I believe that there should be some tighter regulations on gun control, but not enough to take away the freedom to having one. I do believe that before one can become a gun owner they should go through a mental health check in addition to the background check. This may help alert some people to those who should not have a gun. I also believe that it should be required for teachers to take a defense seminar telling them different things they should do if someone were to come into the school with a gun. According to an article from the "New American" more shootings have occurred in gun free zones then in areas where guns are allowed. I believe this is because if a shooter goes to a place and sees there are no guns, how would anyone in the building protect themselves. I think shooters would be more deterred if they knew that some people in the building had guns. There is a school in Texas that trains their teachers on how to use guns and what to do. They keep the guns hidden and no student knows which teachers have them and and which do not. I believe this is a good idea so that if something were to happen, there were people in the building who knew what they were doing.
Most gun crime in the US is gang in drug related. Of the $500 million President Obama pledged to tighten federal gun laws, the majority of that should go to the ATF to fight the illegal gun trade. The organization is understaffed and hasn't had a full time director in years (Obama's new measures have finally called for one to be appointed). Most guns are obtained illegally, so pouring a substantial amount of money we don't have toward tightening regulations on ones obtained legally seems foolish--the odds that a firearm in America will be used in a shooting spree is almost 1 in 43 million (getting eaten by a shark is 1 in 8 million). It's difficult to see through this emotional storm, but America needs to respond rationally. Banning semiautomatic weapons will save very few lives, cause lots of controversy, cost loads of cash, and distract from the root causes that need to be addressed, namely the US's mentally unstable citizens. It's no secret that institutionalization of mental patients is too expensive for most families unless their extremely wealthy or poor. Money needs to be poured into making these facilities more accessible to middle class Americans. On the other hand, many pro-gun states who insist the problem lays with mental-health are some of the least likely to spend money on programs. They need to hold up their end of the bargain if they want to avoid counterproductive anti-gun legislation.
The gun control "laws" are costly and useless. Obama pledged $500 in miscellaneous funds to "combat the problem," which is a part of the 4.9 billion that his announced laws will cost. That is an unprecedented amount to be spent on an executive order (other than a war--and funding for wars is eventually funded by congress once it gets the chance).
It is not good government for the President to be able to declare massive legislation just because it is controversial and he wants it done. Because the congress is a reactionary body, and therefore does not get much of the classified, special information that the President gets, Congress is less equipped to do certain necessary things to protect the nation's security. They may not have the details to justify declaring war. The danger of gun violence does not fall into that category, however. The President should not form the practice of just deciding on laws that the congress has the ability (not to mention constitutional authority) to create.
The laws that the President created are essentially useless, as Katie stated. First of all, most guns that are used violently are not obtained legally, registered to the wrong person, or made untraceable by criminals. Americans--probably trained to think this way by solve-the-crime-in-24-hours CSI type shows--seem think that police and CSIs can shoot a murder weapon, look at a bullet, or do a biopsy of the entrance wound and find the killer. In real life, that simply isn't the case. No decent criminal (obviously mentally unstable, suicidal mass killers are an exception) uses a gun registered in their name. They steal them or trade them for drugs, women and other black market things, and in this process, the government loses the ability to track the guns to the owners. So yeah, making some more regulations on gun buying isn't going to save many lives if the criminals can get them by other means.
It is clear that these laws were not passed with the nature of criminals in mind. Criminals are not counting their bullets to make sure that they are under the legal limit. They are breaking the law anyways. I hate to say it, but banning semi auto-automatics, AK-Whatevers, or large magazines would not save lives like politicians say they will. Who's to say that the shooter won't just bring a few more guns? And if you already have a roomful of children trapped in an undefended classroom, what's to say that the shooter won't kill all of the kids despite having to take an extra few seconds to do it with a non-machine gun? It may sound irreverent, but it's true. The gun-control proponents want Americans to think that if their bans had been in place than those innocent children and their teachers wouldn't have died. It works because people want to believe that they have to power to do something to stop incidents like that. No one wants to live in fear, but people need to understand that it is in times of fear that the greatest breaches in personal freedom occur with consent of the people.
I believe that after the Sandy Hook incident, President Obama had no choice but to propose legislation for stricter gun control laws and affordable and accessible mental health care. Mass school shootings are tragedies that need to be stopped and any steps towards trying to prevent another one from occurring has my support and the support of many Americans. About 3,000 people gathered in Washington D.C to tell their government leaders that the nation needs stricter gun control laws and to show their support particularly when it comes to banning assault weapons. This shouldn't be an issue about an individual's right to bear arms but rather a change in the type of arms and ammunition available.
A point I strongly have to disagree with is if guns are the problem, why would having more guns fix this. Really it won't instead I feel that it will create an array of other potentially fatal problems. If teachers were allowed to have guns, you have to consider the possibility that this gun might get into the hands of a child. You also have to consider other scenarios such as if one of the teachers has a momentary mental lapse or emotional breakdown, that teacher would have easy access to a gun already in the school. This opens up a myriad of potential problems that seem very dangerous.
Others say that the killer would still be able to kill all of the kids with a non-machine gun. Those extra few seconds the shooter needs to reload or change guns could give teachers and staff a chance to do whatever they could to try to stop the shooter or get the children out of harms way. Those extra few seconds may not seem like a lot but it is a few precious seconds that could save a life, make a difference, and/or the authorities additional time to arrive at the school all leading to the possibility of saving a life or lives. I strongly agree with President Obama's statement that "while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try. This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe."
Threats to domestic security via internal civilian gun violence are not confined to the United States. In fact, comparable to other nations around the world such as Mexico or Brazil that are hindered by violence associated with drug related activities, or war-torn nations of the Middle East such as Afghanistan and Yemen, the United States has maintained a respectable level of domestic security. At the same time, however, when disheartening and highly publicized events like the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting occur, it is the responsibility of our government to respond in a manor most satisfying for Americans going forward.
The Obama administration specifically proposed 4 general ways that it hopes to see in legislation to reduce the issue of gun violence. According to a document recently published on the on the Whitehouse’s webpage, these measures include “1. Closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands; 2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence; 3. Making schools safer; and 4. Increasing access to mental health services.” Although these propositions may be theoretically appeasing, when put into effect the results may not be as profound as anticipated.
