As I type there is active pursuit of shooting suspects in San Bernardino, California. At least 14 people were killed and another 17 injured in the mass shooting that targeted a county group meeting. Officials are looking for as many as three suspects believed to be armed with AK-47 type weapons that fled in a black SUV.
This attack, following the attacks on Planned Parenthood in Florida and the massacre at a community college in Oregon, has lead President Obama to reiterate his call for more gun control reforms. Obama spoke to CBS news, calling for “common sense gun safety laws”. The goal of these reforms is to make mass shootings in the U.S. “rare as opposed to normal”. It is a scary, but I believe true fact; mass shootings seem to be happening more and more frequently. He continued, stating that the pattern of U.S. mass shootings “has no parallel anywhere else in the world.” On the other hand, presidential candidate Donald Trump said just last week that there is little America can do to prevent mass shootings, because “that’s the way the world works.” Even after the attacks in Paris, Trump brought up the fact that those attacks were still able to happen despite France having some of the strictest gun laws in the world.
Do you agree with Trump? Or do you believe that gun control reforms will help prevent future mass shootings? Are there other ways to prevent future mass shootings? Have events like this really become the "norm"?
Obama is also urging Congress to pass a law that prevents individuals on the “No Fly List” or the people who are barred from boarding commercial flights from legally purchasing firearms. On Tuesday the Republican House unanimously voted to block a debate on this bill that would have closed a loophole that allows suspected terrorists to legally buy guns. Democrat Nancy Pelosi of California fired back at the GOP, saying that “It is outrageous that Republicans are protecting suspected terrorists’ ability to walk into a gun store and buy lethal weapons.” Instead the GOP favors laws dealing with mental health issues. House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, when speaking about last week’s shooting in Colorado said, “Clearly, we can do more, and one common denominator in these tragedies is mental illness. That’s why we need to look at fixing our nation’s mental health system.” However federally licensed gun dealers are already barred from selling guns to people who have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness. However, according to the Federal Government Accountability Office, more than 2,000 suspects on the FBI’s Terrorist Watchlist have bought weapons over the past 11 years.
If the debate on the bill happens what arguments do you think the Democrats could use to have the bill passed? What arguments could the Republicans use to stop the bill? Would you support this bill?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/house-dems-rip-gop-blocking-gun-debate-article-1.2452290
11 comments:
Currently, there is absolutely no chance of any anti-gun laws being passed in Congress. Republican leadership simply will not let it pass. I agree with you, Claire, that the only hope for bipartisan reform right now is barring mentally ill people from purchasing guns. I do not agree with Trump's criticism that gun laws did not make a difference in Paris. In fact, it is an almost completely irrational statement, seeing as the terrorists themselves were not Parisians. We could, however, look to Australia as an example. Australia's 1996 turning point, when a man murdered 35 people and wounded 23 others, led them to an intense gun-buyback program, which has allowed Australia to go 19 years without a single mass shooting. In America, though, where guns are easily accessible, there have been 355 mass shootings so far in 2015 alone-- a statistic which seems unfathomable to residents of countries were gun laws are stricter, like Australia, England, and Canada. Do I think that the Democrats will get a bill passed soon? Not really. Lobbyists against gun control are just too strong right now, and they are backed by several powerful members of the Republican Party: "Gun rights advocates, led by the National Rifle Association, form a powerful lobby that politicians fear to cross. For many of them, it is a core voting issue, a line they will not cross, which, as President Obama recently lamented, is less often true for those who want gun control" (Pérez-Peña). With such a bitterly partisan government, on top of everything else, the war on gun control is even harder to crack. Even with the fundamental logic behind the "less guns, less people getting shot in mass shootings" argument, some key legislators just won't buy into it.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/world/americas/australia-britain-canada-us-gun-legislation.html?_r=0
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/australia-gun-control_561bb80ce4b0e66ad4c86fa0
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/07/us/gun-control-explained.html
