Post 4: Respond to a peer about gun control
Pick someone in your same class period that you disagree
with to respond to for post 4. Explain
and back up your attack of their argument. Be sure to use at least three articles to back up your
points. Be sure to proof read your
post.
Special note: Please think before you post. Focus on attacking the argument NOT your classmate. Think about whether you would say what
you’re posting in class – that’s a good test of whether or not it’s appropriate
to post. ;)
Due Friday, February 8th
posted by Ms. Aby @ 12:04 PM
34 Comments:
I’m responding to Sam L’s post on gun control. By the look of the entire previous blog, I think we all can agree that almost all of us or all of us support new gun laws or an increase of enforcement of previous gun laws. However, there are differences in arguments in regards to what provisions are supported and whether or not Obama will be successful in persuading Congress to take action in accordance with his wants and desires for gun control and security.
First off, I agree with Sam in that Americans have no need to own a military grade weapon and that an assault weapons ban is needed here in America. We differ, however, in that Sam stated “top lawmakers from the President's party are not too enthusiastic about its chances, so it probably will not get anywhere.” I disagree. I think it will pass eventually after reforms are made to the new proposal that recently came out. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) revealed her new assault-weapons-ban legislation that was supported by several House and Senate colleagues, victims of gun violence, and several clergy and uniformed police organizations (1). Feinstein, who sponsored the expired 1994 assault-weapons ban, says “her new bill would be more effective because it would specifically ban more weapons (157 named models, plus slightly broadening the criteria for what constitutes an assault weapon), it would make a background check mandatory for trading or selling existing assault weapons, it would mandate that gun owners keep their weapons locked up securely, and, most importantly, the bill wouldn't expire after a decade (1).” “"No weapon is taken from anyone," she said, but an open-ended law is needed to "dry up the supply of these weapons over time (1)."” This law clearly is more sophisticated that the previous assault weapons ban and has more provisions that are likely to strike support in Congress (1). Feinstein also stated that her new bill would fix the problems from the 1994-2004 ban (1).
Unlike Sam who would “rather see tougher enforcement of existing gun laws,” I believe that background checks for every gun sale should be enforced strongly. It is a fact that 90% of all gun owners favor background checks, but it is important to look at the bigger picture. America, which is a diverse nation with widespread liberal views, has a 89% approval rating for background checks (2). If that many people support these checks, then it must be a measure Congress has to take seriously and will eventually have to pass. That however, is not the main reason background checks will most likely be passed into law. Three quarters or 74 percent of NRA members support a background check for all gun sales (2). 74%! For the NRA, this is truly a shocking number and if they agree to it, I believe the majority of Republicans will have to succumb to pressure in the future.
Lastly, Sam stated that “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.” The reason, however, Obama is pushing for mental health coverage, is because the system is broken (3). As Michael Fitzpatrick, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia-based National Alliance on Mental Illness, said in an interview, the challenge is really not to fix it, but rebuild it (3).” Obama does not want to pour money into a broken system, but instead wants to incorporate mental illness into the health system so it is a component that does not put a burden on people who cannot afford care (3). Obama’s measures include training teachers to recognize students who need mental care and refer them to mental-health services and regulations that define what mental-health coverage must be included by insurance plans (3).
Mark Mattioli, father of [James] one of the Newtown Sandy Hook shooting victims, stated, “We do not need complex gun laws (4).” I agree. We just need gun laws that work, are commonsense approaches to solve a large-scale problem, and are effective. It’s up to Congress and the President to decide what the right course of action is.
1.http://theweek.com/article/index/239266/the-democrats-plan-to-ban-assault-weapons-does-it-stand-a-chance
2.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/31/nra-leadership-members-divide-on-universal-background-checks/
3.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-16/obama-pushes-mental-health-changes-as-part-of-gun-package.html
4.http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/2013/01/29/newtown-father-we-do-not-need-complex-gun-laws-im-a-big-proponent-of-individual-accountability-video/
In response to Erik’s post, I agree with many of his assertions. We need new gun control legislation, and President Obama’s proposals are sensible and favorable. However, I am more optimistic concerning the passing of gun control legislation. Gallup polls show that 91% favor universal background checks, 82% support increased spending on mental health programs, and 60% desire the assault weapons ban (1). In fact, those that do own guns are on board with the president’s proposals as well with 79% favoring universal background checks and 87% acknowledging that the right to bear arms is not absolute (2). Obama realizes this and is exploiting these numbers with speeches across the country. Such as in his speech in Minneapolis, he is calling for public action for peace and safety as means of passing legislation, calling on the people to pressure Congress to act (3). He hopes public urgency and support will spill into the divided Congress. He is in effect using his bully pulpit and “going public,” a fitting strategy for the president using emotionally charged references to Aurora and Newtown. And although red-state and rural Democrats and conservative Republicans are currently weary on the president’s comprehensive reform measures, I believe the president and the public can change their votes and that comprehensive reform (universal background checks, increased mental health spending, magazine clip limits, and the assault weapons ban) will pass Congress and accompany the litany of other actions taken by the president to prevent gun violence in America. The public and Congress will realize actions MUST be taken, actions that will have definitive effects and will prevent horrific mass shootings.
1. http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2013-01-24/gun-controls-approved-in-polls-difficult-at-best-in-congress/
2. http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-and-gun-control-poll-gun-owners-colorado-theater-shooting-batman-2012-7
3. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/04/obama-to-appeal-to-public-law-enforcement-for-support-on-new-gun-control-laws/
In response to Erik, I would have to say that I disagree with his claims about increasing gun legislation. Strengthening gun control laws will have a negative effect on American society. The government should actually expand conceal and carry laws so that Americans are free to make their own choices about guns. In fact, all proposed legislation, especially the president’s, misses the root of the problem. The biggest gun killer is in fact handguns, and there are not even touched (1). Handguns killed more than 6,000 people in 2011 alone, which is more than all other firearms combined (1). According to FBI data, 72 percent of all gun homicides involved handguns (1). Thus, you cannot create a gun restriction law without addressing this, which would need to be passed by Congress and supported by the Supreme Court, which requires them overturning their 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (1).
Another argument is that before gun violence can fully be addressed, one must first address violence in our culture. The liberal media continues to emphasize harsh crimes and the perpetrators of these crimes in order to gain ratings. The media tends to focus on destruction because that is what people are most interested in. The same goes for violent movies and video games (2). They continually are made, and are continuing to become more realistic, proving that the public enjoys engaging with the lifelike violence. Until these issues are addressed, any serious change in gun control cannot occur and should not occur. After all, only 23 percent of Americans believe that availability of guns is the problem with gun violence, in comparison to 37 percent who believe pop culture is at fault and another 37 percent who blame parenting (5). This poll clearly demonstrates that there is no clear mandate to overhaul the gun system. Politicians would be avoiding yet another root of the problem – our culture (2).