Idealistically this blanket legislation would prevent domestic mass shootings in the future, when the fact of the matter is, technology and weaponry advances are increasing at exceedingly fast rates. As it stands, the United States is the number one importer AND exporter of small arms, according to a document published by the American Center For Progress. Nowhere within the recent gun control legislation is the issue of the mass proliferation of weaponry on an international scale specifically addressed. In my opinion, this ineptness severely hinders the law’s effectiveness.
Personally I believe that President Obama’s recent gun control stance is a great start. As Margaret stated, the amount of killings that are occurring in the United States is shocking and disturbing. President’s Obama’s recent proposal for background checks on all gun sales and bans on military style assault weapons to reduce gun violence is a great response to all the violence that has been occurring and has occurred in the United States today. But, there still needs to be much more done regarding gun violence. I think that this recent gun proposal will be effective because having background checks done on gun sales is important. It tells us exactly who wants to purchase a gun and if they have any criminal backgrounds. If a person has a criminal background, it is obvious that, that gun purchase will not go through, saving a person’s life. Unfortunately, there are many people who obtain guns illegally. More legislation needs to be passed so that people who are destructive cannot harm other people. Personally, I believe that too many guns are made and issued rather than psychiatric care. Not only do we have many psychiatric care, but health care comes along with it, which President Obama passed. Background checks help to make sure people who obtain guns are trustworthy with the guns, they prevent more than make harmful injuries. This is not a invasion of privacy that Americans have to contend with because just like airport security, there is a background check of guns. In a way, they both can be related. With all the recent gun violence occurring, it is important to have checks on people. Other changes that can be made to suppress gun violence is more legislation regarding guns, such as a minimum age requirement. There needs to be more legislation but it should balance with the second amendment- the right to bear an arm. People should definitely have the right to bear an arm, especially for personal security. With the recent Connecticut shooting, more legislation should be passed regarding teachers. Personally, I believe a teacher should be able to keep an arm at school hidden, so that if a intruder does come inside the school, a teacher can act towards the intruder. Maybe, if the teachers in Connecticut had guns, 26 civilians would not have been killed. I agree with Kristen that many schools should also have seminars that tell teachers what exactly to do if a person with a gun enters the school and is destructive.
Personally, I think people who say there needs to be better psychiatric help are just trying to find a good excuse to avoid gun control. I don’t really think that we can improve much on figuring out who is crazy and who isn't - it's harder than putting laws restricting guns into place. You can't really control people like you can control inanimate objects. I don't think we should get rid of guns completely or anything - I have a cabin and tons of family that hunts like it's their job so I get it - but I don't get the need to have semi-automatic weapons and such. Sure we're a free country, but there are limits. There are still traffic lights, age limits on things, etc. I'd rather have the lives of 20 kids back then a bunch of guys sitting at home fondling with their guns. Background checks are more than okay with me, however I don’t think everyone (like teachers) should have a gun to protect themselves. I feel like that would cause even more trouble, but who am I to know? Here's a funny song for all of your enjoyment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WolkrdsvrWU I live in Farmington Hills and I don't exactly know what it's like to have to protect myself. Although the whole issue is kindof like the abortion issue - either way people are going to find a way to get one (a gun that is). Maybe I'm just biased, but my uncles friend just got shot 20 times a few days ago on his friend's front porch, and if we had stricter gun laws, then maybe it wouldn't have happened. I just don't think we should sit back and say "oh well", we need to try things out.
I think that having background checks on those buying guns is a completely logical and important thing to do. I do believe that there should be tighter gun control laws. Nobody has a practical use for an automatic weapon, so I do believe that it is the country's right to ban those kinds of weapons. It also may be useful to require mental health checks before one would be allowed to purchase a gun. I think it could prevent some gun violence. However I also believe that those who are mentally ill are not always acquiring guns in a legal matter. They may be taking them from parents, or others or buying them from shady dealers. In those cases it is very hard to stop a firearm from getting into the wrong hands, as no checks would have been able to be preformed on the individual. I think many people who have guns know how to use them safely and properly, it is just a minority who don't. However this minority is causing a lot of terrible problems. I'm not sure how this problem can be resolved though. One of the reasons I am unsure how we can resolve this problem is that those who want guns will find a way to get guns. Similar to drugs, just because they are illegal, does not mean no one has access to them, or uses them; just the opposite. I believe if guns were outlawed it would be similar, except that those who follow the law and respect others would be without guns, or any means to protect themselves from an attack from a firearm.
I think the president has done a pretty good job with the new gun legislation, the challenge he will have now is getting it passed. There is absolutely no for automatic weapons in the hands of the general population. I know a lot of people hold the 2nd Amendment very dear, however things have changed and this is no longer 1776. I agree, with Gretchen above that our country is in dire need of better psychiatric care. Better background checks are also needed and accessibility to handguns. For instance, the gun in the Columbine shooting was bought at a Walmart. What would even be the reason for a minor to own a handgun in that instance? I do not believe in gun closets in schools either because I personally would feel more at risk if my teachers were trained to use a gun. It would just aid in more accidents to occur. In a perfect world only law enforcement and military personnel would own guns, however I know that this is not possible.
I agree that President Obama’s laws may not be vastly effective in all areas of gun control. Psychologically speaking, however, President Obama had to act because citizens were at wits end due to the Sandy Hook tragedy. The regulations put into place may help some targeted areas, but it is inevitable that most criminals use guns that are obtained illegally. In response to some suggestions that teachers should have possession of guns or be trained to use guns, I strongly disagree. Some type of gun locker could be broken into by students or intruders, only escalating an incident. In addition, a teacher could be the culprit of a shooting, God forbid. I personally would not feel safer if my teachers were armed. As the saying goes, if you fight fire with fire, everyone gets burned. Increasing the number of people armed with guns will just escalate any type of violence, instead of deter it. The true solution lies in better psychiatric guidelines. The past few gun violence incidents, like Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and Colorado, have all had suspected mentally ill shooters. A person that cannot differentiate between right and wrong, defined legally as insane, should not have the ability to obtain a firearm. Intensive mental health testing is the most beneficial solution to the gun violence problem in the United States. It would be the only way to decrease mass shootings, but isolated incidents can never be completely protected from in society. Some may argue that this infringes on one’s right to bear arms, but when the common good is endangered, I believe that regulations supersede this individual right.
