Tuesday, February 5, 2013

American Government 2/4/13

In Class - Watch a few of the Super Bowl commercials.  Continue to discuss the issue of gun violence in the United States.

Homework - QOW due by Saturday, February 9 by 11:59 pm.  Start uploading articles/resources to your blog.  1st discussion is on Friday, February 8.

QOW - Using a minimum of two (2) outside resources and including an MLA works cited, respond to the following prompt.

Considering what you have learned regarding gun violence in the United States, why do you think the national conversation regarding the issue of gun violence and the 2nd Amendment is so heated?  What arguments are being presented from both sides, and where do you stand on this issue?


carmina vargas said...

I think the reason why this topic is so heated is because of the wrong use of a gun.People go out and buy guns for protection but yet some of those people are the ones going out and doing harm.In the article about Obama is just talking about a backround check on guns but more than just a backround check needs to be made. In the 2nd article it talks about getting rid of guns is an issue due to not knowing who has guns, how many are out there, and also how they are being used.In my own opinion i think the 2nd article kind of has a point because they will never entirley get rid of guns from people. But i do think that there should be a strict backround check on people trying to own a gun. Then again people never listen to state laws anyways. One way or another people will get a hold of a gun.I encourage both articles both have good ideas. Good ideas dont need to be just said or written down they need to be done.Hopefully stuff starts moving sooner than later before more harm is done to innocent people.

Best, J. (2002). Gun violence in america: The struggle for control. The Journal of American History, 89(3), 1147-1148. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224897662?accountid=3288

President obama reveals plan to reduce gun violence in the united states. (2013, Jan 16). Targeted News Service. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1270873963?accountid=3288

edwin vargas said...

i stand on the gun owners side because it is pointless to have the g.o.v. reduce the weaponry within the people of the United States. it is way to controversial and it goes directly against the second amendment, i agree that we do need to modernize our constitution because the times have changed we do not live in the 1700s any more this is 2013, we have different problems in this time period and we need a modern constitution that will be fully understandable and followed by the people and not abuse the rights that had been given to us from birth, yes we are all human, yes no one is perfect, but if theirs one thing us as a people can do is to change our way of life so others can also live peacefully and not just our selves. guns don't kill people the person person holding the gun kills people. ------------- Weil, D. S., & Hemenway, D. (1993). I am the NRA: An analysis of a national random sample of gun owners. Violence and Victims, 8(4), 353-65. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/208565360?accountid=3288

Aguayo_jesus said...

I believe it is so heated because either way, their a serious problem in trying to stop these outrageous shootings. There is no way a crazy gunman like Adam Lanza could have been provoked my savouring an assault rifle. He himself had a crazy reasoning behind his motive. Guns are not the problem. Enforcing gun restrictions is the solution. Such as, in both my articles, it is mentioned that gun permits should not be sold to people with mental disabilities. Yet, my better point, suppose government regulates gun restrictions, and banns mentally ill people from purchasing a gun, we will never know when that person will snap and have a complete breakdown, fleeing the streets, killing everyone. Therefore, I believe a yearly mental illness background check would be a smart idea. ---Appelbaum, P. S., M.D., & Swanson, J. W., PhD. (2010). Law & psychiatry: Gun laws and mental illness: How sensible are the current restrictions? Psychiatric Services, 61(7), 652-4. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/750304815?accountid=3288
---McGovern, O. (2012). The responsible gun ownership ordinance and novel textual questions about the second amendment. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(2), 471-496. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1267507443?accountid=3288

Taylor Buccinna said...

I say let us keep our guns!!! i think there should be some precautions before someone is allowed to buy a gun, possibly a background check,or a criminal record,things like that. If they decide to take our guns away people WILL find ways to get guns illegally and use them illegally as they are doing now. Guns aren't the things that are killing people, the person with there finger on the trigger is the one killing people. One side of our people think its a right to own a gun while the other half doesn't think the that we have the rights to own a gun. What will really come out of this if they take away our guns? We live in a crazy world with what seems like more and more crazy people coming about. we have should have that right to protect ourselves if our friends family or ourselves are in any sort of danger. At what point do we stop re-writing the constitution? Guns arent the only concern in this world with the deaths that follow. people get in car accidents everyday and die from car accidents everyday, are they going to try and ban us from cars too? The bottom line is that people that are doing things with bad intentions are going to carry through with whatever weapons they can find, to include knives,cars, or other lethal means to harm others. Doesn't the US constitution for the right to bear arms provide honest hard working american citizens the right to protect themselves and there families?