Gun control needs to be taken off the table because it is in America’s, best interest if its citizens can protect themselves from violent intruders. Americans, especially those with families, need guns to protect themselves against an armed intruder in their house that is threatening their safety. Even last year in Minnesota, there was a huge debate over the Defense of Dwelling and Person Act (3). Previously, the law mandated that people had to demonstrate that they fired as a last resort, and that their decision was reasonable. The new act would have given gun owners more leeway, creating the assumption that if one fires, it is because they are in danger (3). In addition, the old law only defined a dwelling as a house, but the Defense of Dwelling and Person Act would have expanded the definition to include vehicles, boats, and hotel rooms (3).
As Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, puts it, America should focus on what works. Teaching little children what to do if they see a gun works, for example (4). If people are taught safety and proper gun procedures, then they can become no more dangerous than football. In addition, current legislation can work if the government prosecutes properly (there was a recent drop in federal weapons prosecutions) (4). The government has no place deciding who can lawfully protect their own family, but it should work to increase protection in schools. All schoolchildren should be given protection, with one option being armed officers in the schools because that has been proven to work (4). As LaPierre suggested in his January 31 testimony before a Senate Committee, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” and Americans should live by this ideal (4).
1. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/us/handguns-and-federal-legislation/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay-sanghoee/video-game-violence_b_2582833.html
3. http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/02/controversial_pro-gun_deadly_force_bill_approved_by_senate.php
4. http://home.nra.org/#
5. http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/16/new-timecnn-poll-white-house-gun-agenda-faces-conflicted-public/
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am responding to Tom’s post. I will break it down and respond to it in parts.
“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.” First of all, that is a foreign policy argument, and has little to do with gun control. If Tom wishes to argue that Switzerland’s high gun ownership and military preparedness has allowed them to remain neutral over the last 400 years, he should feel free to. But this is an argument about gun control, and as such, that fact is not relevant. What is relevant, however, is the fact that Switzerland has the second highest gun ownership per capita in the developed world, second only to America (1). Coincidentally, it has the fourth highest gun murder per capita rate in the developed world, while America has the highest gun murder rate in both the developing and developed world (2). While correlation is by no means causation, correlation means that there is some sort of intrinsic, unimaginable relationship between elevated rates of gun ownership and high rates of firearms-related murder.
“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.” Assuming that this uncited information is true, it makes a compelling argument for a total ban on semi-automatic rifles, rather than making the case for fewer restrictions. The argument in these sentences is comparable to stating that sales of tanks to the civilian populace should be legal because of the damage that a jet fighter could do. Furthermore, a quick Google search turns up multiple types of bolt-action hunting rifle, proving that hunting would not be unreasonably restricted by a complete semi-automatic rifle ban. Finally, Tom states the fundamental difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle himself. A hunting rifle is designed to kill deer. An AR-15 is designed to kill people, and has proved that it is very effective at doing so.
“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%.” Assuming that this uncited information is true once more, it would appear that widespread gun ownership is a panacea for societal violence. However, the argument Tom attempts to make here falls upon closer inspection. While the United Kingdom’s overall violent crime rate is higher than that of the United States, the United States’ gun murder rate per capita is thirty-four times larger than that of Britain (3). We can all agree that violent crime is not desirable. However, property can be replaced and wounds can heal. Death is irreversible. Furthermore, in both England and Australia, firearms homicide rates have steadily decreased after “total” weapons bans were implemented those countries. In Australia, the rate of gun-related homicide fell by 56% over a nine-year period (4). After an initial spike of violence, similar declines in gun-homicide rates occurred (4).
“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.” Israel has 7.3 privately owned guns for every 100 people, opposed to America’s 89 for every 100. This is lower by a factor exceeding ten, rendering this portion of the argument invalid.
“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.” This information, again, is uncited. Furthermore, even if it is true, numerous factors call into question its validity. First, shootings which require police intervention are generally executed by shooters that plan their massacres in advance, with deadlier results. Second, the statistic does not specify the sample size. If the sample size is too small, these statistics are irrelevant. If it is large enough to produce acceptable results, than that speaks volumes about the quantity of mass shootings in the United States. Third and most importantly, these the statistic does not specify whether these shooters were stopped physically by or with a firearm by civilians, an important distinction to make when one is trying to argue that a perpetually armed populace prevents mass shootings.
“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).” Personal anecdotes are not evidence, especially those that are not relevant to the discussion.
“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.” This is a roundabout gimmick which may address individual gun violence, but does not address the mass shootings which have plagued the nation. It does not address the crumbling mental health system of the United States or American society’s obsession with violence. It does not address, and will not prevent, the next Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook. Only gun control will do that. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I disagree vehemently with the entirety of Tom’s post.
1. 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/
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/
3. http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/01/some-factual-gun-statistics-part-2-of-a-cultural-comparison-gun-violence-in-the-us-and-europe/
4. http://world.time.com/2012/12/17/when-massacres-force-change-lessons-from-the-u-k-and-australia/
I have chosen to respond to Sydney O's post. Disclaimer: because almost all of the original posts were gun control-leaning, I have chosen to take the stance of a very conservative person (let's say Jim Bob from South Carolina) just to add a little variety to the conversation. The views expressed in this response are that of Jim Bob's and Jim Bob's solely-not my own.
The first argument Sydney makes is that she doesn't understand "why people argue the 2nd amendment". While it is true that the founding fathers couldn't have imagined a semi-automatic weapon in their wildest dreams (save maybe Ben Franklin), you must understand the situation that they were in when the Constitution was written. They were extremely paranoid of any government power as a result of the Revolutionary War (ex. the Articles of Confederation) and felt the need to protect themselves from any overarching body. Said George Washington himself, "A free people ought to be armed" (1). This was the motivation behind the Second Amendment.
A second assertion Sydney makes is that concealed/open carry (in public) is something she disagrees with. The fact of the matter is, multiple armed citizens have been able to stop shooters before the body count begins to rise (2). As one study asserts, armed citizens can rarely stop shooters. What this fails to take into account, however, is that some shooters have been stopped by citizens before they could begin shooting(3).
