This article talks about the two sides of gun control after the horror of the recent shooting in Newtown , Connecticut and their validity. It then talks about the dismantling of the American community, how people can no longer have an "every man for himself" attitude that our society is a broad community and to how long will we tolerate the collateral damage that gun ownership of high powered "assault" weapons create when psychopaths use them to kill people.
Though I disagree with any further measure to restrict these types of weapons from law-abiding citizens, some of you may think strict gun control is the answer.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I understand that many people believe it is there right to own a weapon, but I believe we need to reevaluate the lack of restrictions. Today, many accidents and attacks could have been prevented were stricter gun laws in place. While these laws would not stop everything, they would be a necessary step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting (though not surprising from Huffington Post) that this author claims that conservative values decrease a sense of community, in contrast with the article we read about Red versus Blue America, which held that in Blue America there was a much larger sense of self and decreased community sentiment in Blue America relative to Red. I think conservatism (and the other ideologies commonly associated with it)promotes a sense of community by holding with traditional, moral values.
ReplyDeleteAs I have said before, I see both sides. Although we have the right to bear arms, some people just shouldn't be allowed to have them at all. I feel that, if anything, gun restrictions should add a background check on the people so that the sellers at least have some sense on who they are selling a gun too. People with specific problems or criminal records just shouldn't be allowed to by them at all. Simple. Yes, I can see that some human may look good, but turn bad in the end, it at least gives gun sellers a chance to see if they should sell them to that person or not. No matter what, there will always be these cruel people in the world.
ReplyDeleteI think we should place restrictions on gun controlled. We can't end the right to bear arms, because everyone deserves a change to have guns, but some people who don't meat a specif standard shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that taking away our Constitional right to bear arms solves the problem we have at hand.
ReplyDeleteWhat many people don't realize is that taking our guns away will only increase our gun rate. Today, there are two types of people- law abiding citizens (LAC) and criminals. LAC's obviously obey the law. If guns were ever to be banned, they would abide by these laws/restrictions. Criminals, on the other hand, will do whatever it takes to get their hands on guns. Who is now at an advantage? That's right, the criminals. Secondly, gun control laws do nothing. As we can see from the CT shooting, the guns used were purchased legally by Lanza's mom. In CT, you must be 21 to purchase and own a gun. Lanza was only 20. He STOLE those guns. What makes banning these guns any different? It's just as easy to steal a weapon as it is to go to the streets and illegally purchase ones. What's the difference here, again? Criminals can still purchase guns. LAC's cannot.
ReplyDeleteSome people are against guns that fire over a certain speed. Let's take a look at super fast sports cars, and cars in general. Car crashes kill several people each year. Most cars can reach 100+ MPH. Why do we need a car that goes 100+ mph? What's the point? Both cars and guns kill people. Lastly, guns do not kill people. Guns are inanimate objects. It physically takes a person to pull the trigger. A gun, sitting by itself, cannot kill ANYONE. Same thing applies for drugs like Meth and Heroin. We should make those illegal too... oh wait.
Further restrions on American's right to bear arms is not the way to deal with this situation. Taking away peoples' rights to own a gun or highly restricting them only takes the self-defense it offers away from its owners. Regardless of law, if someone wants a gun he will find a way to obtain that gun. A criminal will always find a way to get a gun (he will not follow the law). My thought is if the school in Newtown, Connecticut had a gun on hand (in cases of emergencies) there would not be as many casualties.
ReplyDeleteI would like to think that fighting fire with fire is not the solution to this. Call me naive, but I think there is a better way to decrease gun violence without arming every elementary school, workplace, and home. Obviously there are always ways of getting a gun and people willing to shoot them. I think tighter security, stricter regulations, thorough background checks, and more funding towards mental health research etc all combined could provide a tight defense. There isn't just one solution to this complicated problem.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, the author states that "if anything positive can come out of this, it's that the collective sense of wrongness is felt across society, and that this is a challenge to the persistent and malicious notion of a dehumanized and decontextualized hyper-individualism." I believe this has happened, and there is even proof of this in our own hometown. Possibly every time that I have driven past one specific gas station, I see adults holding signs that say phrases such as "Guns Kill Our Children" or "We Need Better Gun Control Laws." This event has certainly brought the subject to the front of our minds and maybe something will be done regarding the law. I'm also certain that this type of awareness is shared throughout the nation.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that stronger gun laws will necessarily make a difference. If we cannot enforce the laws we alraedy have what makes us think that we will be able to enforce new ones? Let's focus on perfecting what we have before delving into some new 'solution'
ReplyDeleteI agree with the sentiment that laws controling gun use would be a step in the right direction. I've said it before and I'll say it again: any life saved is worth the effort it takes to save that life. If legislation is what it takes to save that life, then how can we not take that step?
ReplyDeleteI believe that every citizen should be allowed to bear arms with certain limitations on weaponry. I definitely think that those who dont abide by the law now, would not have any incentive to abide it in the future.
ReplyDelete