I 100% agree with President Obama's recent gun control legislation. Background checks, in my opinion, are not an invasion of privacy, it is something that should be necessary to handle such dangerous object. If background checks are required to get a job, then they should be required to own a weapon. The fact that background checks haven't always been necessary is frightening to me. I also agree with the ban on military-style assault weapons. Regular citizens do not need these heavy duty weapons to protect their homes from invaders, a handgun or rifle will suffice. Unless someone is planning on becoming an assault-rifle toting vigilante (which is illegal) one does simply not need one. Also, the argument that only criminals will have assault weapons is simply false. Police officers and military personnel, whose job it is to protect citizens from criminals, will still have these weapons. Psychiatric care is something that is always in need. For most Americans, who call themselves "middle class", psychiatric care is something that is just too much for them to afford. However, government assistance for psychiatric care will be hard to pass. The amount of people who are gung-ho 2nd amendment supporters would disagree with psychiatric care being used to prevent Americans owning guns. Also because of the national debt, there isn't enough money to be spent on helping Americans with psychiatric care. I hope that President Obama's gun control legislation does have an effect because the nation desperately needs it. If the amount of horrific mass shootings the US has suffered from cannot cause a change in gun control, then I don't know what will. The US cannot suffer more tragedies like Sandy Hook before it starts considering gun control legislation. After the shoe bomber tried to smuggle a bomb onto a plane in his shoe, it has been required for shoes to be taken off at airport security. After the amount of mass shootings, gun control legislation should be put in place. President Obama had to be the one to step up and do something about gun control. Hopefully this legislation will have some effect in stopping the amount of gun violence in the US.
I definitely approve of President Obama's gun control laws. It is completely ridiculous to imagine just sitting back and doing absolutely nothing when gun violence is at an all time high and lives are being lost every single day due to this. You may not agree with the way the President is going about it and everyone has different opinions, but I think everyone can agree that something must be done. I respect President Obama for at least trying something when so many people are content to ignore the issue. I agree with many of the other comments that there is no need for automatic weapons to be in the hands of ordinary citizens. More guns simply does not solve the issue of gun violence. Anyone who claims to need deadly automatic weapons for "protection" must live somewhere pretty dangerous because I can't imagine such a case. I think it's a given that background checks be utilized for those purchasing guns and the more intensive they are, the better. This is not an invasion of privacy but rather a logical system. I do not disagree that people will find ways to illegally obtain guns but repeating this sentiment and totally ignoring the epidemic of gun violence in America will not fix the problem. I sincerely hope that President Obama's legislation will have a positive impact.
I do believe that President Obama's recent gun control legislation is a good idea especially in the wake of the recent shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. I think that because of the controversial that gun control legislation creates it is very hard for these bills to get passed. I have become quite interested on this subject since the shootings in Newtown and have been interested to see if President Obama could use his popularity and new re-election to have this policy legitimately considered to be passed. There has been many speculation as to if the bill will be passed and many believe that it has a small chance. I think that this is a good start however, to decrease the amount of gun related violence in our country not just in mass shootings but also on the streets. I feel that there needs to be more strict laws on who can own guns and how many. I do understand that these types of laws are breaching our rights but I feel that freedom is not a good enough reason to allow guns to be in the hands of people who should not have them. I agree that something needs to be done and soon because these mass shootings are becoming to much a part of our daily lives.
Saying that a President "had to act" is absolutely ridiculous. Other tragedies involving children have occurred that did not warrant billions of dollars in executive order spending. When school busses crash or priests rape sunday school students, no one tries to ban priests or school busses. While children were harmed, the benefits of keeping these things around were greater than the benefits of "taking action." Some of the laws don't make sense, and some will actually be ineffective. Read this if you want an explanation:
Politicians have taken this as an excuse to push their pet legislation ( and it you don't think they're being paid to do this you may want to crawl from beneath your rock at this time ). Lots of international examples of gun control have been thrown around, but lets look at a domestic one.
The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws and ordinances in the country. Yet, Chicago, where most gun violence comes from gangs who don't buy their guns legally anyways, has one of the nation's highest murder rates.
A decade ago, Nashville's murder rate began to climb as the city grew and new bars opened. Given their cowboy culture, gun control in Nashville would be the ultimate struggle. Instead of gun laws, the city beefed up the police force (think police officers walking four abreast down every major street) and the murder rate dropped.
I am really not sure how this applies to schools. Arming teachers is probably not the answer. I am sure that many districts cannot afford security. I think that is where the federal government comes in. I think some of the $5 billion that was just spent on unenforceable gun restrictions and mandates could have been used to literally protect school children.
The same could be said for cities. Detroit clearly has a gun problem, but can you really see gun restrictions as having an effect on violence there? Probably not. As Katie said, those are illegal guns. But where were you when you felt safest in Detroit (other than driving on Telegraph to get there). It was probably at a Tigers/Lions/Red Wings game, Fox theater, ice skating at Campus Martius, or eating in greek town. Those places have the highest security or police presence, because those places have taxable businesses that rely on consumer confidence (who's confident when they think their in danger)? If Detroit is to make a comeback as any sort of cultural or social destination, the police force will have to clean up new areas first.
While the gun issue is complicated, it is possible that American politicians are over-complicating it. Instead of coming up with a solution, both sides are riding the support of the most polarized aspects of their bases. In doing so, Obama and his supporters are trying to wage an unwinnable fight against a long standing gun culture, saving zero lives in the process.
After re-reading everyone's comments, I still believe that President Obama's gun control legislation is constitutional and needed in a country where many killings are occurring through guns. I agree with Catherine that the gun control legislation is a good start to decrease the amount of gun related violence in our country, in mass shootings and also on the street. I also agree with Catherine that more strict laws need to be made in regards to gun control. When the Newton shooting occurred, it was in the midst of President Obama's reelection. If President Obama had not done anything regarding the shooting or passed any legislation, many citizens would have looked upon President Obama as slow and uncaring for the people of Connecticut. They would have second questioned their choice for presidency. I agree with Catherine that limit on guns can be a violation of the second amendment and unfair but freedom is not a good enough reason to allow guns to be in the hands of people who should not have them. I hope that President Obama's gun control legislation will cause less mass shootings and everyday shootings that occur in the United States.