I agree with Hannah’s statement above which outlines the idea that it is entirely unrealistic for anti gun laws to pass because it would mean surpassing the lines of Republicans and anti gun control lobbyists. Also, the Republican Party can most certainly make the argument that gun control is an infringement upon their second amendment right to bear arms, which is highly unlikely to be successfully argued against. It is also noteworthy that 58% of Americans agree with stricter gun violence laws, leaving 42% of our nation that does not. This practically splits our country in half, which is telling of exactly why we stand in this stalemate in regards to the pressing issue of gun control today. However, Hannah made a rather important note in recognizing that shootings are a direct result of guns ending up in the hands of mentally ill individuals. I believe that the root of the issue of gun control lies within the action of who walks up to a store counter, purchases, and exits with a gun in their hands. How is it so that 355 mass shootings have happened in 2015 alone? To fathom the concept that 355 (or more) mentally ill individuals have ended up with a gun in their hands is evident of the flawed system that is being practiced today. There must be change in the way guns are sold to individuals. In 2014, 31, 537 individuals were killed as a results of gun violence, in 2015 on average, 89 people in the United States die at the hands of gun. It is also important to keep in mind gun violence in terms of suicide. Suicide calls for individuals who are suffering and need great emotional and mental help, which is why it baffles me that people who are so unstable and vulnerable, are given access to guns. It may be tomorrow, or it may be a week from now, however I know it will certainly be soon that another mass shooting will occur. Yes this is sad, but what is even more upsetting is the fact that we chose to not take action, and we allow people who so desperately need mental help to take their own lives and the lives of hundreds, even thousands of innocent individuals.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/national/gun-violence-numbers/npbhW/
An American dies from a gun every 16 minutes. There have been 355 mass shootings in less than a year. In the past four years, more people have died in the America from guns (including suicides and accidents) than Americans have died in the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq combined. A new Harvard research indicates that approximately 40 percent of guns in America are obtained without a background check. While I agree with Caroline and Hannah that gun control laws will be difficult to pass, I think that it is necessary to try. In the words of Ronald Reagan in 1991, a figure whom many Republicans look up to, if tighter gun control ““were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.” As Claire brought up, the new bill that would block terrorists from purchasing guns makes sense and does not seem illogical. Especially considering the fact that more than 2,000 terrorism suspects purchased guns in the past 10 years. Republicans in Congress and the N.R.A. are representing the extremists as 85% of gun owners approve of universal background checks. Statistic after statistic, each one is more disturbing. It’s time to finally do something. As President Obama said, “...We have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world. We should never that think this is something that just happens in the ordinary course of events because it doesn't happen with the same frequency in other countries." While it's true that not every shooting is preventable, with the current policy in place, it's as if we aren't even trying. I don't know how many more shooting will have to take place in order for people to understand that the root of the problem is the easy access to guns and the only way to change it is to curb that access.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/opinion/on-guns-were-not-even-trying.html?emc=edit_nk_20151203&nk1=true&nl=nickkristof&nlid=71834795&te=1&_r=0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-responds-to-san-bernardino-shooting/
The issue of gun violence has been a focal point of american conversation and recently the world. We have heard arguments for keeping guns accessible to the average citizens. On the contrary we have also heard arguments against haven't guns be so accessible to the public. I myself agree with Ally that the overwhelming statistics should be enough to get the governments attention and make some real change. They don't have to go to extremes like banning guns all together, but just some minor adjustments to the current gun laws would go a long way in preventing some of the mass shootings and the fear in the hearts of the public throughout their day. The most important thing the government needs to recognized is that nothing will get done unless the Democrats and the Republicans join forces to make a change. Each party is so set to there ways and are to stubborn to compromise for the good of the people. If the government was just a little more flexible a lot more would get done and some sort of policy could be put in place to limit mass shootings by guns. We have seen success in other countries with restrictions gun violence. Right now mass shootings are a normal occurrence and as Obama said we need to make them a rare one. Each party has arguments for their own reasons why gun laws should or should not be changed. Either way the government needs to figure it out before it's too late.
