magazines to ten bullets (1). We can restrict the sale of conversion kits which allow guns to be converted into assault weapons by buying parts to add on them (2). High capacity magazines can be restricted as well. We can add the terrorist watch list to background checks. A final measure would be to restrict guns from those that are mentally ill (2). I believe that these measures will help control gun violence and then we can assess its effect on gun violence on the years to come. I believe that President Obama will be able to pass an effective gun control measure because it consist of common things. President Obama wants to bring back the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and restrictions on magazines (3). However, him presenting it to the public might be a challenge. There was a study conducted by Gallup polls where they asked Americans questions about implementing new gun control policies. In one they did not mention that these measures were some of the ones provided by Obama and 9 out of 10 Americans agreed with implementing them. However when Obama’s name was mentioned only 53% of those who answered agreed with the measures (4). No one is sure why there is a difference but it might very well mean that Obama might have to do a lot of work behind the scenes but I feel confident that he will be able to change gun policies in the coming weeks.
1.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/
2.http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2012/12/17/news/doc50cf860e446f1753678625.txt?viewmode=fullstory
3.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-gun-control-proposals_n_2486919.html
4.http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/poll-obama-gun-control-background-check-magazine
I am glad to see that the topic of gun control has been chosen for discussion. I am going to write a research paper on it for AP English and this blog post will certainly help with that. Anyways, as many of my fellow students have pointed out, many shootings have occurred in recent decades - even as recent as yesterday, the 30th, in Alabama (1). It is a shame that our government has had to wait until now to put some serious legislation in place, after so many unnecessary deaths. First off, I must make something clear. I feel that if someone is crazy enough to want to kill people, they are going to obtain a firearm by some means, despite what restrictions are in place. Keeping this in mind, I do feel there are some other laws that could be enacted to prevent mass shootings from occurring. The first one is a restriction on buying large amounts of ammunition at a time from shady online sources. Theater shooter James Holmes, for example, was able to legally purchase 6,000 rounds of ammo from an online retailer before his rampage (2). I feel these websites and the people that use them to purchase ammo should be under some supervision or watched closely by a government security agency. A second law that should be in place is increased psychological background checks on people wanting to buy a weapon from a gun dealer. Wisconsin passed a law like this back in 2010, and it would benefit the nation greatly to have a law like this in place that covered all the states (3). After all, if someone is willing to buy a gun for hundreds of dollars, they should be willing to be subject to another background check. As the saying goes, "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about". These two ideas are laws I would definitely be happy to see enacted by our government. Whether the president will be able to get these measures passed is another matter entirely. With the NRA at a whopping 4 million+ members, the size of the community against gun control is certainly one to be reckoned with (4). It will be difficult for Obama to convince Republican lawmakers to vote with him on his proposals, which include things like banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets, an assault weapons ban, and others (5). This would be political suicide for Republicans from very red states, and would certainly decrease their chances in upcoming elections. Overall, while it is now imperative to put new gun regulations in place, President Obama will have a very difficult time finding support from Republicans in Congress.
(1) http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/30/us-usa-alabama-shooting-idUSBRE90T02L20130130
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/james-holmes-aurora-shooting_n_1691191.html
(3) http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/85979542.html
(4) http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/nra-membership-surge-doubts.php
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#President_Obama.27s_proposals
Gun violence is the number one topic in Washington D.C. right now (with the exception of those financial Congressmen only focused on a surplus!). In my opinion, I believe that America has to change its gun policies. Gun violence is one of the most frequent events in America, as seen by the fact that it is always on the news. In addition, it is not like these are just isolated events. In 2012, there were 16 mass shootings in the United States, resulting in 88 deaths (1). Whether it was a movie theatre in Aurora or an elementary school in Newtown, death is always tragic. It is even sadder when people consider that children are being gunned down. Anyone who says that gun violence does not need to be changed is as heartless as the NRA, who decided to release a new mobile video game teaching owners how to shoot at a target a month after the Connecticut shooting (2).
If I were in politics, I would want a huge overhaul of gun policy. Screw the NRA! Of current policies, I would clearly support Obama’s. I completely agree with the ban on assault weapons. What would anyone use them for unless you are in the military or fending off an alien invasion? AK-47s do not need to be on the market at all! The same goes to the high capacity magazines (3). The idea of extensive background checks is brilliant, except for the problem that some of these killers appear perfectly sane until they have a small incident and just go off on a spree. However, closing loopholes still is an intelligent idea (no one thought of that before???). I absolutely love the enhancing of mental health facilities. I completely agree that there is no doubt some of these guys have mental diseases, and treatment would help (3). In addition, I approve of Obama’s use of the executive order to bypass Congress. He is doing what he can on his own. This is important because I believe even though the country extremely needs reform, it will not come yet.
In my opinion, the divided government we have will prevent any serious change from occurring. The Republican House is already ticked at the president over the fiscal cliff. Boehner does not want to give in on anything. Plus, the NRA has the Republicans in its back pocket, as seen by the fact that most Republicans in the House have near perfect ratings from the NRA (4). For Obama’s plan to pass, he will need huge upsets in the House and even in the Democratic Senate, as many Senators from conservative states will have to reject the president’s proposals because they have to keep an eye on the next election (4). For these reasons, I believe it will be extremely complicated for policy to be accomplished. Pro gun representatives will cower behind the fact that only 39% of Americans believe gun policy change will make a real impact by itself (4). In addition, America is apparently still split over which is more vital, protecting the Second Amendment or changing gun control, and as long as that is the case, nothing truly important can occur in politics (5).