A third and final opinion of Sydney's is that the NRA's recent increase in membership is not a good thing (4). I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with this recent membership increase. After all, the point of interest groups, no matter how large, is to represent the views of concerned citizens on a variety of political subjects. Using this as the definition of an interest group, all the recent membership gain means is that there has been an increase of concerned citizens on the issue of gun rights who want to see their views represented in Congress.
Jim Bob rests his case.
(1) http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
(2) http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/it-true-armed-civilians-have-never-stopped-mass-shooting_690808.html
(3) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
(4) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/nra-membership_n_2449236.html#slide=1898262
This comment has been removed by the author.
In response to Megan’s comments, I say
that though I may have agreed with you in
that body of text which, as a dancer
did gracefully address the issue that
we here now confront, I now must against
you argue, for by that fiat of the
one whose marks of ours controls, we must go
and respond to one whose statements we do
oppose. Therefore, let me begin with a
bit on that question of a nature which,
by your baseless assumption, you did take
as unanswerable, rhetorical.
You did state that the effrontery of
some of those who have been installed in that
office which now they despise, or which they
are despised in, to limit that second
right with which we are born, does not effect
a change in events which, taken by the
popular fancy, are considered as
unacceptable, criminal, corrupt
and which are then clarified in detail
as vi’lent, savage. In fact though, by the
assertation and affirmation of
Robert Levy, when he doth disclose that
in the year of our lord 2004
the assembled group in our worldly space
known as the National Academy
of Sciences did survey the research
on this supposed unanswerable
question, and did discover that in fact
not a single regulation reduced
crime, the type we have clarified, vi’lent
nor accidents, nor suicide. (1) In the
next proposal which you doth confront, you
do move in support of those background checks
of the universal type—but what do
we mean by universal? Do we mean
that form which covers all within stated
jurisdiction? Can any movement, here
devised on this sphere, with our worldly means,
intents, truly ever cover all that
which it is meant?—but while these checks may grow
that cov’rage of economic trade, sale
transaction, they may not do that which we
may so want, desire, and our intents thus
may be lost: a fowl in foul. According
to that Department, of the President
that hath been label’d as with the Justice
reports that, in our transient living
only one part in fifty—indeed less
than the pips on those cubes, which so many
rest their fates, fortunes, faiths upon in hope
reckless hope, that their paths may change upon
that hand of fate—of those weapons which are
used by those in egregious affront with
our rules, law, are so acquiréd at these
umbrous gun shows. (2) Finally, in respect
to that declared moratorium on
those weapons that have been designated
as of the variety which human
life has revolved around—from the very
beginning, when men of the primal sort
did fight for that which they may, without the
opposition, have taken for themselves
and thus have derived many jollies from—
that is, assault. As said in a study
performéd by the Centers for Disease
Control in the year of our lord twenty
and five—three sir!—three, there was found no fall,
no reduction of crime due to said law
in that first iteration, which rests in
the undiscovered Country, from whose bourn
No Traveller returns, Puzzles the will—
history. (3) Thus I do conclude this piece
for have I other things to do, of great
pitch and moment, which I am hereafter
obliged to attend to. Therefore, I do
thank thee for thy attention, and do say
So, good night unto you all.
Give me your hands, if we be friends,
And Robin shall restore amends.
1. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-measures-dont-stop-violence
2. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities
3. http://www.cato.org/blog/holders-assault-weapons-folly
In response to Melayna’s argument, several opposing thoughts came to mind with her arguments. Many of her statistics and facts I totally agreed with. I also agree that gun control needs to be changed. The main part of there argument that I disagreed with was the fact that the gun control policies will not be passed by Congress. Of course this will be a challenge with the split Congress: the House has a Republican majority and the Senate has a Democrat majority. I also found several articles that believe the new laws will be passed.
The fist article I found explained that the public is going to be a huge asset to people wanting to pass the new legislation (1). The gun legislation outlines these key steps: to ban assault weapons, to limit ammunition magazines, to have background checks for all gun sales, and to ban armor-piercing bullets (2). Back to the article, it expressed how the people needed to be at the center of the issue. Of course people with no prominent opinion on the matter are going to be swayed if there are horror stories in the news like the Sandy Hook shooting (2). The article says that most Americans will be won over by the background check proposal because it seems like such a simple step that will make the country safer.
Another interview with Senator Blumenthal, a Democratic Senator from Connecticut, said that he sincerely does believe the shootings in his state will be vivid enough in people’s minds that they will pressure their legislators to go along with the president (3). He says that even though the NRA is one of the strongest interest groups in the nation, something will be done (3). The issue will at least not be addressed. The first step to change is recognizing the problem. Every parent, teacher and child was affected in some way by the shooting because it could have been them in the situation. This issue does not only pertain to people who own guns. This issue affects us all and this is the reason the gun control laws have a strong chance of getting passed.
1.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/20/top-democrats-optimistic-congress-will-pass-gun-control-legislation-with/
2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_social_policy#Gun_policy
3.http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/thefold/sen-blumenthal-says-gun-law-will-pass/2013/01/30/2a20ba04-6b2f-11e2-af53-7b2b2a7510a8_video.html
In response to Jessica. I completely agree with Jessica on gun reform but I disagree that Obama will be able to get his bill through Congress. I agree with Jessica on Obama’s plan to have criminal background checks and ban assault weapons. Jessica’s point about how “sunscreen, airbags and central heating” are things that we rely on but aren’t a hundred percent proven, which is the same thing with flawed criminal checks. We rely on background checks but Jessica points out they don’t record drug use or mental illness.
Unfortunately I don’t believe Congress will pass gun reform laws. “The fact is that a majority of the House of Representatives isn't inclined to go along with the bill,” according to the article the only way we can get the bill through the house is to wait till the next election and “boot enough of them out of office in the next election,” (1). Looking at a CBS article many senate and house members shared their opinions, all believed that the bill will be discussed in Congress but would have a difficult time passing because of the heavy presence of the NRA. Some believe that Boehner will not call up the bill because of the fiscal cliff and Hurricane Sandy bills that had bitter debates recently and Boehner wants to avoid another heated discussion for awhile (2). “Conservative lawmakers in the House are far less concerned with national polls than they are with the views in their district, where straying from the National Rifle Association's steadfast opposition to new gun control laws could anger pro-gun voters and invite a serious primary challenge,”(2). The article says that conservatives are more likely to stray away from public opinion to help their constituents in the South who favor the second amendment way more than other regions. The Senate has more Democrats so the Senate may have an easier time passing the bill compared to the Republican majority in the House of Reps (3). NRA has a huge hold in the House giving 205 members money in their last election and even larger 88% of Republicans in Congress have received money from the NRA (4).