There have been too many mass shootings in this generation with too many innocent lives lost. The very fact that you can't even go into a movie theater or school without fear of being shot and/or killed, changes need to be made. I don't want to be scared going to these normal activities in my life. Nor do I want to feel used to these tragedies, like oh another shooting. That's why I agree with President Obama's gun control legislation. Nobody in their right mind needs those heavy duty guns. This isn't going against the second amendment either, people still have the right to bear arms. I really applaud President Obama for trying to elicit change to help protect Americans and especially children. I hope that this dialogue will push our country forward towards coming up with some solutions to help prevent any future mass shootings from happening. Again, if even one life can be saved, it is our obligation to look at change. It is up to all of us to approach change with an open mind and explore all feasible solutions when it comes to new gun control legislation and mental health care.
I believe that America as a country needs to take a stand against gun violence. So I believe it was good that President Obama got the ball rolling with some new gun legislation, however I am still unsure about how effective those particular laws will be. Hopefully because these laws were passed, different, more effective gun legislation will be able to be passed more easily. Obviously something has to be done about gun violence. I'm glad we are doing something, but I don't know if it's the right something.
After reading everyone's comments, I'm sticking with my opinion that President Obama's gun law legislation was necessary. Last time I checked, 20 1st graders dying for no reason is a big deal - I don't care whether it's happened before or not. Tori states that "other tragedies involving children have occurred that did not warrant billions of dollars in executive order spending," but I don’t think that people (the president) should fail to act upon IMPORTANT things (we're talking life or death here) just because they're the first to do so or because it will be expensive- I think we established this when tons of people (that just so happen to inhabit the same part of the U.S. that the 2nd amendment junkies do, if I may add) were freaking out about Lincoln abolishing slavery, and now we all think he was the greatest human being to walk the earth. I mean they say history repeats itself. Also, can we reflect on the fact that background checks aren’t even that big of a deal? If you want a gun and you're a psychopath the last thing I feel for you is bad, and I most definitely don't care that someone "invaded your privacy." Freedom of speech is great, so is freedom of religion and so on - but freedom to own a gun when you're a psychopath murderer is most definitely NOT great.
I still believe that President Obama was right to pass this gun control legislation. There are times to strategically sit back and wait but there are times when you have to do something, and this was one of those times. I think that if Obama had done absolutely nothing, people would be criticizing just as much if not more. He would have been viewed as apathetic, ineffective, and not standing up for what he believes in by many, including myself. I'm not an expert on the legislation and I don't think most of us are really able to say whether or not it will have a positive impact, but I hope it will and I'm glad that we are no longer ignoring this huge issue.
After reading everyone's comments, I agree that with the large amount of publicity that mass shootings get, especially the one in Newtown, it would have been stupid of the President to not act on this. Since the children were so young and the death toll so large, an American President could not stand by and do nothing. I think most Americans forget that we're actually talking about human life. These mass shootings have become so regular to people in this generation that Americans have become apathetic about them. But these victims were someone's children, someone's brother or sister, someone that people will undoubtedly miss. If providing background checks for people looking to purchase a gun could even have a chance of stopping another mass shooting from happening then it shouldn't even be a question. The gun control legislation proposed by President Obama is hindering freedom in order to preserve order, which is what governments in general were created to do.
One of the ideas that I didn't discuss in my initial post on the gun control that was brought up in subsequent posts is the issue of mental health care, and its correlation to gun violence. In passing comprehensive gun control regulation in the modern era, addressing metal health is completely necessary in my opinion. Just as Gabriella stated, Virginia Tech incident, the Colorado shooting, and the most recent Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting all were seen as having been presumably associated with someone suffering from a mental illness. At the same time, receiving the federal funding necessary to support programs associated with this field is not easy to come by. This is especially true when looking at the issue of our current deficit. However, the safety of Americans and looking at how one balances the issue of order vs. freedom is really what this comes down to. Personally, I think enacting this legislation could be supporting order. Sure, the federal funding could be used for other purposes, but having domestic security and order should be at the forefront of our minds. In the end, it’s going to depend on more local governments to see how this legislation will be carried out and how effective it will be.
I totally agree with Tori. President Obama did not have to act. I know this was a terrible tragedy and as a parent you want to believe that your child is safe at school, but I do not think that is solved by putting more restrictions on gun control. If someone wanted to go kill a person they would not think twice if they knew the person was not armed compared to someone who is armed. Most of the guns that are used in these shootings are illegally obtained as it is so trying to create stricter laws hurts those trying to defend themselves, not the attacker.
Although I understand Tori’s perspective, I strongly disagree. In ideological terms, when gun proliferation and the right to bear arms disrupt social order, that is when the government MUST step in. Most conservatives believe that the government should value social order over freedom. According to Janda, they favor firm police action, swift and severe punishment for criminals, and more laws regulating behavior. As a result, it seems illogical to be against gun control laws that maintain order in society. NOT taking action after a tragedy like Sandy Hook would be failing to protect citizens from violence and failing to protect life and property, which is the original purpose of government, also according to Janda. In addition, stricter gun control laws will have an extremely beneficial effect on gun violence in the United States. The United Kingdom, after a similar incident to Sandy Hook in 1996, passed gun restrictions that banned handguns and automatic weapons, as well as put a system of ownership rules into place involving hours of paperwork, criminal reference checks, and mandatory references designed to reduce as far as possible the likelihood of guns falling in the wrong hands, according to the Christian Science Monitor. As a result, the United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States’ 3.0, which is 40 times higher. The United States can learn from the European stance on gun control, in order to provide a safer environment for citizens. Admittedly, it will be extremely difficult to take steps backwards on gun rights, so it may not be as successful as many hope.
Kudos Tori for the Chicago example. It serves to encapsulate the root of gun violence. As Isabel mentioned, we should all have a value for human life. As a society, we also have limited resources. I want funds going where they can save the MOST lives. We will preserve the most lives by using $ to step up our efforts against gang and drug violence. Using funds to increase police force presence in crime-concentrated areas would prevent more causalities than bickering in Congress about semi-automatic weapon. The president's plan isn't a terrible one. Like the majority of you all, I'm not opposed to universal background checks (the majority of the people we're worried about ie. criminals will just get them illegally anyway...). Funds for enforcing semi-automatic bans should be concentrated in a place will they will save more human lives. I made clear that the funds should be put towards furthering the fight against gang and drug violence. Again, the president must pick and choose his battles with Congress. This semi-automatic ban is not worth the political points from a lives saved perspective.