I believe that the claim to protect the Second Amendment is a complete fallacy. We have to remember that the Bill of Rights was written right after the country fought a revolution and gained independence.* Most people had a musket because all the country had for protection was militias (the army and navy were disbanded after the war). Americans needed a musket in their house for protection, because there was still a British threat seeing that they still controlled the Canadian territory in the North. Only 13 colonies were freed, everything else was still controlled by England, France, or Spain. The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (6). Clearly, it was discussing the right of a militia, and last time I checked, the gunmen were not in a state militia.
It is obvious that America has an obsession with guns. That would be why gun violence is so frequent in society today.
This about sums it up:
(West Wing knows all. This is only a few of the many clips on gun violence)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKdSGSZfbnA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFIYLimyRHU
Sources:
1. http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead#
2. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/tech/gaming-gadgets/nra-shooting-game/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57564192/what-are-obamas-gun-control-proposals/?pageNum=2
4. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/politics/guns-congress/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews
5. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/politics/gun-law-polls/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
6. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
*(don’t believe me – ask Faulk. He said context was vital in those FRQ’s!).
This comment has been removed by the author.
To start I don’t understand why people argue the 2nd amendment because I’m pretty sure the framers didn’t attend for us to have assault rifles but that could just be me. I admit that I don’t know anything about guns but with common sense I know that people shouldn’t be able to buy assault weapons because they can be used for more than self protection, they can take down large crowds of people hence the word “assault.” I believe that gun laws need to be changed and congress needs to create tighter restriction on owning guns. Personally when people argue that it’s for protection in their homes I understand certain situations but carrying guns around in public I don’t agree with. Why would you fight fire with fire? After recent tragedies I think it is the perfect time to reform gun laws because the public is watching and many are demanding new laws.
Obama has a proposal for gun control, “requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales; reinstating the assault weapons ban; restoring a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines; eliminating armor-piercing bullets; providing mental health services in schools; allocating funds to hire more police officers; and instituting a federal gun trafficking statute, among other policies (1).” I completely agree with Obama and I think background check is a major one in addition to his proposals I believe people should pass a psych evaluation as well. Many people who aren’t mentally stable can still get a gun and that is incredibly unsafe. Obama will be going to multiple cities to promote gun control and his first stop is none other than Minneapolis. I defiantly believe we need gun laws because in the past months every time I watch the news they are talking about a new killing and the gun the person had which they never should have had.
Unfortunately I don’t believe any laws will come out of Congress but at least people’s awareness will rise. Hopefully maybe state laws will be affected but real progress will probably come in the future because as of today the NRA is too powerful. Last tri I read about the NRA when we were researching interest groups and I was shocked about how many members (over 4 million) they have and the fact that their members grew after Newton sickens me (2). NRA controls a lot of members of congress and with them supporting the NRA and gun rights I don’t see laws passing. I’m very glad that Obama is supporting gun control and creating awareness on the issue but trying to pass laws through Congress will be a tough challenge. If by chance they do pass reforms I will be very proud of Congress.
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-gun-control-proposals_n_2486919.html
2. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/nra-membership-numbers
This comment has been removed by the author.
The news recently has been dominated by news pundits and late night talk show hosts all giving their opinion on gun control laws. It is all the public is hearing and they are putting increasing pressure on Congress and the president to pass some sort of gun control legislation. The National Rifle Association is pushing back and many in Congress feel like they are caught in the crossfire. But before we begin, lets take a look at the facts.
According to a Gallup poll taken in October of 2011 (1) (2), 47% of Americans reported that they owned possession of a firearm. 55% of those said that they were Republican while 40% said they were Democrat. 52% were men and 43% were women. The majority of gun owners live in the South or Midwest regions of the country. When asked about gun control laws in December of 2012, the country was reeling from several shootings in schools and other public places. 58% of Americans think that gun control laws should be made more strict while 40% think that they should stay the same. And yet, the public does not support a ban on the weapons themselves. 51% of Americans think that there should not be a ban on assault weapons and an overwhelming 74% think there should be no ban on handguns.
I believe that there should be stricter gun control laws and that there should be an almost air tight ban on assault weapons. The are few reasons that what would need an assault weapon in America, except for the military. However, there are few jobs that may require assault weapons, such as: a private defense contractor or a security guard for highly expensive objects or for secure information. These agencies would have to be monitored with the strictest scrutiny and any crimes involving assault weapons would be thoroughly investigated. Because the purpose of assault weapons is to kill and only to kill. However, not all firearms are bad. The second Amendment gives us a right to bear arms and their are plenty of legitimate reasons for owning handguns and rifles.
I believe that whether any legislation on gun control is passed will depend on the legislation itself. If it is too strict, it will not receive the required number of votes. If it is too lenient then it will be redundant and therefore useless. It is up to Congress and the president to find a middle ground on this very heated issue and this is me wishing them the best of luck.