Overall I agree with Jessica on gun control but I disagree that Congress will pass anything. The NRA has too strong of a grip in Congress by giving 88% of Republicans money and half of the House money. The bill will be a big discussion in Congress but I don’t believe reforms will pass until future Congresses.
http://prospect.org/article/will-congress-pass-obamas-gun-control-legislation-proposals
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57564380/does-obamas-gun-control-plan-have-a-chance/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/04/obama-to-appeal-to-public-law-enforcement-for-support-on-new-gun-control-laws/
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/12/18/nra-and-congress/
Since I find myself agreeing more or less with everyone in the class on 90% of the topics covered, I think I'm going to flash back to the views I held as a 7th-8th grader for the following post. If you want to yell at your computer screen as you read my post, hyper-conservative young Sam will have done his job.
I'll be responding to Noah for this post. Noah opens with the point that the United States had 10,000 gun-related homicides during 2010, while the UK had 41. While this is a staggering fact, the use of the numbers over blows it somewhat. If the statistics are adjusted to account for the fact that the United States has roughly 5 times the population of the UK, you get a comparison of 2000 homicides to 42. It's till very skewed and one-sided, but not nearly as terrible as originally presented. Noah's next point is that American citizens should not be able to own assault weapons or weapons with clip sizes in excess of 10, proclaiming his support for Mr. Obama's gun control agenda. While I may not necessarily agree with Noah on this, I'd like to point out that assault weapons are not the main problem here. A 2004 study by the University of Pennsylvania found that less than 8% of gun crimes were committed with assault weapons. To work against the larger gun crime issue, Congress would need to get a ban passed on handguns, which would definitely be a violation of Second Amendment rights. Even if such a ban were passed and law-abiding citizens turned in their guns, I highly doubt that criminals would follow suit. Such laws would disarm most of the public, allowing for less defense from gun related crimes. In fact, gun ownership and manufacturing has increased since 2010, yet gun related murders, assault, and robbery have all decreased. The case could be made that more gun ownership, especially within conceal and carry laws, could help deter gun violence.
Finally, Noah claims that mental health issues are just half of the problem. Me, I'd say that they are a much larger share of it. More than half of the mass shootings in the past 3 decades (there have only been around 70) have been committed by mentally unstable individuals. I would like to see a reform of the broken mental health system instead of more restrictions on weapons that perfectly stable Americans can use to defend themselves. The Second Amendment is in place for a reason, and nobody, not the president, Congress, or even the courts, should be able to take away a right that is crucial for the defense and independence of American citizens.
In response to Jeremy
I would just like to start off by saying that it is hard to totally disagree with your position. I would say that certain aspects of our system need reform. I could hardly argue that in America today, we need fewer laws. I think that would be ridiculous. At the same time, now is not the time to freak out and start banning every type of firearm that we can get our hands on. In your blog post, you say that you see “ . . . he Constitution as a living document, susceptible to changes through time.” While I think that this is generally true, there have been Supreme Court cases that have loosened gun laws in this country. As recently as 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, some gun control laws were stuck down in the Supreme Court (1). While I am willing to admit that this particular court case doesn’t deal specifically with “assault rifles” such as the AR-15, it still shows that the courts protect the 2nd amendment and interpret it as a right to keep firearms. While you are correct that the US has the highest percentage of gun ownership in the world (2), it doesn’t mean that they are all crazed psychopaths determined to kill as many innocent civilians as humanly possible. I have relatives who own firearms that could be deemed dangerous, but this doesn’t make them dangerous. There are clearly better and more rational alternatives to confiscating guns from almost everyone in America, and making it very difficult to legally use a firearm. It would be best to find areas of common ground. An example of this is mental health and gun show laws. Closing gun show loopholes and prohibiting people with mental health problems from buying guns is a simple solution that has widespread support (3). It would be equally effective to require background checks on all people who are going to buy guns. This would be very effective and likely solve most of our problems. It would be wise of us to take this step before trying more radical and possibly ineffective solutions.
1)http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/2013-nra-ila-firearms-fact-card.aspx?s=Supreme+Court&st=&ps=
2)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/us-guns-statistics-outlier_n_2331892.html
3)http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
In response to Roth's post, I find that Roth and I have different views on three particular issues. First, on the issue of the effectiveness of the background check, I do not believe that enforcing background checks for private guns sales will be very effective in curbing the violence that we are currently experiencing from guns. According to a Sheriff in Hennepin County, Minnesota, the police "do not have access to it(information from the background checks)(1). They do not have access to this information because only 12 states regularly provide the mental health information they gather to the National Instant Criminal Background Check (1). Also, many of those who were convicted of offenses dealing with guns do not have their case entered into the federal database. Without this information, requiring private gun salesmen to conduct background checks will be useless. Second, although it is sensible to keep guns away from the mentally unstable, it is very difficult to do. In fact, of the last nine mass shootings, none of them would have been stopped by background checks (1). Also, in order for background checks to be effective, there needs to be stronger enforcement. Since 2008, there have been over 13,000 criminals who have lied on their background checks (2). If they lied once without any punishment, what is to stop them from doing it again and again till they succeed?
In his post, Roth goes on to claim that "it is unlikely that the gun ban in its entirety will pass." However, with 89% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats supporting background checks and 76% of Democrats and 45% of Republicans supporting the Assault weapons ban, I would say that there is a high likelihood that some sort of gun regulation will be passed (3).
