He made this statement because he was defending gun rights, stating that the second amendment was sacred and does not in fact cause spilled blood. He claimed that it was in fact the victims themselves who do not have the courage to stand up to their attacker, which is not only lacking in sympathy but also highly in correct.
He blamed Obama for politicizing the event by embracing the families of the deceased, yet this was and inevitability of such a tragedy. An event like this is bound to have a drastic impact on policy and politics, especially due to the constant debate over gun control and the governments role in restricting it. Therefore, he made the above statement saying that he would have fought back in a situation like this.
He then went even further as to say that he believes that arming the "good guys" is the answer. Once of Carson's solutions was to have the NRA train kindergarden teachers in weaponry. Saying that it would instill a sense of comfort in the class room... which is quite paradoxical.
Carson is not the only one to struggle with mustering sympathy towards these mass shootings when discussing gun control. Jeb Bush was criticized for saying that "stuff happens" when asked about gun controls and the affect is has on mass shootings. Republicans have argued over and over again about how gun control is out the the federal governments control.
Do you think that gun control is within the scope of the federal governments powers? Do you believe that it should be restricted? How long to you think it will be before they begin to seriously act? And how should presidential candidates react to gun control and mass shootings?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting/
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/06/ben-carson-says-he-would-have-been-more-aggressive-against-oregon-gunman/?ref=politics
7 comments:
I think that the United States is in serious need of gun control reform. America is notoriously known for gun violence and mass shootings opposed to other countries. Especially, in recent years with Sandy Hook, Aurora, Colorado, and the most recent Umpqua Community College shooting, these tragedies have almost become the norm. In Nicholas Kristof's recent article, "A New Way to Tackle Gun Deaths," he cites the horrible statistic that more preschoolers are shot dead each year (82 in 2013) than police officers are in the line of duty (27 in 2013), according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI. This a horrifying number that is not seen in any other country. Kristof proposes interesting ways to make guns safer such as "smart gun" technology that have pins and liability insurance. I think that it is within the scope of the federal government, and Congress needs to take action now. At this point, it's necessary for the federal government to step in, especially if the state legislatures are failing to do so. Controversy over this opinion is seen in the lawsuit by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence against Kansas to halt enforcement of the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act. Too many lives have been lost and this nation has mourned too many times for something not to be done.
In terms of the presidential election, I think it's important for them to address the issue of gun violence and gun control; however, they must do this in a way that is respectful to the family and friends of the victims. Ben Carson did not do this as he insinuated that the victims lacked courage. These tragedies will inevitably create more debate over an already hot-button issue. I am interested to see if any reform will ever be enacted.
Sources:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/could-congress-actually-pass-new-gun-laws.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-a-new-way-to-tackle-gun-deaths.html?_r=0
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/21/15240/state-lawmakers-take-aim-federal-gun-control
Because the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution, which was supposed to be the supreme law of the land, I do not believe trying rewrite the amendment is entirely lawful. However, with the absurd amount of mass shootings in the past couple of decades, it is becoming more and more necessary to control WHO should be eligible to own a firearm. It has become a common topic that background checks on criminal records and mental health history should be one of the determining factors of purchasing a gun, it seems that no actions have officially been made to contribute to such issues. Banning guns, in my opinion, is just as unconstitutional as repealing the First Amendment: freedom of speech, and as much as people want gun violence to be out of the picture, banning them will hardly stop those who want a gun from getting one. Just as someone could have a drug dealer on speed dial,others could call up their gun deal and ask for a machine gun, no questions asked.
This tragedy is another reminder that the United States needs to revaluate gun laws. As Ally said above, serious gun control reform is needed and needed now. There have been at least 44 school shootings, an average of more than three a month, on K-12 or college campuses since the Sandy Hook tragedy in 2012. These numbers are way too high and they don't include the countless other attacks that have taken place on places such as movie theaters or churches. I believe that gun control is within the scope of the federal governments powers and they need to take action now. People across the country, many parents, are living in fear of doing regular day activities or sending their children to get an education. If state legislatures are not standing up, then the federal government must. The Constitution, the supreme law of land, in Article II grants people the right to bear arms. While I agree that people have a right to own guns, I believe that their needs to be strict restrictions on them.