I believe that there should be some tighter regulations on gun control, but not enough to take away the freedom to having one. I do believe that before one can become a gun owner they should go through a mental health check in addition to the background check. This may help alert some people to those who should not have a gun. I also believe that it should be required for teachers to take a defense seminar telling them different things they should do if someone were to come into the school with a gun. According to an article from the "New American" more shootings have occurred in gun free zones then in areas where guns are allowed. I believe this is because if a shooter goes to a place and sees there are no guns, how would anyone in the building protect themselves. I think shooters would be more deterred if they knew that some people in the building had guns. There is a school in Texas that trains their teachers on how to use guns and what to do. They keep the guns hidden and no student knows which teachers have them and and which do not. I believe this is a good idea so that if something were to happen, there were people in the building who knew what they were doing.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMost gun crime in the US is gang in drug related. Of the $500 million President Obama pledged to tighten federal gun laws, the majority of that should go to the ATF to fight the illegal gun trade. The organization is understaffed and hasn't had a full time director in years (Obama's new measures have finally called for one to be appointed). Most guns are obtained illegally, so pouring a substantial amount of money we don't have toward tightening regulations on ones obtained legally seems foolish--the odds that a firearm in America will be used in a shooting spree is almost 1 in 43 million (getting eaten by a shark is 1 in 8 million).
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to see through this emotional storm, but America needs to respond rationally. Banning semiautomatic weapons will save very few lives, cause lots of controversy, cost loads of cash, and distract from the root causes that need to be addressed, namely the US's mentally unstable citizens. It's no secret that institutionalization of mental patients is too expensive for most families unless their extremely wealthy or poor. Money needs to be poured into making these facilities more accessible to middle class Americans.
On the other hand, many pro-gun states who insist the problem lays with mental-health are some of the least likely to spend money on programs. They need to hold up their end of the bargain if they want to avoid counterproductive anti-gun legislation.
The gun control "laws" are costly and useless. Obama pledged $500 in miscellaneous funds to "combat the problem," which is a part of the 4.9 billion that his announced laws will cost. That is an unprecedented amount to be spent on an executive order (other than a war--and funding for wars is eventually funded by congress once it gets the chance).
ReplyDeleteIt is not good government for the President to be able to declare massive legislation just because it is controversial and he wants it done. Because the congress is a reactionary body, and therefore does not get much of the classified, special information that the President gets, Congress is less equipped to do certain necessary things to protect the nation's security. They may not have the details to justify declaring war. The danger of gun violence does not fall into that category, however. The President should not form the practice of just deciding on laws that the congress has the ability (not to mention constitutional authority) to create.
The laws that the President created are essentially useless, as Katie stated. First of all, most guns that are used violently are not obtained legally, registered to the wrong person, or made untraceable by criminals. Americans--probably trained to think this way by solve-the-crime-in-24-hours CSI type shows--seem think that police and CSIs can shoot a murder weapon, look at a bullet, or do a biopsy of the entrance wound and find the killer. In real life, that simply isn't the case. No decent criminal (obviously mentally unstable, suicidal mass killers are an exception) uses a gun registered in their name. They steal them or trade them for drugs, women and other black market things, and in this process, the government loses the ability to track the guns to the owners. So yeah, making some more regulations on gun buying isn't going to save many lives if the criminals can get them by other means.
It is clear that these laws were not passed with the nature of criminals in mind. Criminals are not counting their bullets to make sure that they are under the legal limit. They are breaking the law anyways. I hate to say it, but banning semi auto-automatics, AK-Whatevers, or large magazines would not save lives like politicians say they will. Who's to say that the shooter won't just bring a few more guns? And if you already have a roomful of children trapped in an undefended classroom, what's to say that the shooter won't kill all of the kids despite having to take an extra few seconds to do it with a non-machine gun? It may sound irreverent, but it's true. The gun-control proponents want Americans to think that if their bans had been in place than those innocent children and their teachers wouldn't have died. It works because people want to believe that they have to power to do something to stop incidents like that. No one wants to live in fear, but people need to understand that it is in times of fear that the greatest breaches in personal freedom occur with consent of the people.
I believe that after the Sandy Hook incident, President Obama had no choice but to propose legislation for stricter gun control laws and affordable and accessible mental health care. Mass school shootings are tragedies that need to be stopped and any steps towards trying to prevent another one from occurring has my support and the support of many Americans. About 3,000 people gathered in Washington D.C to tell their government leaders that the nation needs stricter gun control laws and to show their support particularly when it comes to banning assault weapons. This shouldn't be an issue about an individual's right to bear arms but rather a change in the type of arms and ammunition available.
ReplyDeleteA point I strongly have to disagree with is if guns are the problem, why would having more guns fix this. Really it won't instead I feel that it will create an array of other potentially fatal problems. If teachers were allowed to have guns, you have to consider the possibility that this gun might get into the hands of a child. You also have to consider other scenarios such as if one of the teachers has a momentary mental lapse or emotional breakdown, that teacher would have easy access to a gun already in the school. This opens up a myriad of potential problems that seem very dangerous.
Others say that the killer would still be able to kill all of the kids with a non-machine gun. Those extra few seconds the shooter needs to reload or change guns could give teachers and staff a chance to do whatever they could to try to stop the shooter or get the children out of harms way. Those extra few seconds may not seem like a lot but it is a few precious seconds that could save a life, make a difference, and/or the authorities additional time to arrive at the school all leading to the possibility of saving a life or lives. I strongly agree with President Obama's statement that "while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try. This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe."
Threats to domestic security via internal civilian gun violence are not confined to the United States. In fact, comparable to other nations around the world such as Mexico or Brazil that are hindered by violence associated with drug related activities, or war-torn nations of the Middle East such as Afghanistan and Yemen, the United States has maintained a respectable level of domestic security. At the same time, however, when disheartening and highly publicized events like the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting occur, it is the responsibility of our government to respond in a manor most satisfying for Americans going forward.
ReplyDeleteThe Obama administration specifically proposed 4 general ways that it hopes to see in legislation to reduce the issue of gun violence. According to a document recently published on the on the Whitehouse’s webpage, these measures include “1. Closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands; 2. Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence; 3. Making schools safer; and 4. Increasing access to mental health services.” Although these propositions may be theoretically appeasing, when put into effect the results may not be as profound as anticipated.