1.http://wbaa.org/post/sheriff-small-database-limits-effectiveness-background-checks-gun-buys
2.http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/00/02/urbanImpact/gunControl.html
3.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/24/republicans-open-to-gun-control-but-not-president-obamas-plan/
By looking at all these post it has become very clear that most of us agree that gun control policies must be enacted. However, the ability to pass legislation will be the real challenge. I believe however that Obama will be able to pass the legislation easily if he appeals to the public and takes the issue to the general population. So I would like to disagree with Erik M’s view on this case, who believes that it will be difficult to do so. I believe that these policies and actions are very popular among Americans as found by a recent Gallup poll (1). 9 out 10 people interviewed said they would support criminal background checks and other measures taken (1). Obama in order to pass these measures must take his argument to the public and that is what he is doing when he visited here in Minnesota(2). He is appealing to the public urging them to pressure Congress to make a decision. He states that the people have to send the message to Congress not the NRA who is saying different things (2). So I believe that eventually there will be enough people who pressure their representatives in various forms and that the legislation will eventually pass. As to the point about video games causing violence in Erik’s argument, there was a statement made by Lawrence Kutner a co-founder of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media in which he states that video games do not cause violence because, “After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy." (3). I would have to bring up this point because although video games could cause violence it people it is not likely that it causes a problem in everyone. So I think right now video games causing violence is not the main problem.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/poll-obama-gun-control-background-check-magazine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/04/obama-to-appeal-to-public-law-enforcement-for-support-on-new-gun-control-laws/
http://videogames.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=1608
By looking at all these post it has become very clear that most of us agree that gun control policies must be enacted. However, the ability to pass legislation will be the real challenge. I believe however that Obama will be able to pass the legislation easily if he appeals to the public and takes the issue to the general population. So I would like to disagree with Erik M’s view on this case, who believes that it will be difficult to do so. I believe that these policies and actions are very popular among Americans as found by a recent Gallup poll (1). 9 out 10 people interviewed said they would support criminal background checks and other measures taken (1). Obama in order to pass these measures must take his argument to the public and that is what he is doing when he visited here in Minnesota(2). He is appealing to the public urging them to pressure Congress to make a decision. He states that the people have to send the message to Congress not the NRA who is saying different things (2). So I believe that eventually there will be enough people who pressure their representatives in various forms and that the legislation will eventually pass. As to the point about video games causing violence in Erik’s argument, there was a statement made by Lawrence Kutner a co-founder of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media in which he states that video games do not cause violence because, “After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy." (3). I would have to bring up this point because although video games could cause violence it people it is not likely that it causes a problem in everyone. So I think right now video games causing violence is not the main problem.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/poll-obama-gun-control-background-check-magazine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/04/obama-to-appeal-to-public-law-enforcement-for-support-on-new-gun-control-laws/
http://videogames.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=1608
In response to Jessica, I agreed with her stance on gun control and creating stricter laws. I did not agree with her statement about stricter gun control laws passing in Congress and that President Obama can easily convince them to do so. It is a known fact that the NRA is a very powerful group and they have already been putting pressure on those in Congress to vote against or side against gun control in the debates and if there were to be a vote (1). President Obama and the Democrats recently proposed a gun control package in the House of Representatives. However, Republican leaders have denied the package a space on the debate floor until the Senate acts and at the moment, the Senate is not in any place to pass legislation on gun control and does not appear to be any time soon (2). This shows a lack of support on passing stricter gun control in the majority of both houses in Congress. This supports the fact that it will be an easy task for President Obama to even get a gun control bill on a floor to be debated in either chamber of Congress. There is also a strong sentiment with pro-gun groups that say that new restrictions would infringe on their Second Amendment right to bear arms (2). This is a powerful influence over Congress and the public because it is a Constitutional right to bear arms. This will create an even tougher force to beat in order to pass gun control legislation.
Another argument I found that could support why gun control legislation will take a long time to pass, if it will at all, is that it is not just guns that are to blame for these killings, it is what power people feel when they have them and what people gain access to them (3). It will be hard to restrict guns across the board because it is hard to pinpoint all the people that may use it for the wrong reasons like killing and violence (3). People also believe that restricting guns for all is unfair and actually hurts the average good citizen that wishes to have protection by means of owning a gun. Gun control legislation will never be easy to pass and may never pass. I believe gun control laws will not even be passed during President Obama’s term or get even close. It is too powerful an issue to be solved quickly and the country is so divided that the best option may to be to take no action at this point. Safety is important but policymakers are making no progress on this issue.
1) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/gun-control-supporters-urge-obama-to-bypass-congress-on-new-measures/
2) http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-democrats-idUSBRE9160YN20130207
3) http://www.policymic.com/articles/20094/gun-control-debate-how-owning-a-gun-changes-the-dynamics-of-conflict
First of all, let me state that it was especially hard to write a rebuttal blog post because 1) everyone in the class said pretty much the same thing and 2) there is not a good way to argue for less gun control. here goes nothing …
While agree with Ryan that new gun legislation is needed, I disagree with how it is being enacted.(1) President Obama has issued no less than 23 executive orders on the issue of gun control. And while executive orders have been around for a long time, the idea of an executive order is not found in the Constitution. (2)The foremost duty of a President to enforce the constitution and laws made the government of the United States. I believe that the responsibility of Congress to pass legislation on gun control.
The second Amendment is not, in my opinion, a “complete fallacy.” It was written to ensure that the federal government could not, without overwhelming support of the people, take away our right to bear arms. And while the second Amendment was not written with assault weapons and rocket launchers in mind, Congress would need to pass a new Amendment. Another way it could change would be a new interpretation of the second Amendment by the Supreme Court and I am surprised that this option has not been discussed (Ms. Aby do you know?).
I believe that it is up to the state legislatures to produce laws that best protect the people in their state. Each state has different problems and not one solution fits all. Do I believe that their should be a ban on assault weapons? Yes. (3)However, the massacres at schools and public theatres by men using assault weapons have overshadowed the fact that the majority of homicides in this country are committed with handguns. Then should we ban handguns too? No, obviously not. And so we are left with a touchy scenario and nobody wins; not liberals , conservatives, gun activists, not the president.
(1)- http://www.newsmax.com/headline/obama-guns-executive-orders/2013/01/16/id/471689
(2)- http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
(3)- http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/politics/gun-law-polls/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
As clearly as it is that nearly all of us here agree to some extent that some form of gun control has become direly necessary for America, there are elements of Marco’s post that I disagree with. For instance: the seemingly universal call for the renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. According to FactCheck, the conclusive verdict on the now expired program was only this: “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence (1).” So, simply renewing it as it stands may or may not actually have much effect on the gun crime rate. The check goes on to say that any decline that did occur in assault weapon crimes was diminished “at least [through] the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines] (1).” So, again, as it stands, a simply overhauling ban on assault weapons comes as a blessing wrapped in skepticism to me—potentially, we could lower the assault weapon gun crime rate. But potentially, we could just end up really ticking off gun owners who are using their guns which happen to be classified as assault-level. And which lawmaker can actually afford that?
Additionally, his claim that keeping guns from the mentally ill could reduce such crimes doesn’t necessarily check out; public health and firearms experts say that while it could have an impact, it would be insignificant, even negligible (2). They also state, according to the Huffington Post, that most people found to be the instigators of such instances as mass shootings, etc., aren’t generally those who would actually be targeted by such action as preventing the mentally ill from owning firearms, and that such legislation comes with the risk of “further stigmatizing mental illness”—not precisely something America needs, with a culture already rife with such unbased stigma shrouding mental conditions (2). For those who like their stats, not over 5% of all violent acts in the US are, in fact, committed by someone with what is categorized as a mental illness (2). They really just make the news more often; it tends to create a much greater effect on the masses. But in all truth, while I do support increased gun control, I definitely don’t think it will be sweeping, as the supermajority needed for Obama’s bill to pass the Senate will be a difficult thing to achieve, and what with the NRA fighting its own fight, the opposition has more than enough man power in this instance (3).
