Check out the link below:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/16/congress.gun.control/index.html?hpt=T2
-Matt
Monday, January 17, 2011
Democrats face tough fight on gun control after Tuscan shootings
I know Dave brought up this topic last week, but yesterday Democrats brought up the issue in Washington. Two issues presented include: bringing back the ban on assault weapons, or tightening enforcement of existing gun control law and regulations. I found this article interesting because despite the Tuscon shooting as well as other tragic shootings in the past there is still significant resistance to gun control. Last week the class shared similar ideas about this issue. However, Democratic Senator Schumer says: "There haven't been the votes in Congress". Republicans also cite failure to detect mental illness, not lax gun laws. Is the issue here even gun control? The article also brought up the idea if more people actually carried guns then perhaps someone could have stopped the Tuscon shooter before he did all this damage. What are your thoughts on this idea? If gun control can't get by congress, do we drop the idea and turn our attention to detection of mental illness, not lax gun laws?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My belief after reading this article is basically what the Republican Coburn said,
ReplyDelete'If you have somebody that is a criminal, that wants to get around the law, they're going to get around the law...is that people who are going to commit a crime or going to do something crazy aren't going to pay attention to the laws in the first place.'
This just rings true for the Tucson shooting. It is very tough for the FBI or police to investigate a man who had been taking drugs excessively to find him and take away his right to bear arms. It just does not seem that this is an important thing to pursue and not cost-feasible, but no one expects him to turnaround and gun people down. It just seems like people are always going to get around this type of issue, whether or not the gun-law is in place. Mental illness is also a tough thing to track down because of the stipulations that determine a person has mental issues or not. This has been a touchy subject ever since it was determined that insanity can be a legal condition used to help lessen punishment on criminals. Crazy people are going to be around with guns whether or not the gun laws are in place, but this isn't a reason to give up trying to limit the possibility of another shooting. I just am not sure if this is the best route to take.
I disagree with Republican Coburn's statement. If this were the case, why are the murder rates in Canada and Australia, for example, so much lower than in the United States? Are people just naturally less violent in those countries? No. They have much stricter gun laws. Simple things that we could easily implement in the U.S. For example, in Canada there is a 28 day wait period when buying a handgun. What's wrong with this? In my opinion, if you need to buy a handgun immediately, you are probably planning on using in immediately.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I disagree completely with the statement about "more people having guns around the shooter in Arizona." The article I read last week before making my post stated that numerous studies have shown that having a gun poses a greater risk of being shot than not owning one. Here are two quotes from the article:
"But the evidence is overwhelming that firearms actually endanger those who own them. One scholar, John Lott Jr., published a book suggesting that more guns lead to less crime, but many studies have now debunked that finding."
"A careful article forthcoming in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine by David Hemenway, a Harvard professor who wrote a brilliant book a few years ago reframing the gun debate as a public health challenge, makes clear that a gun in the home makes you much more likely to be shot — by accident, by suicide or by homicide."
Therefore, I find it hard to agree with the statement, "I need a weapon to protect myself and my family." You are putting yourself and others in more danger by doing this.
This argument reminds me of the murder suicide on K's campus that occurred years ago. The assailant was obviously mentally unstable, but there was no record of it. He was able to purchase a handgun at the armory shop on Westnedge, which he then used later in the week to murder his ex-girlfriend and kill himself. It is entirely impossible to account for all mentally ill people in the issue of gun sales.
ReplyDeleteShumer is right, we all have the right to protect ourselves, but if gun control were tightened we would have less to protect ourselves from. Like Dave said,the ownership of a gun does not ensure safety. The moral of the story is that tighter gun control is necessary even though many Americans find it abhorrent. The Constitution is a document with the ability to be amended....just saying.
I also think that America should impose much stricter gun laws and regulations, but I think that the problem still remains in the black market. Regardless of whether assault weapons are banned or there is tighter gun control, people, usually criminals, will still be able to purchase guns and ammunition illegally if they so desire. This may be a naive theory, but perhaps more severe penalties for criminal usage of firearms could help lower crime and violence in America.
ReplyDelete