Idealistically this blanket legislation would prevent domestic mass shootings in the future, when the fact of the matter is, technology and weaponry advances are increasing at exceedingly fast rates. As it stands, the United States is the number one importer AND exporter of small arms, according to a document published by the American Center For Progress. Nowhere within the recent gun control legislation is the issue of the mass proliferation of weaponry on an international scale specifically addressed. In my opinion, this ineptness severely hinders the law’s effectiveness.
Personally I believe that President Obama’s recent gun control stance is a great start. As Margaret stated, the amount of killings that are occurring in the United States is shocking and disturbing. President’s Obama’s recent proposal for background checks on all gun sales and bans on military style assault weapons to reduce gun violence is a great response to all the violence that has been occurring and has occurred in the United States today. But, there still needs to be much more done regarding gun violence. I think that this recent gun proposal will be effective because having background checks done on gun sales is important. It tells us exactly who wants to purchase a gun and if they have any criminal backgrounds. If a person has a criminal background, it is obvious that, that gun purchase will not go through, saving a person’s life. Unfortunately, there are many people who obtain guns illegally. More legislation needs to be passed so that people who are destructive cannot harm other people. Personally, I believe that too many guns are made and issued rather than psychiatric care. Not only do we have many psychiatric care, but health care comes along with it, which President Obama passed. Background checks help to make sure people who obtain guns are trustworthy with the guns, they prevent more than make harmful injuries. This is not a invasion of privacy that Americans have to contend with because just like airport security, there is a background check of guns. In a way, they both can be related. With all the recent gun violence occurring, it is important to have checks on people. Other changes that can be made to suppress gun violence is more legislation regarding guns, such as a minimum age requirement. There needs to be more legislation but it should balance with the second amendment- the right to bear an arm. People should definitely have the right to bear an arm, especially for personal security. With the recent Connecticut shooting, more legislation should be passed regarding teachers. Personally, I believe a teacher should be able to keep an arm at school hidden, so that if a intruder does come inside the school, a teacher can act towards the intruder. Maybe, if the teachers in Connecticut had guns, 26 civilians would not have been killed. I agree with Kristen that many schools should also have seminars that tell teachers what exactly to do if a person with a gun enters the school and is destructive.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think people who say there needs to be better psychiatric help are just trying to find a good excuse to avoid gun control. I don’t really think that we can improve much on figuring out who is crazy and who isn't - it's harder than putting laws restricting guns into place. You can't really control people like you can control inanimate objects. I don't think we should get rid of guns completely or anything - I have a cabin and tons of family that hunts like it's their job so I get it - but I don't get the need to have semi-automatic weapons and such. Sure we're a free country, but there are limits. There are still traffic lights, age limits on things, etc. I'd rather have the lives of 20 kids back then a bunch of guys sitting at home fondling with their guns. Background checks are more than okay with me, however I don’t think everyone (like teachers) should have a gun to protect themselves. I feel like that would cause even more trouble, but who am I to know? Here's a funny song for all of your enjoyment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WolkrdsvrWU I live in Farmington Hills and I don't exactly know what it's like to have to protect myself. Although the whole issue is kindof like the abortion issue - either way people are going to find a way to get one (a gun that is). Maybe I'm just biased, but my uncles friend just got shot 20 times a few days ago on his friend's front porch, and if we had stricter gun laws, then maybe it wouldn't have happened. I just don't think we should sit back and say "oh well", we need to try things out.
ReplyDeleteI think that having background checks on those buying guns is a completely logical and important thing to do. I do believe that there should be tighter gun control laws. Nobody has a practical use for an automatic weapon, so I do believe that it is the country's right to ban those kinds of weapons. It also may be useful to require mental health checks before one would be allowed to purchase a gun. I think it could prevent some gun violence. However I also believe that those who are mentally ill are not always acquiring guns in a legal matter. They may be taking them from parents, or others or buying them from shady dealers. In those cases it is very hard to stop a firearm from getting into the wrong hands, as no checks would have been able to be preformed on the individual. I think many people who have guns know how to use them safely and properly, it is just a minority who don't. However this minority is causing a lot of terrible problems. I'm not sure how this problem can be resolved though. One of the reasons I am unsure how we can resolve this problem is that those who want guns will find a way to get guns. Similar to drugs, just because they are illegal, does not mean no one has access to them, or uses them; just the opposite. I believe if guns were outlawed it would be similar, except that those who follow the law and respect others would be without guns, or any means to protect themselves from an attack from a firearm.
ReplyDeleteI think the president has done a pretty good job with the new gun legislation, the challenge he will have now is getting it passed. There is absolutely no for automatic weapons in the hands of the general population. I know a lot of people hold the 2nd Amendment very dear, however things have changed and this is no longer 1776. I agree, with Gretchen above that our country is in dire need of better psychiatric care. Better background checks are also needed and accessibility to handguns. For instance, the gun in the Columbine shooting was bought at a Walmart. What would even be the reason for a minor to own a handgun in that instance? I do not believe in gun closets in schools either because I personally would feel more at risk if my teachers were trained to use a gun. It would just aid in more accidents to occur. In a perfect world only law enforcement and military personnel would own guns, however I know that this is not possible.
ReplyDeleteI agree that President Obama’s laws may not be vastly effective in all areas of gun control. Psychologically speaking, however, President Obama had to act because citizens were at wits end due to the Sandy Hook tragedy. The regulations put into place may help some targeted areas, but it is inevitable that most criminals use guns that are obtained illegally. In response to some suggestions that teachers should have possession of guns or be trained to use guns, I strongly disagree. Some type of gun locker could be broken into by students or intruders, only escalating an incident. In addition, a teacher could be the culprit of a shooting, God forbid. I personally would not feel safer if my teachers were armed. As the saying goes, if you fight fire with fire, everyone gets burned. Increasing the number of people armed with guns will just escalate any type of violence, instead of deter it. The true solution lies in better psychiatric guidelines. The past few gun violence incidents, like Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and Colorado, have all had suspected mentally ill shooters. A person that cannot differentiate between right and wrong, defined legally as insane, should not have the ability to obtain a firearm. Intensive mental health testing is the most beneficial solution to the gun violence problem in the United States. It would be the only way to decrease mass shootings, but isolated incidents can never be completely protected from in society. Some may argue that this infringes on one’s right to bear arms, but when the common good is endangered, I believe that regulations supersede this individual right.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI 100% agree with President Obama's recent gun control legislation. Background checks, in my opinion, are not an invasion of privacy, it is something that should be necessary to handle such dangerous object. If background checks are required to get a job, then they should be required to own a weapon. The fact that background checks haven't always been necessary is frightening to me. I also agree with the ban on military-style assault weapons. Regular citizens do not need these heavy duty weapons to protect their homes from invaders, a handgun or rifle will suffice. Unless someone is planning on becoming an assault-rifle toting vigilante (which is illegal) one does simply not need one. Also, the argument that only criminals will have assault weapons is simply false. Police officers and military personnel, whose job it is to protect citizens from criminals, will still have these weapons.