1. http://factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/mental-health-gun-violence_n_2583986.html
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57564380/does-obamas-gun-control-plan-have-a-chance/
I am responding to Ben Hanson’s post, in which he makes several cogent points about advancing gun control. To begin, he states that he thinks it’s a shame that our government has waited so long to enact gun legislation, but in fact we have a system of gun ownership laws in place already, it is just a matter of the strength of said measures, and many people believe that the current measures are strong enough and just aren’t being enforced correctly (1). The possible legislation that Ben suggests is to restrict the amount of ammo that the average citizen has access to, which would be a worthy possible solution if it were possible to distinguish between the amount of ammo a recreational gun user would need separate and the amount of ammo a possible mass murderer might want. It is a mistake, if gun legislation and gun murders worry you, to focus only on those who kill many people at once. Over 75% of gun deaths each year are committed with a simple handgun, and more people die by physical harm from someone else’s body (punching, kicking, etc) each year than those who die with rifles (2). Ben then goes on to talk about how it might be difficult for Obama to progress legislation due to the large size of the gun community, but in actuality nearly 90 % of the public and a majority of gun owner’s support increased background checks (3).
(1) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/
(2) http://web.archive.org/web/20100412084914/http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/31/nra-leadership-members-divide-on-universal-background-checks/
In response to Ben’s post, I would like to agree and disagree with some of his claims. I do agree with several points of his argument, such as the idea that crazy people will obtain firearms despite whatever laws government can enact. Secondly, I agree that background checks should be instituted to help regulate deadly weapons. However, I would disagree with some of Ben’s priorities. He stated that the first action should be taken against “shady” online suppliers of mass ammunition. While I think people would almost unanimously agree that they should be heavily monitored, this task would be extremely difficult to accomplish due to the obscurity of the parties in question (1). It is possible that money could be poured into investigations that could yield little progress. Furthermore, the size and complexity of the internet allow these “shady” types to invent ways around whatever checks the government might put in place. Additionally, politicians are more likely to attack segments of the issue that are more visable in the eye of the public (2). Therefore, division caused by these factors would make such laws difficult to pass. Secondly, I would like to qualify Ben’s statement about the difficulty of passing legislation regarding background checks and other more broad aspects of gun control. He said that it would be impossible to persuade conservatives from the far right to vote in favor of President Obama’s proposed policy. While this is undoubtedly factual, President Obama and the liberals don’t need votes from these representatives to enact new policy because they form only a small portion of those in power. For example, only five Republicans must be persuaded in the Senate (3). Considering the number of moderates in Congress I think this could be an attainable number.
1) http://gun.laws.com/gun-control/gun-control-legislative-priorities
2) http://congress.indiana.edu/legislative-process
3) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57565515/gun-control-bill-faces-long-odds-in-congress/
I shall be responding to T-Poon.
T-Poon stated that we need to ban Assault Rifle styled weapons. To play devils advocate, I disagree with this. A ban on assault/military rifles may reduce by a small amount but not stop it. Nor will it prevent mass murders (assault rifles are the number one weapon at fault for these though). But a gunman can just as easily take two Mark 19 Desert Eagle Pistol's, each with loaded with seven .50 caliber Action Express rounds, and be just as devastating in a helpless crowd of people. Of the total number of gun related deaths in 2010, only 30% were homicides (2). 70% of firearm related homicides are committed with handguns (1). What needs to be done is rather not a ban on guns, but a much stricter policy for who can obtain these weapons. The average person should not be able walk into a gun shop and simply buy a firearm without a proper license or background check. Similar to driving, having people take a class and test, as well as having these weapons registered with law enforcement, would allow the government to keep track on who posses these arms and whether or not they can legally hold them. Now of course there will be those who violate these laws. And is something as a nation, we cannot avoid. The reason we have crime is because people break laws and cannot follow them.
Chicago has some of the highest gun violence in the country. With already over 40 gun related deaths this year alone, Chicago is a prime example of gun control not being effective (3). Chicago gun laws include bans on both assault weapons and high capacity magazines as well as not allowing private citizens to carry guns in public (3). In fact, historically gun control only worsened Chicago's murder rate committed with firearms. In 1982, Chicago issued a ban on all handguns, it also specified handguns had to be registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. Interestingly enough the overall murder rate did drop by an average 17%, but the rate of murders committed with handguns rose 40%. In 2005 96% of firearm murder victims were killed by handguns (4).
As for banning high capacity magazines, this is acceptable and is somewhat needed. It is true that even hunters do not require high capacity magazines, though hunting groups of rabbits is difficult with semi automatic and bolt action rifles. Automatic rifles allow for quicker shots to prey with less damage done to the game (automatic rifle rounds are usually much smaller and less devastating than a standard hunting rifle round).
Like drugs or most any other illegal substance, banning guns will not solve anything. Pot is illegal in Minnesota, and yet sometimes the smell of marijuana can even be found in the stairwells and bathrooms of Jefferson high school. What needs to be done is legalization of pot so that it may be taxed, controlled, and regulated. The thing about guns is that they are already legal but not regulated enough. The most critical thing the US government can do at the moment is increased crack down on who is buying what firearms and whether or not they are allowed to possess them.
1. http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/30/newt-gingrich-gun-debate-about-more-than-assault-weapons/
2. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-chicago-gun-laws-cant-stem-fatal-shots.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
4. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
While it’s rather hard to follow up Mike’s blank verse response to my original post, I think I ought to return the favor as best I can, so here goes:
A Haiku Response to Mike Blazanin:
Michael Blazanin
Is a hard act to follow
I won’t even try.
Okay, so that didn’t work. I’ll just use boring, standard English then.
Mike and I are in the same camp here- we both support Obama’s plan to prevent gun violence. We differ, however, in our predictions of legislative reaction. Mike contends that Congressional and public support of Obama’s plan will die down as the memory of the children killed in Newtown fades, where I was significantly more optimistic in my assessment. Unfortunately, I find that I have to concede to Mike on this point. CBS reports that the assault weapons ban is unlikely to pass in Congress. Even in the Democrat-controlled Senate there isn’t enough support- five Democratic senators (including Al Franken) have refused to take a side on Obama’s proposal and only one Republican senator has expressed support for the assault weapons ban (1). There doesn’t even seem to be a remote chance in the House.