(1)- http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx
(2)- http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx
With recent tragic events such as the Sandy Hook shooting and the death of Hadiya Pendleton, a promising 15 year old, the whole nation has turned its attention to the topic of gun control (3). In a country where the annual number of firearm homicides is ten times greater than that of Europe, action must be taken in order to protect Americans (2). In fact, everyday, 83 Americans are killed as a result of the prevalence of guns (2). The steps to solve this problem, however, are obscure partly because of the varied results stricter gun laws have produced For example, in New York, a state ranked fourth by the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence on the stringency of their gun laws, was among the highest firearm homicide rates in the country (4). Also, states with loose gun laws, such as Minnesota, are able to maintain a low homicide rate due to firearms. Despite this obstacle, however, there are a few gun laws that have been able to significantly decrease crime rates as proven by a study conducted by Mr. Kleck and Mr. Patterson such as "a gun-control policy organized around gun-owner licensing or purchase permits” and “stronger controls over illegal carrying; and possibly discretionary add-on penalties for committing felonies with a gun (4).”
On the question of whether President Obama will be able to pass his gun control, I think that Obama will be able to pass parts of his gun control plan. Some parts of the plan, such as the background checks on ammo and at gun shows, are supported by 89% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats (5). This support by an overwhelming majority of the people will most likely influence Congress more than opposing interest groups, such as the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation, because, in the end, the only way for a politician to win an election is through the will of the people. This is supported by the fact that this discussion is widely reported on and as a result constituents might base their vote for their Congressman on whether their Congressman supported their views. Despite this overwhelming support, however, the NRA still will not support the background checks even though 85% of NRA households favor universal background checks (1). This has led some to believe that the NRA is discarding the views of their supporters and instead attempting to increase the sales of gun manufacturers (6). Gun control groups have attempted to rival the influence of the NRA. Gabrielle Giffords, who was wounded during a mass shooting, has started her own PAC called Americans for Responsible Solutions (1). Analysts have said that this might “bring new resources to the issue, which has been dominated for years by gun rights groups that are far more organized and well-funded,” as a result of her non-partisan aura, which might broaden support for her cause (7).
1. http://thehill.com/video/policy-areas/277685-nra-chief-generally-supportive-of-tighter-background-checks
2.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
3.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-31/gun-violence-in-obama-s-backyard-damages-emanuel-stature.html
4. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/states-crime-rates-show-scant-linkage-to-gun-laws/
5. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/24/republicans-open-to-gun-control-but-not-president-obamas-plan/
6. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html
6. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/15/the-slippery-slope-of-gun-control-time-to-stand-on-firm-ground/
7. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/01/09/giffords-gun-control-pac-tests-appeal/1821735/
America needs better gun control. This is not a fantastical statement. It is a cruel world we live in were we must go about our daily lives knowing that it is entirely possible that someone could indiscriminately execute our children with high powered automatic weaponry. It is even possible that shooters have never had a background check and they can get weapons and ammunition fairly easily. Newton's Sandy Hook shootings in particular have shocked the American Psyche and perhaps galvanized many against the loose controls that we have now.
It is particularly interesting to me that we cling so needlessly to the Second Amendment. I say this not because I am unpatriotic, but because I am an advocate of the Constitution as a living document, susceptible to changes through time. The right of civilians to bear arms is not recognized to the degree of the United States government by any other nation except Yemen(2). It is interesting to not that the nation of Yemen has been on the brink or in the middle of civil war for much of it's history (2). This tradition of bearing guns in the US is a historical anomaly, praised by the NRA as a 'necessary tradition' (3). At the time that the constitution was written we were fighting our revolutionary war and it was important to give everyday people arms to defend themselves. But now with the battles being waged thousands of miles from our shores I think it is safe to begin tightening availability of guns in our nation. But I predict that organizations such as the NRA will fight to the last dime to frustrate Obama's attempts to restrict gun rights (3).
My views on gun control will not align with the mainstream but I feel that I have the right to share them. I propose that the use of Firearms be restricted to police officers and other keepers of peace. If a citizen wants to carry a gun he may apply for a permit. He or she must be at least 18 years of age, not a felon and have passed an eye exam and a shooting safety course. Unlawful discharge of a firearm, especially in a residential area, should be responded to by the revocation or termination of the permit of the bearer. Additionally, firearms will be banned from all public buildings and must be concealed. Shooting should occur only in designated ranges or in areas frequented by hunters. My ideas might seem radical, but much much of Europe operates under even stricter regulations than I have outlined here, and somehow they are still functioning normally.
1.http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead#
2)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/us-guns-statistics-outlier_n_2331892.html
3) http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg/gallery/4
The recent tragic events that took place in Newtown, CT, have once again brought gun control to the publics attention. The issue has become mired in partisan politics. President Obama has taken a direct role in trying to push gun control legislation through Congress. Meanwhile, the NRA has taken a defensive stance, as they do in the wake of every school shooting, and are trying to ride out the storm. I believe that neither side is totally correct in their solution to this important issue.