Codey Willis said...

I'm not really choosing a side in this debate, personally I'm not a fan of guns because I feel humanity has abused the invention of fire arms. I know that getting rid of guns is not an option, but neither is just sitting around doing nothing. I would like both sides to step up and agree that no matter what the differences are, something needs to be done in order to stop gun violence taking the lives of innocent people. Over the course of this week discussing this topic, I have mainly heard the party against guns discuss solutions, while the party that is for guns seems to only get mad and make radical threats. Now i did some searching in order to find some solutions from the party that is for guns. The most common suggestion, which really seems to be their only idea, is to arm all public areas will armed guards. I'll admit it is a good idea and probably have a positive effect, but due to recent events i don't think I would personally like to put my life in someones hands when they could easily be the one that causes harm. Thanks to the recent shootings from the EX-COP!!! in OUR neighborhood, I don't believe we really can trust anyone with firearms. Another idea presented was to allow people to shoot first and think later against attackers or possible attackers. With laws that allow people to shoot each other, people would be less likely to confront people, but people would probably end up making the wrong call. I don't think putting that decision in public hands is necessarily the best option. I am considerate to those who love their guns and love the 2nd Amendment, but i believe the real solution relies in background checks and less firearm options. I agree that it won't stop all gun violence, but it would give victims a bit more of a chance if people are using handguns rather than full-auto assault rifles.
work cited
Congressman Richard E. Neal Calls for Common Sense Solutions to Gun Violence. Lanham, United States, Lanham: Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc, 2013. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 7 Feb. 2013.

The Monitor's View. "Scattershot Solutions to Gun Violence." The Christian Science Monitor: 08. Dec 12 2005. National Newspapers Core. Web. 7 Feb. 2013 .

McKayla Gordon 23 said...

I believe that the reason this discussion on gun violence has gotten so heated is because there is so many different perspectives that people have on guns. Just like myself and I know most likely several others have a liking for guns. Or they may not like guns but still I think it is great that we can own guns. If we were not able to own guns I think we would have a larger amount of people upset then we would if we just left things the way they are. To know that I have a gun in my home is a great feeling because if there was someone to invade my home with a gun I know that I have about the same level of defense that they do. As well as we can try and say what we think about getting rid of guns but it will never get to the point of no one having a gun there will be several people who have them illegally and what would we do then if all we had was a knife and they have a gun that they can stand back far away and defend them self’s with it? I do think to own a gun not only should you have to take that written test but you should have to take many other mental tests to make sure you are fit to own a gun. But even with that there will be people that get a hold of guns that should not have a gun and they do but just think about it, it’s not the gun that is killing the person it is the people that kill people.
Moorhouse, John C., and Brent Wanner. "Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or does Crime Increase Gun Control?" Cato Journal 26.1 (2006): 103-24. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 8 Feb. 2013.
Best, Joel. "Gun Violence in America: The Struggle for Control." The Journal of American History 89.3 (2002): 1147-8. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 8 Feb. 2013.

Juliette Aria said...

I believe the reasons why it is so heated is because that no body likes their rights taken away to do something. If the government start telling us what we shouldn't do it will turn to what we should do then to what we are expected to do. Most people feel like this will be the start of controlling the people of the United States, and nobody want's that. But on the other issue is that their is a problem going on with killing with guns everything from suicide to mass murders. People think that getting rid of guns overall is the solution or putting more regulations on guns should be the solution. This is where it gets very heated. I believe the steps they are taking currently with more regulations should be the case, right now they are trying to pass a Sin Tax on all violent video games like Call of Duty and etc. of 10% and that money will go to the mental health funding. Which I think its a fantastic idea since a lot of people argue saying people are "Sane" while doing these violent acts with guns, which is more than likely not the case. A lot of mental health problems go unnotice or diagnosed since most people cant readly go and get help and most of the times they are disregarded. Like for example BPD of Boarderline Personality Disorder and other personality and mood disorders can make a person seem sane or feel sane when they are having an episode leading to thoughts of hurting one self or others and having guns readly available in household makes someone suffering with a disorder like this(that went unnoticed) more easy to commit suicide or kill their whole family. I believe that the solution should be go through with the Sin tax, and have where gun owners would need stricter regulation and the household to get mentally evalutated semi annually, along with other requirements. This should bring down the death toll noticably in a few years.