There is still hope, however. Some political analysts believe that the wavering of Senate Democrats is all part of the game. Remember the healthcare bill? There was a small bit that was the most controversial- a public healthcare option. Conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans (notably Lieberman and Nelson) helped kill that part of the bill. That way, they could use the bill to their advantage in their campaigning- conservatives would be happy that their Congressmen helped make the bill less liberal and liberals would be pleased that their Congressmen voted for such a liberal program. It was a win-win. The same thing could easily be happening here. The assault weapons ban is the most controversial part of Obama’s gun control package, yet it’s also the part that’s estimated to have the least effect on gun violence, as Mike pointed out in his iambic response (2). By killing that part of the bill, Democrats and Republicans alike can appease their constituents while still voting in the rest of the measures (this would be especially beneficial to senators like Al Franken, who will be up for reelection in 2014) (3). Unfortunately, this scenario, while plausible, doesn’t seem to be a very likely one and it doesn’t account for the Republican-controlled House at all. I still agree with Mike that Obama will not be able to pass the majority of his gun control plan, which is rather unfortunate.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57565515/gun-control-bill-faces-long-odds-in-congress/
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-measures-dont-stop-violence
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/17/how-most-of-obamas-gun-control-plan-can-pass-congress/
Because most if not everyone has almost the same views on having new gun control laws and on what types of laws need to be established, ill take a stance on the opposite side of what i actually believe in. I will be responding to Kelly's post on gun control. As she said that “Personally, I believe that gun violence has gotten out of control.” I believe this statement to be incorrect, if one were to say that gun violence is now finally in all of american history going out of control and never before is just preposterous. If resent events such as the shooting of Sandy Hook in Newtown counts as out of control violence that could be understood, but that was one incident. I am aware that there have also been other incidents recently but it seems as thought this one incident is making the whole country go insane. The fact of the matter is that there are now less gun violence incidents in the United States than there used to be. The National Institute of Justice shows that there has been a major decline in gun violence incidents in America since the 1990s. Another fact is that guns kill more people with suicides than with homicides. “Firearms were used to kill 30,143 people in the United States in 2005, the most recent year with complete data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.(1) A total of 17,002 of these were suicides, 12,352 homicides, and 789 accidental firearm deaths,” (4). With her statement of “His plan includes: requiring background checks for gun sales, strengthening background checks, passing a ban on assault weapons, limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds”, passing a ban on assault weapons majorly affects people who go hunting than the general public. People don’t need an assault rifle to kill a human being, but hunters do require assault rifles to hunt the different varieties of animals they hunt. A regular hand held gun can kill a human easily and are much easier to conceal than an assault rifle. So this part of a so called well thought out law would take our second amendment laws away from hunters but give killers a better idea of how to conceal they’re weapons by just using more handhelds. Background checks on people would tell if someone has had previous incidents of mental health but what about someone who has a clean record but still is a little crazy in the mind and also plans on using the firearm to harm themselves. Limiting ammunition on magazines would also prevent hunters from doing their business than preventing killers from killing people. A killer could use ten bullets to kill ten people but a hunter may use all of those on their attempt on killing one dear. Ill leave on this note, “The Founding Fathers want us to carry guns in case we ever need them to overthrow the government” (4). Sounds crazy right, well think about again and again. The government will be around maybe for a long time and different people will be in control of this government for many years, meaning different types of people and different types of society. Who’s to say that one day the people of the United States won’t need their guns to protect themselves against the government that looks to protect them. I cant say it’ll happen for sure or not happen, but then again no one can.
1.http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe0802118
2.http://m.independentmail.com/news/2013/jan/16/letters-two-views-on-gun-control/
3.http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/12/16/searching-for-hard-data-on-guns-and-violence/
4. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/792104/posts
In response to Sam A’s post I agree, along with most of the class, that gun laws need to change. However I disagree on her point that background checks will be uneffective. There are talks about curbing straw purchases, which means “people who can pass background checks buy weapons for others.”(1) This makes sense for those criminals Sam is talking about. They could ask a friend to buy them a gun, but if this goes through that would be much harder to do. along with this Obama in “23 executive orders” has strengthened gun laws already in practice.(1) Even members of Congress are getting on board. “A cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s drive to check gun violence is gathering bipartisan steam as four senators, including two of the National Rifle Association’s congressional champions, privately seek compromise on requiring far more firearms purchasers to undergo background checks.”(2) So even though the NRA is probably the strongest lobby group in the nation, people want to make changes even if it costs them election money. If these four can reach an agreement that could garner support from the most liberal to the most conservative members. In Maryland the NRA is running into strong opposition to their bullying tactics. At the first hearing of the governors bill “700 people” swamped the capital, all opposers of his bill and many members of the NRA. the governors office fired back in a blog that said they were “drowning out Marylanders.”(3) this shows that this time around the NRA might not hold all the power.
1.http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/08/politics/weapons-congress-proposals/
2.http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/dem-gop-senators-quietly-seek-background-check-deal-that-could-improve-gun-control-prospects/2013/02/08/5362c63a-71cb-11e2-b3f3-b263d708ca37_story.html
3.http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/gov-omalley-says-nra-is-drowning-out-support-for-gun-control-in-maryland/2013/02/08/690690ae-7205-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html
I'd like to challenge Josh P. in his opinion of gun control. First, I hate to attack Josh as a person, but I find this rebuttal to write because his blog post seemed (to me) to lack the answer to the question "Do you think the US needs new gun laws and if so which ones and why? If not, why not?" So I'm going to run with the assumption that Josh thinks that gun laws should be changed to match the studies he cited. On Josh's point that Minnesota has looser laws and less gun violence than New York, I'd like to put forth the argument that New York is an entirely different habitat than Minneapolis. There are lurking variables to this. Now my opinion is that guns should not have tighter restrictions in any form. Here's a second way to look at Josh's statistic: maybe more citizens having guns in Minneapolis deters criminals from committing crime (1). The bad guys know they can get away with it in New York. Second, having tighter punishments for illegally carrying a gun cannot deter people from homicide. There are already the harshest punishments for those (2) and if someone resolves to kill someone else, they aren't going to worry, "Wait I could get in big trouble if I was caught killing them with a gun."
Josh also seems optimistic that the legislation will pass. According to (3), Congress has been reluctant to pass gun legislation since 2004, when a vote to renew assault weapon bans failed. While Obama is working hard to push his ideas using grass root appeals, he is not entirely confident that Congress will pass the bill because it is a topic of morals. Finally, while the Senate is probably in the bag, the House is unlikely to pass the new laws.