My solution would be to take steps to keep weapons of any type out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. This would be the easiest thing to do, as it has broad public support. According to a Gallup poll from January, 91% of voters favor “requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales.” Also, according to the same poll, 82% of voters would be in favor of having “increased government spending for mental health programs for young people” (1). Measures such as these are also likely to make it through Congress relatively intact. Another step that could be taken would be to close the gun show loophole, and require background checks at gun shows. This tends to have more support nationwide than simply banning “assault-weapons” outright (2). A ban on high capacity magazines would also be possible, and more plausible than a ban on a variety of weapons. It would draw less criticism and would have a better chance of actually passing in Congress. President Obama will no doubt try to push a gun control bill through Congress, but I have my doubt as to whether or not it will pass. If the bill pertained to background checks or mental illness and gun control, it would have a strong chance of passing. However, I don’t think that a ban on “assault-weapons” or high capacity magazines will become law in the near future. There is too much opposition.
1) http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
2) http://poll.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/UConn4_GUN_SCHOOL_NATIONAL_TB.pdf
For the time being gun control has taken the top seat as the most controversial political topic. It is truly sad that it takes a national tragedy like Sandy Hook to get people talking about gun control. “The estimated total number of guns held by U.S. civilians is 270 million -- 88.9 firearms per 100 people”(4). We have about 40% of the worlds civilian firearms. It’s a miracle that more tragedies have not happened with this very high number of guns. I believe that we need more gun control laws. One proposed solution is “whether armed guards should be posted at schools” (2). For a time when people are calling for less spending why would we hire armed guards to patrol every school? That cost would be way too high. I think we need to have universal background checks for buying any gun. It is not necessary for civilians to have access to military style assault rifles, so a ban on those could help.
The president is trying to get “a package that includes banning military-style assault weapons, requiring background checks on all firearms purchases and limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds” through Congress(3). As much as I hope that it gets through, I doubt it will. Unfortunately the NRA just has too much power. One positive note is that as a state New York “approved the toughest gun control law in the nation” (1). New York is a more liberal state so there is less influence from the NRA there that allowed the passage of the law. In Congress many Republicans get a large portion of their campaign funds from the NRA so it is unlikely that they would be willing to risk the funding let alone the vote of their pro gun constituents. While I think we need new gun control laws, I believe it is unlikely we will see any changes, sadly.
Sources
1.http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16515653-new-york-passes-major-gun-control-law-first-since-newtown-massacre?lite
2.http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/politics/gun-town-hall/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
3.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9837309/Gabrielle-Giffords-gives-evidence-at-US-gun-control-debate.html
4.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/us-guns-statistics-outlier_n_2331892.html
The text of the Second Amendment reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (1).” The key words here are not, “shall not infringe,” as many gun rights proponents believe, but rather “well regulated” and “necessary to the security of a free state.” America’s current firearms situation, however, with 270 million privately owned and effectively owned firearms (2), many of them semi-automatic weapons designed for no other purpose than to kill human beings, is a flagrant violation of that Constitutional text. There is nothing well regulated about the American firearms industry. Thanks to the lobbying efforts of interest groups like the National Rifle Association, there exist no bans on assault weapons like the ones used in the Sandy Hook and the Aurora massacres, high capacity clips, or quantities of ammunition. In Aurora, James Holmes, was able to stockpile thousands of rounds of ammunition, purchase guns, and acquire body armor in the weeks leading up the shooting. There was nothing well regulated about the Aurora massacre. Furthermore, it is impossible to argue Aurora, Sandy Hook, Columbine, the Oregon Mall Shootings, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Accent Signage, Oikos, the Sikh Temple massacre, and thousands of annual shooting deaths enhance the security of the United States, rather than detract from it (4).
In spite of the mounting body count and societal desire for change, however, fervent gun rights advocates still fight even the smallest of regulations. They claim, in essence, that they and their firearms are the only things standing between freedom and a Stalin-esque dystopia run by the Federal government. Their inexplicable fear of a nightmarish future, however, prevents society from fixing the nightmarish present. It is a present in which students of all ages, shoppers, and workers can be and are gunned down randomly, where not even the youngest are safe, where the only winners are gun manufacturers and the National Rifle Association. Gun regulations will not fix this overnight. The parts of American culture that incessantly glorifies violence will need to be addressed, as will America’s flawed mental health system. But it is a place to start, for while guns do not kill people, they make it easy for an individual to kill large amounts of others than any other commercially available instrument does. A society cannot address gun violence without addressing guns, especially one that has the highest gun-related murder rate in the developed world (2). The United States needs a ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons in the United States, heavy excise taxes on the sale of anti-armor and anti-personnel rounds, a national database that tracks all ammunition purchases, a national firearms registry and pre-purchase background check program, and repeal of the legislation which granted gun manufacturers protections from lawsuits (3).
All of this postulating, of course, will mean nothing if Congress does not act, which they will not. They will simply follow the pattern which they have always followed. Put on a sad face, pretend to mourn with the nation, and return gridlocking. It matters not that the President and some legislators want to create change. The ability of the minority to defeat the majority in a long war of attrition is one of the defining aspects of American lawmaking. It is a war that the NRA and their gun manufacturing buddies are willing to fight, and as long as the blood money keeps rolling into their coffers, they will have plenty of allies.
1. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/
3. http://votesmart.org/bill/3392/8068/3470/8068/3470/#.UQs2aR19JNs
4. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data
Firearms have been a part of american history since we started as a little colony. Americans have always loved their guns. But with the explosion of gun related mass violence the laws that protected gun ownership for so long. Today President Obama set out his plan for curbing this gun violence. His plans included, requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales
banning "military-style" assault weapons,limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, and strengthening penalties for gun trafficking [1.] I definitely agree with Mr. Obama on these plans. Personally I feel very uncomfortable around guns on a physical and moral level. They just make me uncomfortable. However I do understand there will be significant problems with this bill. Many believe that the background check system is too flawed to function. The current system for background checks is the NICS database, that tracks all felons, however it does not track those with mental illnesses or drug use[4] Many corporations also do not comply with the current background checks, [2] but others such as Wal-Mart have been very behind them. My argument to congress is that we rely on a lot of things that aren't one hundred percent proven in our daily lives. Sunscreen, airbags, central heating. But these are all things we've acclimated into our society, and over time improvements have been made to systems to make them better. The same can be done with the background checks they will improve over time [3.] But no matter the difficult road the President still has before him, I do believe that he can convince legislators and the public to see reason, and keep the nation safe domestically. Politicians work in the best interest of the people, even if their ideas conflict, and keeping people from shooting hundreds of others, is a smart move to keep the nation safe.
[1]http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16544842-obama-unveils-sweeping-n ew-gun-control-proposals?lite
[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/walmart-ammunitions-sales-limit_n_2585305.html?utm_hp_ref=gun-control
[3]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/background-checks-universal-_n_2589955.html?utm_hp_ref=gun-control
[4]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/gun-debate-lawmakers-eye-troubled-background-check-system/
Gun control has always been a controversial issue, one that few politicians want to touch because it opens up a Pandora's Box of rights debates. Unfortunately, tragedies like the recent Sandy Hook school shooting and many other gun violence incidence are leaving them with little choice.
Personally, I do think that some more gun restrictions are in order. I agree with parts of President Obama's gun regulation proposals, but not all of them. His proposal to ban assault weapons is something I totally am in agreement with. There is no reason for the average American to own a military-grade weapon. Sadly, top lawmakers from the President's party are not too enthusiastic about its chances, so it probably will not get anywhere. Second, although the concept of background checks for every gun sale angers my inner libertarian, I can see why 90% of gun owners favor the checks. I would rather see tougher enforcement of existing gun laws, but I suppose more background checks are a decent measure. I don't like the president's push for ensuring mental health coverage, because it seems to be pouring money into an admittedly broken system. And finally, I do like the idea of providing more safety in schools, however, such legislation would need to be written carefully to avoid wasteful spending.
The president's gun control package seems reasonable enough to me, even though I find some parts of it disagreeable. The president is hitting quite a bit of opposition from the NRA, who disagree with most of his plan. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre testified that criminals will find ways to get guns no matter how many barriers are put in their way. He argued that more restrictions only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms to protect themselves. Which is the core of this debate. What does the Second Amendment guarantee us? How much gun restriction is too much? Americans want to hold onto their rights, but it appears that they may need to compromise some of them for increased safety. Is this a fair trade? We'll see if Americans think so when the president's gun control agenda comes before Congress.
Let me first start off by saying that yes, I do believe the 2nd Amendment gives every citizen the right to own a gun. My family owns guns, I hunt with guns. However, the constitution says nothing about what kind of guns people can own, so for all of those people out there who are complaining because taking away their AK-47s or whatever is “unconstitutional,” you’re wrong. The fact is that Congress and Congress alone has the power to qualify the 2nd Amendment here. However, therein lies the problem. Yes, I believe we need to change our existing gun laws, but no, I don’t think we will see any drastic change anytime soon. The power of gun lobbies like the NRA is just too strong on Capitol Hill. They spend and raise more money than any other interest group, and politicians are afraid to go against their wishes for fear of losing the next election (1). To be fair, no congressman has every lost his seat directly due to the NRA, but they can certainly hurt you if they want to (1). I applaud President Obama for standing up to gun lobbies, even though the only reason he is is because he doesn’t have to worry about reelection. Obama has signed 23 executive orders imposing stricter regulation on buying a gun, more mandatory background checks and sparking a national debate on something that used to be taboo for some ridiculous reason (I’m looking at you NRA) (2). I think Obama has got the ball rolling. I doubt we will see more regulation on the types of weapons you can buy, but I do believe we will see an elimination of loopholes like the gun show loophole and more and deeper background checks. Will that solve the problem? Probably not. We need to do more, but it’s not going to happen, at least not now. What we can do now it more strictly enforce current law. We need to better enforce the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act (3). Many people say that what we need is not more gun control, but more help for those with mental illness. First of all, telling people to be on the lookout for those with mental illness and to report them to the police or the nuthouse seems a little to red-scareish to me. Second, the majority of gun violence is not committed by those with a mental illness (4). No what we need is stricter laws, plain and simple. People won’t like it but hey, what’s more important: the thrill of shooting an animal or firing a small projectile at incredibly high speeds, or someone’s life?