I think that this should be a crucial point for candidates to discuss. I respect that Ben Carson is bringing up the controversial topic, however his comments could be seen by some, especially by victims, as victim shaming. I doubt this was his intention, however I think that the topic needs to turn from how people should react when faced with a shooter to how can we prevent people from facing these situations in the first place.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/02/13/at-least-44-school-shootings-since-newtown-new-analysis/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/oregon-shooting-ben-carson-survivor/index.html
I feel that gun control is not within the scope of the federal government’s powers due to the fact that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land”. I also do not believe that is right to restrict the laws on guns. The Second Amendment does have a purpose, and its purpose is to protect the rights of citizens to defend themselves in the face of oppression. I think that citizens are still entitled to this right even with the change in times. If we give up our guns, we give the government the tools to oppress us. Furthermore, I do not believe that gun control is the ultimate solution to solving the issues of shootings. Many have said that gun control would have the effect of prohibition and that people would still find ways to get guns even though restrictions would be in place. President Obama has even said that we should have laws like those of the UK and Australia (have gun control laws). However, studies have shown that countries with tighter gun laws have resulted in more shooters per capita (WSJ). I think it is necessary for there to be assessments of mental health of citizens and more restrictions and background checks for them to buy guns. Mental health is something that needs to be addressed in this country and is something that is constantly ignored.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359?tesla=y
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-gun-control-myths-that-just-wont-die/
Do you think that gun control is within the scope of the federal governments powers? Do you believe that it should be restricted? How long to you think it will be before they begin to seriously act? And how should presidential candidates react to gun control and mass shootings?
Ben Carson has obviously done absolutely no research on the topic of gun control. His idea that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is idiotic. According to an article published by Rolling Stone, "No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime" (Marcotte). At this point, this argument is getting exhausting. One instance of a vigilante trying to save the day ended up in the wrong person nearly being shot, according to NBC. During the Gabby Giffords shooting, a man pulled out a gun to try and kill the shooter, but nearly shot the wrong person, and the actual shooter was later tackled by another person.
Gun control is in the Federal scope. We repealed an amendment (Eighteenth amendment, anyone?) already, so why would it be so radical to try and repeal the second? It doesn't make sense that machines made to kill are an American right. The Second Amendment was made when it took nearly a minute to reload a gun and even then, it just shot musket balls. If the Founding Fathers knew what some of our guns did today, they might rethink the second amendment as well.
Sources:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41018893/ns/slate_com/t/armed-giffords-hero-nearly-shot-wrong-man/#.VhcMfhNViko
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001
I believe America is in desperate need of reform. Too many people are killed because of gun violence and this is not going to stop unless guns are taken off the streets. I understand people believe in the need to defend themselves, but if guns were made harder to access then there would not be as much of a need to defend yourself against one. Wherever guns are easily available, it is proven that there will be more deaths. America represents about 4% of the world's population, yet American citizens in total have 44% of the civilian owned guns in the world. American citizens have more guns than citizens from any other country and that is completely unnecessary. America is the leading country in gun-related homicides. Something needs to change. The second amendment is interpreted too loosely. The Constitution states a "well regulated militia" has the right to bear arms and I don't believe the average citizen counts as a regulated military force.
Sources:
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics
It boggles mind that there are individuals in this country, who in the wake of the absurd amount of mass shootings these past few years, still completely oppose any action taken on gun control. The facts are there, they have all been read, and its clear that our country has not only a gun problem, but an epidemic. Why does any person need to own a semi automatic or automatic rifle? These weapons were literally designed to kill, not for sport. The second amendment was intended for our citizens to own guns in an effort of self defense against other citizens and even the government if that situation ever arose. The ideas of our founding fathers have been skewed and taken out of context to the point where literal crazy people can buy a military grade semi automatic weapon, and inflict whatever damage they please among innocent civilians. While the right to bear arms should not and cannot be completely stripped away, it is undoubtedly time for stricter measures imposed upon the sale of semi automatic weapons, background checks, and accessibility to firearms.
Post a Comment