Tassi, Paul. "Connecticut Considers 10% Tax on M-Rated Games." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 06 Feb. 2013. Web. 09 Feb. 2013.

DWYER, DEVIN. "Sheriff Targets Mental Illness Link to Gun Violence." ABC News. ABC News Network, 08 Feb. 2013. Web. 09 Feb. 2013.

Nicholas Smith said...

This conversation regarding gun violence is so heated for many reasons. Making a decision on what to do about the gun murders is not an easy task and it’s very noticeable. Certain people have different ideas of what to do about this problem we have here in the U.S. A huge reason why I believe it is so heated is because every single day we add to our list of deaths by guns. Guns can be looked at as a problem and a solution, which makes it even more difficult to find a solution. In one way, guns can be a huge problem; it gives us citizens too much power owning such a fatal device that can end someone’s life sooner then wanted. I can see that obviously this is a problem for a lot of the deaths in the United States. In other ways the ownership of guns for the people is also a good thing as a safety feature. Many arguments have been made as why it’s a good thing like a home invasion from a different country. The people can always fight for themselves instead of being gun less, vulnerable, and without a chance. Getting rid of the 2nd amendment would never happen and be absurd to take away something of great tradition here in the U.S. But again, that is just my opinion. I stand on the keeping more guns side and for good reason. I believe in the people being able to protect themselves when needed. The government’s one purpose is to serve and protect. If they want to live up to their motto, they need to start trying a little harder, because right now, the United States has a really big problem that needs to be solved.

Best, Joel. "Gun Violence in America: The Struggle for Control." The Journal of American History 89.3 (2002): 1147-8. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 8 Feb. 2013.

Hemenway, D., Azrael, D., Miller, M., & Cummings, P. (2001). Are guns used more by US civilians for self-defense or for intimidation? / commentary. Western Journal of Medicine, 174(6), 396-396. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200525499?accountid=3288

jayla bailey said...

The argument of gun violence and the 2nd amendment is so heated because while the NRA and those against guns have given their great opinions on the situation, nothing is being done about it. Just like one of the political cartoons given to us, this whole debacle is like a hockey game; the puck being passed back and forth, and the players bashing into each other for a long time without a goal being made. Shootings and other attacks are still occurring as these conversations are having no effect. I believe that “We the people” of the United States should be allowed to keep our guns because without them we would feel less protected. Although the purpose of our government is to “protect and serve,” that job isn’t entirely being done. Banning guns entirely would only cause a counter attack; the people would fight back. Even trying to forcefully take the guns away would stir up chaos within this country, and probably cause even more deaths due to those who will repulse the new law. I do agree with some of the adjustments that the pro-gun control party is trying to push forward, such as reduce the amount of ammunition in the gun clips, removing military-grade weaponry from the hands of civilians, and requesting that those who wish to receive a license to own a gun to take numerous background checks and mental assessments. But where are these funds going to come from? Many could argue that these tests won’t completely depict whether someone is fully sane or not. Anybody at any moment, can just flip-the-switch and commit “mass murders.” James Eagan Holmes, the gunman at the movie theater shooting in Aurora, was a high scholar and received great honors from schools he attended. At one point, his academics declined and withdrew from UIUC without any reason. He flipped. Taking away the guns could lessen the attacks, but also raise our chances of easily being attacked. There really isn’t much we can do about this dilemma.

O'Keefe, Ed. "House Democrats Unveil Gun-control Proposals." Post Politics. The Washington Post, 7 Feb. 2013. Web. 9 Feb. 2013. .
Eskow, Richard. "SALON." Saloncom RSS. Salon Media Group, Inc., 25 Jan. 2013. Web. 09 Feb. 2013. .

Emily Delgado said...