ReplyDeletePsychiatric care is something that is always in need. For most Americans, who call themselves "middle class", psychiatric care is something that is just too much for them to afford. However, government assistance for psychiatric care will be hard to pass. The amount of people who are gung-ho 2nd amendment supporters would disagree with psychiatric care being used to prevent Americans owning guns. Also because of the national debt, there isn't enough money to be spent on helping Americans with psychiatric care. I hope that President Obama's gun control legislation does have an effect because the nation desperately needs it. If the amount of horrific mass shootings the US has suffered from cannot cause a change in gun control, then I don't know what will. The US cannot suffer more tragedies like Sandy Hook before it starts considering gun control legislation. After the shoe bomber tried to smuggle a bomb onto a plane in his shoe, it has been required for shoes to be taken off at airport security. After the amount of mass shootings, gun control legislation should be put in place. President Obama had to be the one to step up and do something about gun control. Hopefully this legislation will have some effect in stopping the amount of gun violence in the US.
I definitely approve of President Obama's gun control laws. It is completely ridiculous to imagine just sitting back and doing absolutely nothing when gun violence is at an all time high and lives are being lost every single day due to this. You may not agree with the way the President is going about it and everyone has different opinions, but I think everyone can agree that something must be done. I respect President Obama for at least trying something when so many people are content to ignore the issue. I agree with many of the other comments that there is no need for automatic weapons to be in the hands of ordinary citizens. More guns simply does not solve the issue of gun violence. Anyone who claims to need deadly automatic weapons for "protection" must live somewhere pretty dangerous because I can't imagine such a case. I think it's a given that background checks be utilized for those purchasing guns and the more intensive they are, the better. This is not an invasion of privacy but rather a logical system. I do not disagree that people will find ways to illegally obtain guns but repeating this sentiment and totally ignoring the epidemic of gun violence in America will not fix the problem. I sincerely hope that President Obama's legislation will have a positive impact.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that President Obama's recent gun control legislation is a good idea especially in the wake of the recent shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. I think that because of the controversial that gun control legislation creates it is very hard for these bills to get passed. I have become quite interested on this subject since the shootings in Newtown and have been interested to see if President Obama could use his popularity and new re-election to have this policy legitimately considered to be passed. There has been many speculation as to if the bill will be passed and many believe that it has a small chance. I think that this is a good start however, to decrease the amount of gun related violence in our country not just in mass shootings but also on the streets. I feel that there needs to be more strict laws on who can own guns and how many. I do understand that these types of laws are breaching our rights but I feel that freedom is not a good enough reason to allow guns to be in the hands of people who should not have them. I agree that something needs to be done and soon because these mass shootings are becoming to much a part of our daily lives.
ReplyDeleteSaying that a President "had to act" is absolutely ridiculous. Other tragedies involving children have occurred that did not warrant billions of dollars in executive order spending. When school busses crash or priests rape sunday school students, no one tries to ban priests or school busses. While children were harmed, the benefits of keeping these things around were greater than the benefits of "taking action." Some of the laws don't make sense, and some will actually be ineffective. Read this if you want an explanation:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/us/handguns-and-federal-legislation/
Politicians have taken this as an excuse to push their pet legislation ( and it you don't think they're being paid to do this you may want to crawl from beneath your rock at this time ).
Lots of international examples of gun control have been thrown around, but lets look at a domestic one.
The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws and ordinances in the country. Yet, Chicago, where most gun violence comes from gangs who don't buy their guns legally anyways, has one of the nation's highest murder rates.
A decade ago, Nashville's murder rate began to climb as the city grew and new bars opened. Given their cowboy culture, gun control in Nashville would be the ultimate struggle. Instead of gun laws, the city beefed up the police force (think police officers walking four abreast down every major street) and the murder rate dropped.
I am really not sure how this applies to schools. Arming teachers is probably not the answer. I am sure that many districts cannot afford security. I think that is where the federal government comes in. I think some of the $5 billion that was just spent on unenforceable gun restrictions and mandates could have been used to literally protect school children.
The same could be said for cities. Detroit clearly has a gun problem, but can you really see gun restrictions as having an effect on violence there? Probably not. As Katie said, those are illegal guns. But where were you when you felt safest in Detroit (other than driving on Telegraph to get there). It was probably at a Tigers/Lions/Red Wings game, Fox theater, ice skating at Campus Martius, or eating in greek town. Those places have the highest security or police presence, because those places have taxable businesses that rely on consumer confidence (who's confident when they think their in danger)? If Detroit is to make a comeback as any sort of cultural or social destination, the police force will have to clean up new areas first.
While the gun issue is complicated, it is possible that American politicians are over-complicating it. Instead of coming up with a solution, both sides are riding the support of the most polarized aspects of their bases. In doing so, Obama and his supporters are trying to wage an unwinnable fight against a long standing gun culture, saving zero lives in the process.
After re-reading everyone's comments, I still believe that President Obama's gun control legislation is constitutional and needed in a country where many killings are occurring through guns. I agree with Catherine that the gun control legislation is a good start to decrease the amount of gun related violence in our country, in mass shootings and also on the street. I also agree with Catherine that more strict laws need to be made in regards to gun control. When the Newton shooting occurred, it was in the midst of President Obama's reelection. If President Obama had not done anything regarding the shooting or passed any legislation, many citizens would have looked upon President Obama as slow and uncaring for the people of Connecticut. They would have second questioned their choice for presidency. I agree with Catherine that limit on guns can be a violation of the second amendment and unfair but freedom is not a good enough reason to allow guns to be in the hands of people who should not have them. I hope that President Obama's gun control legislation will cause less mass shootings and everyday shootings that occur in the United States.
ReplyDeleteThere have been too many mass shootings in this generation with too many innocent lives lost. The very fact that you can't even go into a movie theater or school without fear of being shot and/or killed, changes need to be made. I don't want to be scared going to these normal activities in my life. Nor do I want to feel used to these tragedies, like oh another shooting. That's why I agree with President Obama's gun control legislation. Nobody in their right mind needs those heavy duty guns. This isn't going against the second amendment either, people still have the right to bear arms.