1. http://www.npr.org/2012/07/28/157525024/the-nras-lock-on-the-gun-control-debate
2. http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/01/16/obama-gun-proposal
3. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/mental-health-gun-violence_n_2583986.html
So the Second Amendment was written to protect the infant American people of the late 18th century from the big, bad British redcoats. Yes, the right to bear arms (with no apparent regulations, which would have been a real pain to institute then) was relevant then. Quote important, I’m sure—however, we have progressed. The modern world is upon us, and our laws must adapt to meet the new challenges of society. And thusly must our gun laws change. Compared to our then neighbors across the pond who apparently had no qualms with massacring out innocent people, we had 32,163 gun related deaths of any kind in 2011—compared to 155 in the entire UK (1). And according to gunpolicy.org, our regulations are “permissive.” Also: “In the United States, civilians are not allowed to possess machine-guns, sawn-off shotguns and rifles, silencers, and armour-piercing ammunition without appropriate registration (2).” What? Why on earth are any civilians allowed such destructive materials even with registration? It goes on to say that in some areas, you don’t even need to have firearms registered; for example, handguns or semiautomatics (2). Well, then. And according to another article, some nations see fewer gun-related homicides than we witnessed in the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary shooting of 27 innocent civilians (3). Imagine that—less than 27? Rather unfeasible for the US, as this statistic may be skewed by the developmental level and the size of those nations, but still. Japan saw 7 such deaths in 2011, and a whopping 9 murders-by-scissors (3). Now, not to be flippant, but honestly—Japan is just as developed a nation as we are. Why can’t we follow their lead? They have a lower rate of gun ownership, but still have 120,000 registered owners with over 400,000 total firearms. But as Tsutomu Uchida says, the Japanese have a considerably outlook on guns: whereas we believe that gun ownership is an overarching right granted us, they don’t see it that way at all (3). So perhaps that’s a place to start: change the psychological way we view gun ownership.
I read the some of the comments on an article about Hadiya Pendleton, the girl who played at the inauguration last Saturday who was killed in Chicago just this week (4). It seemed people don’t know whether to blame the killer or the gun in situations like these—so why not work on fixing both issues? The availability of guns is quite open: 40 US states have “shall-issue” laws, which allows carry permits to be given to all qualified applicants; 9 are “may-issue,” in which a reason must be given to receive a permit, and 1—ironically enough, Illinois—is “no-issue,” in which concealed carrying of a firearm is forbidden in general (5). If we create an environment in which it is far more difficult—or nearly impossible—for unqualified applicants to receive a carry permit, and actually follow through, and close loopholes in the system (which is always a viable option in any situation), we can eradicate some issues. We also need to address the issue of the person carrying the firearm: perform extensive background-checks. Fund mental illness research and treatment, as well as closer examination and diagnosis. Try to stem gun violence, especially in especially poor areas and ghettos, from which much of America’s gun violence comes. Treat cities and urban areas differently from rural areas, because their demographics and reasons for gun ownership are generally quite different, and therefore their gun regulations should be different. Hopefully, the plan being presented to Congress can incorporate the spirit of the current American debate: gun regulations need to be tightened, or we will suffer the consequences.
1. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/total_number_of_gun_deaths/192
2. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
3. http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/americas/us-gun-deaths-off-the-charts-but-other-countries-tell-a-different-tale
4. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/justice/illinois-teen-shot/index.html
5. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#right-to-carry
I do not believe the question is whether or not the US needs new guns laws, but rather how effective will they be? There is no doubt that some sort of reform must take place but this is America, people are used to having relatively lax laws, and they are resistant to change when it requires them to do something different than the norm. Now, most people, I am sure, do not walk around with guns and automatic assault rifles, but those who do, will not want to lay them down, or be unable to purchase them.
The Constitutions states that all people have the right life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights were stated in that order for a reason. One's liberty to own an assault rifle comes second to the lives lost due to gun violence every year (1). Between the Sandy Hook massacre and Jan 3rd, over 400 people died due to gun violence (2). There is no reason that anyone should be carrying around a firearm who is not actively serving in the military or part of law enforcement. A gun law that we need is a ban on all assault rifle style firearms in all fifty states. Many suggest that this would cause an underground/illegal gun trade similar to the illegal drug trade. The problem with guns is that they are an illiquid good. One does not buy a gun, then buy a new one the next week, and a new one after that. Drugs on the other hand, someone will buy, use, buy, use, buy, and use, creating a cycle that a profit can be made from. There is little profit to be made in the illegal gun trade for once one is bought, it is usually not replaced anytime soon (3).
Whether or not the president will be successful in getting new gun control legislation through Congress is still up for debate. Though like the fiscal cliff, because President Obama is not up for reelection, and Congress is and must appeal to constituencies, and the rising number of gun related deaths since Sandy Hook. Though, it isn't just Republican this time that are dissenting on the matter of stricter gun law. Democrats too are disagreeing to cooperate with the President. At least six of the 55 Democratic senators expressed skepticism for outright banning assault style weapons (4). But in the end, I feel that, like the fiscal cliff, Congress will cave in and a compromise will be made.
But again, the matter all revolves back to this: will citizens abide by these new guns laws. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. And yet, there were over 500 gun related homicides last year and over 40 gun related deaths this year (5). Obviously, people do not care about the ban on guns and refuse to follow them. This is the problem that the US may face, if gun laws are tightened and citizens feel that their right to liberty is being taken away.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/nyregion/gun-rights-take-back-seat-to-calls-for-stricter-laws-at-newtown-forum.html
2. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/us-has-averaged-more-18-gun-deaths-every-day-newtown-school-shooting
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTkVUTbFu5o
4. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/assault-weapons-ban-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-chicago-gun-laws-cant-stem-fatal-shots.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The debate on gun control is a very complicated one, as it is an important right to many people for whom gun ownership is a not only a major part of their lifestyle, but something they believe is inherently American. With the president and many senators reacting to recent mass shootings with an increased gun control agenda, there has also been a movement towards fewer restrictions by some who believe that increased gun ownership will result in fewer violent crimes (1).