It's so heated for many reasons. For example, we've talked about this before. Talked this for oh only 5o-60 years. Another example is that we love our guns. Like how we love our cars. I'm sure there are people that are obsessed guns. Or just maybe love them a bit too much.
The 2nd amendment hasn't been much of a problem the last couple centuries. Until now of course but America isn't the same as it now compared to 50 years ago. But even after all this new and improved technology, America still doesn't like change. I mean like "sudden", "major" changes. For example, up until 2008, Obama became our very first black president. Also, they picked a colored person first instead of a female. Hillary Clinton could of been our first female president but no. The people voted for Obama instead of Clinton. Another big thing are the gay people. I just want to say, I support them. They deserve every right to love each other. Nothing wrong with that. Just different. And sadly, no one likes different. And no one really likes change. We are rather stubborn, conceited, and... stupid people.
There are basically three sides to this issue. People that support guns, people that hate guns, and people that don't really care about guns because they're thinking, "Hey, that's a nice cloud. I like that cloud." (I'm just being sarcastic about the cloud thing if you can't tell). But yeah. I'm either neutral or against guns. Guns were made for one purpose and one purpose only, to hurt. Sometimes for the good, and sometimes for the bad. But if you don't look at that, they still hurt. With a gun you can of course go hunting. Animals or humans. Protect yourself from criminals, or be the criminal and shoot people down.
I think that is all I can come up with. Thank you for reading. Have a nice break!

"gay rights movement (political and social movement) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Britannica Online Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2013. .

"Sandy Hook Massacre Changes Gun Control Conversations : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2013. .

BFGuzman said...

I think that the reason that the issue regarding gun violence and the 2nd amendment is so fired up right now is because people are being very stubborn about their opinion on the subject and they refuse to listen to both sides of the argument. Individuals have chosen their side- as an advocate of a) gun rights or b) the annihilation of guns in general- and they refuse to let their opinion be altered with. Those that advocate the right to bear arms, to an almost unhealthy extremity, do not desire to take the time to consider the positive effect of limiting the easy accessibility of guns. Those that are completely against guns, blame guns for killing people, when it is obvious that guns are not the problem, but the people behind them are. Statistics “indicate that gun control effects have a very mild effect on the number of gun related deaths while socioeconomic variables such as a state's poverty level, unemployment rate and alcohol consumption, have significant impact on firearm related deaths” (Kwon, Ik-Whan G., et al)- so we are looking at the wrong thing to begin with. People are focusing on only one factor that effect our crime rate, while there is many other extraneous factors that contribute to our high crime rate. I do not agree with the total elimination of guns but I do believe that certain limitations need to be enforced, at least so we can test and see for ourselves if these regulations will really, if not, that is a factor we can cross out of our check list. The second article that I read says that if our “government [is] extensive and intrusive enough to regulate all private transfers of firearms [it] would raise significant civil liberty issues” (John, C. M., & Wanner, B), and I do agree that that would be the case, but people are going to get over it, like they do with everything else. People just need to stop being selfish and ignorant about the subject. People tend to, if not always, base their decision on what is best for themselves, in the short run, rather than to what is best for them and for everyone else in the long run. Overall I believe that even though gun owners believe that their right to the 2nd amendment is being violated, they should stop and consider these limitations as a positive entreaty to themselves and their families. They should agree to these limitations, that way people can see if guns were even really an extreme factor in high murder rate after all. If murder rate declines after the limitations then it would be proven that these limitations were necessary and that they should be kept. And if murder rate stays the same or increases because these limitations had no effect on it, then they can have the same freedom they had before, to play with their little guns again. On the other hand, we do need to start focusing on the other variables that affect our crime rate, so maybe after we test the effect of guns on our crime rate, and if it has no effect, then we can focus on the real factors that may be possible- like poverty.

John, C. Moorhouse, and Brent Wanner. "Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or does Crime Increase Gun Control?" Cato Journal 26.1 (2006): 103-24. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 9 Feb. 2013.

Kwon, Ik-Whan G., et al. "The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws: Multivariate Statistical Analysis." The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 56.1 (1997): 41-50. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 9 Feb. 2013.

Olga Espinoza said...