ReplyDeleteI really applaud President Obama for trying to elicit change to help protect Americans and especially children. I hope that this dialogue will push our country forward towards coming up with some solutions to help prevent any future mass shootings from happening. Again, if even one life can be saved, it is our obligation to look at change. It is up to all of us to approach change with an open mind and explore all feasible solutions when it comes to new gun control legislation and mental health care.
I believe that America as a country needs to take a stand against gun violence. So I believe it was good that President Obama got the ball rolling with some new gun legislation, however I am still unsure about how effective those particular laws will be. Hopefully because these laws were passed, different, more effective gun legislation will be able to be passed more easily. Obviously something has to be done about gun violence. I'm glad we are doing something, but I don't know if it's the right something.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading everyone's comments, I'm sticking with my opinion that President Obama's gun law legislation was necessary. Last time I checked, 20 1st graders dying for no reason is a big deal - I don't care whether it's happened before or not. Tori states that "other tragedies involving children have occurred that did not warrant billions of dollars in executive order spending," but I don’t think that people (the president) should fail to act upon IMPORTANT things (we're talking life or death here)
ReplyDeletejust because they're the first to do so or because it will be expensive- I think we established this when tons of people (that just so happen to inhabit the same part of the U.S. that the 2nd amendment junkies do, if I may add) were freaking out about Lincoln abolishing slavery, and now we all think he was the greatest human being to walk the earth. I mean they say history repeats itself. Also, can we reflect on the fact that background checks aren’t even that big of a deal? If you want a gun and you're a psychopath the last thing I feel for you is bad, and I most definitely don't care that someone "invaded your privacy." Freedom of speech is great, so is freedom of religion and so on - but freedom to own a gun when you're a psychopath murderer is most definitely NOT great.
I still believe that President Obama was right to pass this gun control legislation. There are times to strategically sit back and wait but there are times when you have to do something, and this was one of those times. I think that if Obama had done absolutely nothing, people would be criticizing just as much if not more. He would have been viewed as apathetic, ineffective, and not standing up for what he believes in by many, including myself. I'm not an expert on the legislation and I don't think most of us are really able to say whether or not it will have a positive impact, but I hope it will and I'm glad that we are no longer ignoring this huge issue.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading everyone's comments, I agree that with the large amount of publicity that mass shootings get, especially the one in Newtown, it would have been stupid of the President to not act on this. Since the children were so young and the death toll so large, an American President could not stand by and do nothing. I think most Americans forget that we're actually talking about human life. These mass shootings have become so regular to people in this generation that Americans have become apathetic about them. But these victims were someone's children, someone's brother or sister, someone that people will undoubtedly miss. If providing background checks for people looking to purchase a gun could even have a chance of stopping another mass shooting from happening then it shouldn't even be a question. The gun control legislation proposed by President Obama is hindering freedom in order to preserve order, which is what governments in general were created to do.
ReplyDeleteOne of the ideas that I didn't discuss in my initial post on the gun control that was brought up in subsequent posts is the issue of mental health care, and its correlation to gun violence. In passing comprehensive gun control regulation in the modern era, addressing metal health is completely necessary in my opinion. Just as Gabriella stated, Virginia Tech incident, the Colorado shooting, and the most recent Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting all were seen as having been presumably associated with someone suffering from a mental illness. At the same time, receiving the federal funding necessary to support programs associated with this field is not easy to come by. This is especially true when looking at the issue of our current deficit.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the safety of Americans and looking at how one balances the issue of order vs. freedom is really what this comes down to. Personally, I think enacting this legislation could be supporting order. Sure, the federal funding could be used for other purposes, but having domestic security and order should be at the forefront of our minds. In the end, it’s going to depend on more local governments to see how this legislation will be carried out and how effective it will be.
I totally agree with Tori. President Obama did not have to act. I know this was a terrible tragedy and as a parent you want to believe that your child is safe at school, but I do not think that is solved by putting more restrictions on gun control. If someone wanted to go kill a person they would not think twice if they knew the person was not armed compared to someone who is armed. Most of the guns that are used in these shootings are illegally obtained as it is so trying to create stricter laws hurts those trying to defend themselves, not the attacker.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I understand Tori’s perspective, I strongly disagree. In ideological terms, when gun proliferation and the right to bear arms disrupt social order, that is when the government MUST step in. Most conservatives believe that the government should value social order over freedom. According to Janda, they favor firm police action, swift and severe punishment for criminals, and more laws regulating behavior. As a result, it seems illogical to be against gun control laws that maintain order in society. NOT taking action after a tragedy like Sandy Hook would be failing to protect citizens from violence and failing to protect life and property, which is the original purpose of government, also according to Janda. In addition, stricter gun control laws will have an extremely beneficial effect on gun violence in the United States. The United Kingdom, after a similar incident to Sandy Hook in 1996, passed gun restrictions that banned handguns and automatic weapons, as well as put a system of ownership rules into place involving hours of paperwork, criminal reference checks, and mandatory references designed to reduce as far as possible the likelihood of guns falling in the wrong hands, according to the Christian Science Monitor. As a result, the United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States’ 3.0, which is 40 times higher. The United States can learn from the European stance on gun control, in order to provide a safer environment for citizens. Admittedly, it will be extremely difficult to take steps backwards on gun rights, so it may not be as successful as many hope.
ReplyDeleteKudos Tori for the Chicago example. It serves to encapsulate the root of gun violence. As Isabel mentioned, we should all have a value for human life. As a society, we also have limited resources. I want funds going where they can save the MOST lives. We will preserve the most lives by using $ to step up our efforts against gang and drug violence. Using funds to increase police force presence in crime-concentrated areas would prevent more causalities than bickering in Congress about semi-automatic weapon.
ReplyDeleteThe president's plan isn't a terrible one. Like the majority of you all, I'm not opposed to universal background checks (the majority of the people we're worried about ie. criminals will just get them illegally anyway...). Funds for enforcing semi-automatic bans should be concentrated in a place will they will save more human lives. I made clear that the funds should be put towards furthering the fight against gang and drug violence. Again, the president must pick and choose his battles with Congress. This semi-automatic ban is not worth the political points from a lives saved perspective.