In essence, I agree with much of Obama’s plan in increasing gun control, as I believe that while they do create a stricter environment for guns, it should not affect the gun owning lifestyle of most Americans. Having to wait a bit longer or having to buy a less powerful type of gun (although clearly one still powerful enough to do with whatever you want), in my opinion, is a reasonable inconvenience to deal with when purchasing a deadly firearm. Most people believe that background checks and bans on gun ownership for certain types of criminals are reasonable acts that will make us a safer country (2).
However, despite my wants, I do not think that any major resolution on the issue of gun control will be passed any time soon because the opposition is just too vocal and influential (3). The ever present and very powerful NRA has spoken out against new gun control measures, while simultaneously accusing the Obama administration of failing to enforce the current ones, and many people will look to them for leadership on the issue (4).
(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/politics/obama-to-ask-congress-to-toughen-gun-laws.html?pagewanted=2&hp
(2) http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-survey-gun-control-mental-healthcare-20130131,0,195172.story
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/us/politics/senate-hearing-to-focus-on-gun-violence.html?ref=politics&_r=0
(4) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/gun-control-_n_2582122.html
I do believe that the US needs to have gun control laws, not because guns themselves are completely bad and dangerous but because there are human beings who are bad and dangerous. If this were a perfect world and we could trust everyone to be safe with guns then we wouldnt need gun laws, but unfortunately with examples like the NewTown shooting we cannot trust some people who are mentally unstable with gun saftey. I do believe that the President will be able to get a new gun control through congress because of all of the dangerous events that are coming to pass. For some reason it just seams too coincidental that all these gun violence incidents are occuring while the president is trying to pass gun laws through legislation. But fortunately for the president they are happening and that makes his job much easier due to recent events. There are numerouse amounts of people and groups that believe that any gun laws that are passed that arent already in place will be trying to take away their constitutional rights to bear arms. Groups like the NRA are noticing that within the laws which the president and his cabinet are trying to get passed, there exist parts which would infringe on their rights. As long as the president makes a law that protects people from a dangerouse use of guns instead of the intent of just taking it away from a mass majority then he will be able to get it passed.
I believe that we do need new gun control laws. They do not need to be extreme or outlandish but they do need to happen. Closing the loophole on gun show sales is a big deal in this. They also need to conduct more thorough back round checks on prospective gun owners. It is not guns that are the problem though. People are the problem. A gun left on its own would do no harm. But people do hurt people using guns, and there is no denying that guns do make it a lot easier to hurt people. You couldn’t kill twenty seven children with a knife before being stopped. Assault weapons are another big issue. Should people be allowed to own them? I don’t know at this point. It is difficult to say that they should be straight up outlawed. The real issue is they were meant for killing. Not hunting or self defense but assault forces, like their names imply. This makes it a delicate issue. I think they need to be more heavily regulated at this point but a blanket ban is not attainable at this point. Also, when the Framers had arms and wrote this 2nd amendment there was a max of two or three shots per minute. Knives were actually more efficient, or bayonets more specifically. They did not see the hundreds of rounds per minute that can pierce two inch thick steel plates and blow three foot holes in soft targets. In this respect there must be some common sense applied to the constitution. But self defense is needed. There must be some room to buy guns. If not self defense will be nearly impossible. Only criminals will have them and honest citizens will suffer. Individual liberties must be respected. This creates a tightrope that congress will have to walk or suffer the political consequences. Outlaw what is unnecessary and harmful and keep what is essential to defense and personal liberty.
I think that Obamas initiatives will fail. There are too many interest groups and people against it plus a host of other issues to draw attention away. Turning common americans into criminals is not the answer. He will have to move slower and sow the seeds of anti gun policy for the next president. That is what the war on drugs did and we are all seeing how that is going. Also, foreign policy, the budget and the economy are all big issues drawing attention away from this issue. He would need to get a big victory in any of these areas to gain the capital and momentum to pass definitive laws. He needs to ration his capital and realize he is facing a large sector of the public and massive interest groups. Complete victory is not going to happen. Just the classic american compromise.
http://home.comcast.net/~shooter2_indy/essays/paulharvey.html
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16544842-obama-unveils-swee
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-28/obama-meeting-with-police-c
Due to the shooting in Connecticut, new guns laws are being pushed forward by the Obama administration. There is the usual fight from gun advocates, like the NRA. However, there is a different air around this push. The public seems to be behind it more so then ever before. All of the shootings over the past decade and especially the past 2 years have now pushed us over the edge. People want reform and I think the government is going to appease them. To what degree, I have no idea, since the NRA is a big gun among interest groups. I believe in the increased background checks; however I have worries about the effects on those with only minor mental health problems that would be blacklisted from buying a gun. The Constitution says we have the right to bear arms, not guns and since no one is fighting the right to protect your house with dynamite, increased restrictions is within our government’s rights, as long as those restrictions don’t prevent people from buying guns on an equal basis. I think that the assault rifle ban is a good idea, but a ridiculous one. It’s like banning black leather because a lot of super-villains wear it. Yes, it’s a good idea because those guns have no hunting use and are used only for crime. Overall, while I believe in the gun control and I think now is a great time to finally increase it, but on the other hand I think the country is still wearing tragedy colored glasses.