The topic about gun control is highly debated in today’s politics, because it conflicts with a greatly valued amendment to the Constitution. In the second amendment to the Constitution, the people are given their right to bear arms, and it has become a freedom that citizens are prepared to defend. With the idea of gun control, people are afraid of losing this freedom and fear not being able to defend their families and those they care about in the sight of danger. The conversation on gun violence has recently grown more heated due to the horrendous crimes occurring today. The government believes that the people should not have a right to bear all kinds of weapons as it would endanger the general public. However, those opposed to gun control believe that it is their right, as stated in the Constitution, to be able to own their own weapons, and the government cannot and should not take that away from them. I personally believe that there should be more regulations placed on gun ownership. It is true that the second amendment gives the people this right, but not everyone is equipped with the knowledge to be able to truly understand how a weapon should be used. Also, by allowing ownership of guns, it is not guaranteed that these people will not go out and shoot innocent citizens. I do not believe gun ownership should be completely eliminated, but instead much more highly monitored and controlled.

King, Wayne. "Gun Control is Crucial Issue in Challenge to Congressman." New York Times: B.7. Oct 15 1992. National Newspapers Core. Web. 9 Feb. 2013 .

Eilperin, Juliet, and Thomas B. Edsall. "For Democrats, Gun Issue is Losing its Fire." The Washington Post: 0. Oct 20 2000.National Newspapers Core. Web. 9 Feb. 2013 .

Tella Silver said...

The topic of gun control is so heated because it is such a huge part of our country and daily lives, and the events that spark the conversation regarding gun control are very extreme themselves. Unlike a lot of topics, this one is discussing changing a social norm, which is a big deal regardless of what side you are on. Those against gun reform state that it is their given right to own games, and changing the 2nd amendment could lead to even bigger changes in the constitution. However, like William C. said in class, the constitution is a living document that needs to change with the times. It’s safe to say that something needs to be done, and there is a problem with the availability of guns. It’s also being debated that guns are needed for self defense, but a line has to be drawn somewhere, doesn’t it? Another point that was brought up a lot in the classroom debate is that you can never truly get rid of all guns, but that doesn’t mean we can’t try. As soon as a law comes into play regarding guns, there is going to be change. It will slowly discourage gun ownership and change the attitude towards them. There’s no doubt that there will be a decrease in gun violence. Giving more people guns is definitely not the answer, and arming staff of schools is not going to prevent another mass shooting. In the past 30 years, 0 mass shooting have ever been stopped due to an armed civilian. It’s extreme to say that we need to ban all guns, but that should be something to work slowly towards.

"11 Facts About Guns." Do Something. Beta, 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2013. .

Gilson, Dave. "10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down." Mother Jones. Foundation for National Progress, 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2013. .

Diana Espinoza said...

The right to bear arms is every gun owner’s defense in order to keep their guns at this point. You cannot take man’s rights away that are written on the constitution! Some people feel guns are the cause of many deaths, homicides, suicides etc. But, like people say if guns are banned people are going to find way to get a hold of them like any other illegal product either way. I agree they should not be completely taken away, but the issue of gun violence has shot off the roof that some changes should be made. Something has to be done about the issue that has been around for decades that cannot get resolved. “In 1992, the state received 559,608 applications to buy a gun. After checking out the would-be purchasers, it turned down 5,763 of them, in nearly all cases because they had criminal records.” This is the reason why instead of taking guns away they should enforce the rules on gun owners , make background checks and restrict high degree guns. To keep people safe from criminals and keep criminals away from guns. If they don’t take the guns away? This is when people just say why even change anything any ways if it’s going to be the same out come? "Without the first step of the Brady bill, we're never going to get anywhere," Ms. Brady said. "We can't waste any more time." A new bill that was introduced to enforce gun regulations and restrictions. But like always there are people who are going to disagree. “Opponents of gun control say the Brady law violates the 10th Amendment, which states that unless a power is specifically granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, like that of declaring war, it belongs to the states.” I just say they should not make gun control a bigger issue and they should start acting to make a change instead of arguing!
Works Cited
Eckholm, Erik. "A Little Gun Control, a Lot of Guns." New York Times Aug 15 1993: A.1. National Newspapers Core. 10 Feb. 2013 .
JOHNSON, , DIRK. "Brady Ruling Heartens Opponents of Gun Control." New York Times May 24 1994: A.12. National Newspapers Core. 10 Feb. 2013 .

Elizabeth said...