I don't agree with the prospect of just limiting guns. If you want to actually see change, we'd have to get rid of firearms all together. However, this includes black market transactions and straw purchases of firearms too. It doesn't matter how many background checks you have, because the number one way that violent individuals receive their guns is through illegal means. The way they do it is quite simple actually, they just make someone else with a clean record and a sound mind do it for them. The gun is not legally in their possession, but it doesn't even matter so. The black market also operates in a legal fashion. According to the PBS article, the second biggest source of illegal gun transactions are actually unethical transactions within legal businesses. These businesses don't care what the current regulations are, just as long as they can sell guns in a store, they'll give it to anyone no questions asked. It's ridiculous how we continue as a society to leave everything half done. If you want to limit guns, get rid of them all together. This, in my opinion, is absolutely impossible. Gun restriction laws are pointless because of one simple fact, the black market exist and the demand will always be met. Instead, we should as a society focus on preventative measures. Our culture actively isolates those who have violent or disturbing tendencies. We cast them away, we label them, we make it harder for them to assimilate into society through productive means. These people should not be labeled as "mentally disturbed" or "ill." These people are driven to their actions by their environment, neglectful and terrible environments. Their tendencies are further perpetuated by our apathy towards them, until they actually do something disgusting and horrific. Stop saying "this is an act of terrorism" or "he or her is mentally ill" and instead focus our attentions to "whose parents are neglecting their children? Who is malnourished? Who needs help in our community that isn't saying so?" This is the root of all problems. We need to nurture good behavior, not slam our heads trying desperately to prevent bad behaviors. I'm all for gun control on a ideological standpoint, but restrictions through legislation never seem to function because they don't really address the issue. So in that regard, I think Donald Trump does have a fair point. But I also agree with many democrats, let's stop sending our "hopes and prayers and thoughts" and actually do something about it. It is just so frustrating to me to see people forget about these incidents so fast. That is why it isn't shocking to anyone. These tragedies do not compound in people's heads, because we either choose to suppress them our detach ourselves from them. Imagine how the actual victims feel, seeing us all talk about their suffering and then it two weeks forget about it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
Gun control simply won't happen any time soon, this isn't simply due to the enormous power of the NRA, this is relatively based off of America's history. From a historical perspective, guns have played an instrumental role is US history. Although I agree with those above that guns should be better controlled, and even completely banned. I simply don't think it is realistic. A major reason that we rebelled against the British was due to their attempt to try to regulate and take away the colonists' guns. "In 1774, the British only had 2,000 troops in heavily-armed and seething Boston, and the British response was to take control of the powder house, which meant that Bostonians wouldn't be able to use their guns. The British also started searching for guns and ammunition without warrants. And to suppress a rebellion against their rule, the British began effectively embargoing exportation of guns and ammunition to the Colonies" (Huffington). Due to this event guns were woven into our constitution, the supreme document of our nation. Guns have become so vital the the American Community that I believe it would be extremely difficult the remove them, because that action would go against the fundamental American values.
(for some comic relief on this topic heres a great youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0 )
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lev-raphael/gun-control-is-a-fantasy_b_8229432.html
I agree with Raswaglia that it is virtually impossible for any anti gun laws to be passed in Congress right now due to the power of the Republican party. If it were possible to pass these laws, I would be in complete favor of it because the ability for people to acquire weapons with so much ease is absurd. I do believe that shootings have become the norm in America in recent years because it happens so frequently. Sure, it is tragic and causes an uproar every time. But, that does not change the fact that nothing has been done to prevent these tragedies in the future. Trump's statement that stricter gun laws in other countries does nothing to prevent mass shootings is, in my opinion, 100% false. I am in complete support of Obama's statement that our mass shootings have "no parallel anywhere else in the world." Gun laws would not necessarily prevent every single shooting, but inhibiting the death of even one person by gunshot makes stricter laws worthwhile.