1. NPR
I think the US does need new gun laws. I don't like the fact that people can go to a gun show and get an assault rifle without getting a permit, background check, etc(4). I think that these three major laws should be enacted:
1. Before someone buys a gun, they should have a background check run on them. Anyone who has a mental illness or violent history should be denied.
2. Ban the sale of Assault Rifles. They are not needed. There could still be places that allow you to pay to discharge them.
3. Keep a strict database of all gun owners. Stuff like fingerprints, DNA, etc.
I think the President will successfully at getting a gun control through Congress, although not by much. The NRA is going to try to stop Congress(1), but I don't think they will be successful. Allies of gun control are helping "turn" the opposers(2). They could possibly pass something similar to what Switzerland has, although I think what they have has to deal with other things as well, such as their healthcare.
1)http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/md-lawmakers-need-to-stand-firm-on-reforming-gun-laws/2013/02/01/322c2e12-6b30-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html
2)http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/gun-control-supporters-urge-obama-to-bypass-congress-on-new-measures/
3)http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/as-gun-control-debate-rages-switzerland-offers-interesting-correlation-but-is-it-real-12842.html
4)http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gun-control-debate-senate-hearing-20130130,0,73546.story
Gun control and abortion are the two most controversial topics in modern American politics, and after the tragic events in Newtown, CT, gun control has once again become the number one issue. It’s pretty clear to the American people that our government’s current system of gun regulation is not as effective as it needs to be at preventing gun violence. The situation has raised a fundamental question: does limiting gun ownership lower gun violence? Unfortunately, it’s an answerless question. So, with a lack of precedence and evidence, the US government has to travel relatively blindly into the vast jungle of gun legislation.
One of the most popular proposed provisions to reduce gun violence is the universal background check. As the law currently stands, guns sold in stores and at shows must be sold only to people who pass a basic criminal background check. Sales over the internet and between private people are subject to no such regulations. The creation of a universal background check- meaning that a gun could not be legally purchased or given away without a background check, regardless of the seller’s identity- is the solution with the most bipartisan support (1). Despite the absence of any practical evidence as to the measure’s effectiveness on a national level, I’m supportive of the idea. While any restrictions on gun ownership will be controversial, I believe this option has the potential to curb gun violence without violating the Second Amendment.
There’s also quite a bit of talk in Congress about reinstating the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Senator Dianne Feinstein has just proposed a bill that would ban the sale of about 100 pages worth of weapons (each banned model is listed individually in the bill- it’s not a sweeping ban) (2). This measure, being markedly more drastic than the universal background check, is also much more controversial. The good news is that the method has been tried before. The bad news is that there wasn’t enough evidence for researchers to decide conclusively whether or not it worked. We do know this: the rate of violence committed with assault weapons did decrease after the ban. Although this evidence doesn’t prove causation, it is a pretty good track record and is probably worth trying again.
All eyes are on President Obama as he tries to formulate and pass a new system of gun control laws. Obama’s plan includes the universal background check, the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban, new controls on gun trafficking and a ban on both large capacity magazines and armor piercing bullets. According to Langer Research Associates, the plan has public support, with 53% supporting and a mere 41% opposing (4). Unfortunately for Obama, the opinion seems to be almost entirely partisan, meaning that the Republican majority in the House could pose a challenge. Still, it seems pretty likely that Obama will get the majority of his plan passed, since he has the support of the public and the Senate behind him.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/03/reid-supports-expanding-background-checks-unsure-about-assault-weapons-ban/
2. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
3. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
4. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/majority-sees-obamas-gun-control-plan-favorably/
I completely disagree with Noah's post. His statement says that you need less than 10 rounds to fend off a home intruder. Down in Alabama recently a woman had a .38 revolver and shot 6 rounds into one man and was unable to kill him. Imagine what would happen if there were two house intruders?
This thought process that because "you don't need it, you shouldn't have the right to it," makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't think people need reality TV or iPhones. I find them to be many times more destructive to human lives than firearms, but I am not telling people they don't have the right to watch it or own one.
If you look at the three cities of: New York, Chicago, and Detroit, they all share something in common. They have the strictest gun laws, and the most violent crime. If someone commits a crime with a firearm, making it illegal to own one doesn't matter to the criminal. It only takes away the ability to defend themselves from the good guy. Also AR15's are much easier to use than a shotgun in close quarters and can get off more shots during a house invasion than a double barrel shotgun. Our rights don't end where someone else's feelings start. I got hunting all the time and let me tell you, maneuvering a hunting shotgun around the house is quite difficult and I would not advise it. However, if you look at the parts of the country where we have the highest gun ownership per citizen, you have the lowest crime. It is simply because those people are able to defend themselves. With one exception since 1955, EVERY SINGLE mass shooting has occurred in an area where firearms were banned.
I'm sick of people playing on emotions and using talking points. I'm also quite sick of losing my rights because of criminals. And finally, I'm sick of being told that because I believe in the second amendment, I don't care about children. Only a monster would tell children that when there is a man shooting at them, you need to wait for the police to arrive. Like we saw and Sandy Hook, it didn't work out well for those kids.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home