Gun violence in the United States has been an issue for so many years. There are so many reasons why the topic of gun violence and the 2nd Amendment is so heated. One of the reasons why this topic gets heated is because there have been so many crimes that involve a gun in today’s society. Especially children. “Countless children and youth are exposed to gun violence each year whether it be at home, school, or through the media.” Guns have been a serious problem in the United States and there hasn’t been a solution to all the violence. Guns are basically used and depended on, on a daily basis, but it has gone too far and people in this society have abused the privileges on owning guns. Massive shootings and killing innocent people have been happening too much, and I believe there should be a stop to all of the gun usage. Even though there might not be a solution to confiscating every gun, there should still be a solution to who should buy one. Just like we discussed in class, there should background checks on the people who own guns. Little by little, there can be change and people, especially children, can be safer. Although we mostly blame guns, we all have to keep in mind that its not the guns fault, but the person handling that gun. We can’t change the people. “Gun Violence in the United States has become so common that the statistics could be as routine as housing sales reports--except for the carnage they describe: 35,000 people killed annually, nearly 1,500 accidental deaths, 15 young people under the age of 19 killed daily.” (Henry, Reske) The arguments that are presented from both sides is that the 2nd amendment is assured with most people, but others are afraid of guns and the harm that can be caused. This heated topic will probably be endless if there is continued gun violence.
Slovak, Karen. "Gun Violence and Children: Factors Related to Exposure and Trauma." Health & social work 27.2 (2002): 104-12. ProQuest Research Library. 10 Feb. 2013
Reske, Henry J. "Seeking Gun Silence." ABA Journal 80 (1994): 86-. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.

Brandyn Lewis said...

I'm on the side that supports the right to bear arms because I feel that the Constitution should be respected and followed, no matter how old this country gets. If the 2nd Amendment was changed, what do you think they will change the next time a constant set of tragic events occur? I also feel that the media does have a great part of the reason why this is becoming such a known problem all of the sudden. This attempted change with the banning of firearms will not work, I believe it will start some sort of revolution, because I know people for a fact who will most likely not give up their gun without a fight. Without it they feel naked and unprotected with no defense.I also highly agree with the term "Guns don't kill people, People do", because it says the message in my mind perfectly. Let's say the gun laws somehow got passed, and guns are extremely harder to get so now the criminally insane people can hardly get a hold of one. Now all of the sudden their is a new weapon of choice that they are all using, a knife or maybe a bomb, or something that can be easily done, a random killing spree with a car. What would happen if people started dying constantly from these things, will the Congress ban these too? Then that means you can't go to work unless you would enjoy riding your bike to it everyday, just have to get up an hour or two earlier than usual. Then banning knives would mean you now have to cut your steak with a spoon or a fork which is also possible to stab through human flesh so enjoy that kitchen utensil while it lasts. All I am saying is that these scares are letting those who kill people know that they have America by the throat and can do what they want. Banning something does not show the "freedom" that is said America has.

Cohen, Jeff. Gun Control, The NRA, and The Second Amendment. 1 February 2000. 2013.

Head, Tom. Does the Second Amendment Protect The Rights to Bear Arms? 2013.

William Chaffin said...

“I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.” – Clint Eastwood
To say that the debate over gun control is ‘heated’ is an understatement; due to the serious ramifications of any moves to lower gun violence, each side’s opinion is held much more dearly. Even further, for the politicians behind the scene running the show it’s no joke that they need to tread carefully on this issue. Bipartisan politics themselves are responsible for most of the hostility; to say that the ideas behind the political fronts are what are fueling them is simply to be misinformed or far too hopeful. As for the general public though, with lives on the line and having several losing people close to them is nothing to play around with. The typical liberal response to the whole situation ranges from restrictions on manufacturing guns, to complete eradication of guns a la Australia, Great Britain, etc. Conservatives prefer a bit… “sketchier” response, in that they propose that arming every single American would do better to reduce gun violence. As for my own opinion, there are two sides. There is an ideal solution and a practical solution. If it were possible, I truly feel that a system similar to Japan’s atmosphere of gun ownership being a privilege (a heavily monitored one) would be ideal. Japan averages a .03% (nearly 0) rate of gun related homicide per 100,000 people (UNDOC) and the US is sitting shamefully at 3.6% per 100,000 people (Alpers). In Japan it is not easy to own a gun, but you still are able to get one. If you are fit to own one, and willing to work to get it you can own one, which I feel is fair. It’s just the intensity of review that Japan employs that I feel is the only way to truly reduce gun violence. Keeping guns out of just anyone’s hands and into the capable hands of citizens disciplined enough to go for them seems ideal. As for my more practical solution (as this would be completely impossible in our terrible bipartisan legal system) I would propose minor, balanced focuses on cutting back civilian ownership on guns. In addition, I would keep the manufacture of more destructive weapons and accessories down. Finally I’d institute a bill looking into the mental health associated with the issue. A few more regulations and only a few people’s feelings are hurt and we can all enjoy lowered gun violence. This simpler, more agreeable approach would also prevent another civil war. ;)