Ideally, I think a combination of much stricter gun laws and improvements on the mental health care system would be very effective. Since creating stricter gun regulations does not seem to be on the horizon any time soon, I would say that improving the mental health system, as the GOP wants, is a good start.
I have to disagree with the comments above about restricting firearms completely. I think that there must be something done concerning mental illness and terrorism that cause these horrific events. However, gun control in the United States will only prevent law-abiding citizens to obtain guns; it will not prevent criminals and people with intent to perform violence from receiving guns. These criminals will be willing to break the law to get guns from either the black market or other means.
I also agree with what Katie said; having the freedom to bear arms is a fundamental American value and United States citizens should still hold the right to defend themselves.
Despite my opinions about gun control, I believe that Obama’s idea for the “No fly list” law is a good idea; I think it is a good idea to possibly prevent potential terrorists from receiving guns. However, I also agree with Paul Ryan’s statement that we must deal with mental illness more effectively.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-resist-democrats-call-for-tighter-gun-control-1449182078
The problem we have in our country is that we have a gridlock going on in terms of the morality of our laws and how people view them. Gun control could do a service to reduce the number of incidents that occur in our country. I think that sometimes, to protect the lives of many, certain restrictions have to be put in place by those who wish to serve the greater good. However, we live in the United States of America, a country that praises individualism. People want to have control over themselves and have as much power as they are allotted. When people suggest checks on guns to reduce violence, there is a sense of restricting freedoms as it violates their basic rights given to them in the Constitution. And there are those who fear if the government were to restrict their rights even a little, it could lead to worse situations where they have even more liberties taken away, until we are no longer have the ideals this country was founded on. The roadblock we encounter is though, both arguments are valid. It's just a matter of if you can see gun control as helping to prevent this and if you care more about saving lives or not. In the end, I think there should be more restrictions placed on the purchase of firearms, as I am tired of constantly hearing about shootings in the news.
I agree with raswaglia's comment, as the Republican majority in both houses will no doubt prevent the passage of a gun-control bill. It is absolutely astounding that Republicans in Congress are so willing to stem the entry of Syrian immigrants, the vast majority of which are simply trying to flee a war-torn country, because they are frightened that a few may be terrorists, and yet they are not reluctant to block a bill that would prevent potential mass-shooters from purchasing weapons. Trump's ridiculous statement that gun violence should be accepted as a norm is absurd, considering that this extraordinarily high rate of gun violence in the US is not characteristic of developed nations. Actions can be taken, and they start with gun control.
As I previously mentioned, however, Congressional Democrats will have little success when it comes to supporting this upcoming bill. Though they will argue that gun violence is pervasive and must be curbed through gun regulations, Republicans will immediately fire back by blaming radicalization and mental health, and eventually their Congressional majority will make them victorious.
Though I agree with athenanz that mental health reform should be a large focus, it is evident that nothing will be done about this either. Republicans like Speaker of the House Ryan constantly attempt to divert attention from guns to the mental health scapegoat, when in fact they simply do not care about reforming it. They only want to shift attention from guns to mental health until the latest gun-related tragedy blows over, then they abandon their false concern for American mental health services; However, as soon as another massacre occurs, they magically regain interest in something they could not care less about.
In addition, mental health reform should not be regarded as a panacea for gun violence. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, fewer than 5% of the 120,000 gun killings that occurred in the US between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with mental illnesses, and only 3-5% of US crimes in general are committed by people with psychiatric disorders. Alcohol, drugs, abuse, and various other factors contribute to violent crime, and so people with mental illness should not be targeted in the aftermath of shootings. The vast majority of mentally ill people will never commit a violent crime in their lifetime, and so putting so blaming gun violence excessively on mental health services often demonizes innocent people who suffer from these disorders (www.NIH.gov).
Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/
Post a Comment