Forgot the sources:
(1)http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2012/02/study-gun-owners-prevent-crime
(2)http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57491081/ben-stein-stricter-gun-laws-wont-cut-shootings/
(3)http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/01/15/obama-backs-gun-limits-concedes-tough-fight-ahead/bBTMxCeiPQygU8K6PUrzTJ/story.html
I am responding to Sydneys post! I disagree with some of what she says but agree with it in some areas. I don’t think assault rifles are needed to defend your homes. Personally I would use a shotgun which are many times more effective at short range, more powerful and you probably won’t miss. I don’t think we need a clip size regulation for all guns. Smaller caliber rifles for small game or competition shooters have legitimate uses for larger clips. Assuming that assault rifles are properly regulated there would be no need to have clip size limit on them either. To counter the statement that every time you turn on the news you see a new shooting that is because we live in an extremely diverse country of over 300 million people. If they want to find a story on a shooting they will find them and broadcast them. Also people do have the legitimate right to conceal and carry weapons if they pass the necessary tests. If the psych evaluation laws and others are enforced to the extent that is necessary I don’t think even more stringent laws are needed, like blanket bans. Those were introduced in Australia and were seen to have little to no effect on the homicide rate. That’s because people who want to kill people do it regardless. I agree when I say that nothing will get passed though. It is not really a matter of urgency when you think about it in terms of purely numbers. The number of people killed in mass shootings does not even make a dent in the actual homicide rate numbers. I think attacking those would be a better use of our time. It would certainly save more lives. Obama can issue all of the executive orders he likes but no one will listen to just one branch of the government. As we have learned in our fantastic Government class it takes three to tango in this country
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-18/news/chi-the-failure-of-gun-control-in-australia-20130118_1_gun-control-mandatory-gun-gun-deaths
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22436618/el-paso-county-passes-measure-support-second-amendment
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
I am responding to Jeremy this week. Your view on this issue seems, to put it frankly, rather absurd. I am not attacking you as a person, you yourself said that it might seem radical. First of all, I find it interesting that you believe that we are “clinging needlessly to the Second Amendment.” Americans have far more guns than any other country. Nearly twice as many guns per person as Yemen. So Jeremy’s comparison of United States gun laws compared to Yemen gun laws is irrelevant because there are twice as many guns per person in the United States and we are not living in a conflict torn nation with much of its past in a civil war. Also I would like to mention that the developed and relatively peaceful country Switzerland’s number of guns per person is a much closer comparison to Yemen’s than the United States.
I agree that there needs to be some regulation, namely on weapons meant to kill people, such as assault weapons and armor piercing bullets. However, Jeremy’s views are ridiculously unrealistic for our country. They would never pass in Congress and implementing them. if it did pass would be a nightmare. What would happen to the 270 million guns owned by United States citizens? I believe that compromise is necessary to pass anything in our divided government and Jeremy’s views offer little room for compromise. Besides to pass anything that radical about gun control the NRA would have to be extinct.
1.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/
2.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57566051-10391739/obama-gun-control-supporters-must-listen-more/ 3.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57565637/lawmakers-unveil-bill-to-ban-assault-weapons/
I would like to respond to Matt Sherman's post about gun control and possible point out were his argument is lacking. In general his argument is solid and reflects an understanding of public opinion. However, I find his data inherently suspect. It is a very rare occasion indeed when over 90% of the American public can agree on anything. Although the poll that Matt cites was conducted I attribute the high percentage as merely a reaction to the time. One article that I read to aid me in refuting Matt's argument does a clear job of explaining that the hype around polling data of all kinds, while accurate, represents a mere snapshot of public opinion and should not be regarded as gospel truth (1).
The second error I find in Matt's argument is a passing mention of mental health and gun control. While not the core of Matt's argument, I feel that it represents a fallacy worth mentioning here. It is very easy to say that mental health programs could keep mental health patients away from firearms. But the probability that any of the new laws passed in the wake of Sandy Hook will catch significant numbers of mental health patients who attempt to buy guns is slim (2). Barry Rosenfield, a professor of Psychology from the University of the Bronx, points to New York's' newest law as being 'not likely to catch many violent people'(2).
The last red flag that was raised when I read Matt's post was his lack of acknowledgement of support for an assault weapons ban. He dismisses its possibility out of hands with little to no evidence to back his claim that it wouldn't last through Congress. A cursory search on the internet shows that many prestigious organizations in fact back the proposed ban on assault weapons(3). These include the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists(3). It is hard to ignore such vocal support from three very respected health organizations.
1) http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/09/politics/polling-hype
2)http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/01/17/169529792/mental-health-gun-laws-unlikely-to-reduce-shootings
3)http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2013/02/11/gvsb0211.htm
I'll be responding to Tom's post, since he is like the only one to disagree that we need gun control(at least in the class). He said that, "The 2nd Amendment isn't for hunting, it's to defend ourselves against foreign and domestic tyrannical governments"(1). HE backed himself up with crime rates and how the UK has a total weapons band but has worst crime rates then the US. However, those crime rates were from 2003. The percent of homicides by firearm in the US for July 2012 is 60%(2). Compared however to the UK which has a 6%, it is clear that the US needs new gun control laws. Therefore, I think we should have some gun control. I'm not saying ban all weapons like the UK, but an assault weapons ban, background check, and no guns for convicted felons or severe mentally disabled people would cut the 60% rate for sure(3).
1)Tom's Post
2)http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
3)http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
In response to Grant’s post I must say that I agree with everything he said, or at least I think I do. I have fairly liberal views, but I like to call myself a moderate not because of my political ideology, but because I hold the concept of knowing every side of the story before judging the most sacred of all. Not to say I don’t judge, because I do. Sometimes my opinion must be stated even if I only know one part of the story. Where am I going with this? Well at YRU-UP the other night, there was a visiting tech who, when the topic of gun control came up very… shall we say vehemently brought up the fact that we should have guns to protect ourselves from the government and that the constitution states that we have the right to rise against the government if it isn’t doing its job. That was somewhat of a shocking revelation and something I never quite thought about before. However, with just the slightest research you can find that this is not the case. This was not the framers intention (or at least most of them) and it’s an almost anarchist point of view (1). With this kind of thinking going through the minds of some of the people involved in the gun debate, I think that the NRA needs to clearly define why they want these guns so bad. They may say “It’s our right” but no one is stopping them from having a gun. We merely want restrictions and I think the NRA could make it’s case better if they could provide a clear set of reasons as to why they are opposed to gun policy reform.
(1) http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home