UNODC.2001.‘Japan: Total Recorded Intentional Homicides (Completed) and Total Recorded Intentional Homicides Committed With a Firearm.’ Sixth United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1995-1997.Vienna:United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,27 June. (Q1335)

Alpers, Philip and Marcus Wilson. 2012. Guns in Japan: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law.
Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney. GunPolicy.org, 10 July.
Accessed 10 February 2013.

Ricardo Joya said...

The issue of gun violence is so heated because there are people on both sides of the argument. There are people who would like the issue of gun violence to be solved by banning guns but there are also people who won’t give them up for any reason. Those who like their guns and weapons disagree with the government wanting to take back and change the 2nd amendment because they don’t want to give up their guns. There is also those who believe taking away all the guns would solve the problem and they feel the 2nd amendment should be changed. I think this issue is not worth talking about because us talking about it doesn’t make a change. If I had to stand on one side of this issue I would prefer the banning of guns. I personally think banning guns would be the best because I feel violence will decrease. Criminals would still be able to commit crimes with other weapons but I think if they had no guns what so ever the victims would have a better chance of surviving. We all know there is people who aren’t criminals and still have guns for protection and I think that’s also an issue because sane people can sometimes have those moments were they act without thinking. Guns should be banned it would be the best for our country.
, Special to the New York Times,B.DRUMMOND AYRES Jr. (1988, Aug 15). WASHINGTON TALK: GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION; shooting at rowan's pool creates mighty ripples. New York Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/426919528?accountid=39246
ECKHOLM, E. (1993, Aug 15). A little gun control, a lot of guns. New York Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/429218141?accountid=39246

Tangy said...

From my point of view, the reason of why the gun debate and 2nd Amendment issue is so heated, I find, revolves solely around the ignorant and anti-humanistic views of the average pro-gun advocate citizen. The main reason of why this debate has become such a large scale issue would be the lack of compromise from the people in order secure a long-term safe future. Where I stand on this issue would only be slightly towards the anti-gun advocate side, but that's probably due to my age and lack of experience involving lethal firearms. An argument that has been thrown out into the public that I find interesting is the theory of nullification in regards to guns; an "every state for itself" type of situation. To allow the government to completely ban lethal firearms in general, but let each state voice a second, more representative, opinion. If the state receives a favorable amount of pro-gun advocates and supporters, then the state would be able to overrule the ban made by the government itself. Here, emphasis should be placed on the overruling system; for a state to have such many supporters that it actually nullifies the government's ruling may possibly suggest that that state is "worthy" and "responsible" in a way of firearm possessions, in comparison to the states that fail the overruling. Only an interesting reason that I find should be more looked into by the media, since there still exists a bunch of loopholes and misinterpretations of the idea to the general public. Have a wonderful break everyone.

"Counties and Cities Now Nullifying Gun Control." Counties and Cities Now Nullifying Gun Control. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.

"Utah Not Alone in Bid to Trump U.S. Gun Laws :: The Salt Lake Tribune." Utah Not Alone in Bid to Trump U.S. Gun Laws :: The Salt Lake Tribune. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.

Tyler Bolles said...

I feel that the gun control issue is so heated due to the idea that our rights are being infringed upon and that many are too greedy to give up what they enjoy. It is the idea that many don't have a problem with guns, and that the violence doesn't directly affect them, so they don't want to give up some of the aspects of guns that they greatly enjoy. For them it isn't a problem until it affects them, and for those who see the violence as a problem for all, they want a solution now. It all comes down to what people are willing to give up, and not everyone is willing to give up there shiny toys.
"Why Gun Control Is So Contentious in the US." LifesLittleMysteries.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
"Why Gun Control Is So Contentious in the U.S.: Scientific American." Why Gun Control Is So Contentious in the U.S.: Scientific American. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.