Will Gun-Control Really Help to Improve Social Safety?

Gun control has became a huge topic nowadays. Since there are more and more crimes happen in the U.S., people begin to think that gun is such a dangerous weapon that it should not be something that is so easily to get. In this way, more and more people become to favor the gun control policies. However, in my opinion, gun control law can not make the society safer; worse, it can bring even more danger to the citizens.

The exist of the second amendment is reasonable, because of the this, people can protect themselves. However, more and more people prefer the gun control policy means that people believe that the new policy can bring a safer society for them, this is not the case. According to the FBI statistic, the murder weapons do not just include guns, there is a large percentage of other weapons. If a person wants to kill someone, gun is not the only fatal thing he can use. The gun-control policy is not helping to decrease the crime rate, it is only helping to limit the rate of gun violence. For example, ISIS did the massive killing in Manhattan which kills eight people. There is no gun involved in the killing, there is only a truck. There are too many ways to make the society unsafe besides guns. If there are so many things are dangerous, then what is the point to only limit guns?

On the other hand, the gun-control policy can only limit the legal guns, however, there are even more illegal guns in the society than the legal guns people buy from the legal market. According to Dan Noyes, criminals always can get a gun since there are always sources for them to get illegal and untraceable guns. In this way, the new gun-control policy can only limit the legal guns, such as the guns that people bought to protect themselves or keep it at home. According to The Washington Post, most gun crimes are responsible to those who borrowed a gun from someone else or untraceable guns, it is as high as seventy-nine percent. On the other hand,, only eighteen percent of the gun crimes happened with the legal owners of the guns. By this statistic, the most gun violence happened with people who do not own the guns. This shows that there are so many ways criminals can get a gun to process illegal events. In this way, the gun-limit policy is taking away the protection for the citizens who are actually responsible to the society and give even more convenience for criminals to kill people and make the society unsafe. Criminals gets guns from black markets, illegal deals, or even home-made guns. Because of the variety of the source of guns, limiting guns by the federal government is so inefficient since government will spend too much on searching black markets. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there are 2157 of gun violence in 2017 are home invasion. There are even so much cases of home invasion happens with no gun-control policy, how much it will be when the protections are taken away from the citizens?

More gun equals to less crime is my opinion. Under the same power, which means everyone has a gun, the balance between the citizens and criminals makes the criminals have less chance to implement crime, since everyone has a protection. In this way, I argue that the gun-control not only would not decrease the risk of gun violence, but also would take away the power and the protection people hold and give criminals more chances to commit crime.

Image Source: The Daily Beast

 

Gun control = Safety? You might be wrong!

Gun control has become a popular topics nowadays since the gun shooting event happened in Las Vegas. Some citizens blamed governments for not being responsible to keep Americans safe. Therefore the new gun control law is published. However, the new gun control law caused a huge wave of discussion because people split into two groups: does new gun control law make Americans safer?

 

 

My opinion is that new gun control law does not make Americans safer. First of all, guns are not the only tools victims use to kill people. If someone wants to kill somebody, they can use anything as a tool to kill. It is only the guns have more dangerous than the other because it can kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. One of the bad influence I can think about is that victims start using tools that are more daily used such as truck. Recently, a truck hitting event has happened in New York, 8 people died in the attack. In my opinion, the government can prohibit guns but not trucks, because people use them everyday. Although guns have more threats, the gun shooting attack does not happen very often in the past few years. If there are more restrictions of buying guns, the victims will find out more ways that we cannot think about to begin the attack. More importantly, most victims do not buy guns through legal method. Most victims buy guns from the black market, which American government has absolutely no way to make it disappear because it is such a big organization, larger than we can imagine.

In addition, the new gun control law takes away citizens’ ability to defense for themselves  in some ways because some of them do not have guns to fight back. In the shooting attack in San Antonio, Texas. The victim might be killed by someone in the church who has gun with them. They are saved because they have guns to defense for themselves so that they can save themselves. Therefore the new gun control law actually reduces the safety because it does not influence the victims at all, the only thing the law does is taking people’s safety away.

I am not saying that guns are doing no good to Americans, but rather the laws are causing opposite effects in United States as what we want to. In another word, I think the new gun control law does not give citizens safety. It makes the victims more dangerous. Therefore the gun control does not make Americans safe. We should focus more on the person who puts citizens in danger but not the tools they use to do bad things.

 

 

Image source: https://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/gun-control-for-it-or-against-it-33375644/

https://www.usnews.com/cartoons/gun-control-and-gun-rights-cartoons

 

Can I have some asthma medication? I may have to see your prescription please…..Can I have a Gun? Right away, Sir!

As hotly debated as of a topic it has always been and will be until something is done about it, gun control issue has been all over the news since the last horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas. Though the Second Amendment evinces that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But there is definitely a need to control the extent and quantity of the arms one can bear. You may feel safe with just one gun in your holster or may feel still insecure even after possessing a whole barrage of machine guns. A perfect balance between constitutional rights and effective society management is to call for gun control. Would you prefer to live in a place where it is harder to get a cronut than a gun or in a place where guns are just as hard as to get a bite of cronut?

Time it takes to buy a cronut vs a gun

In a country, where to buy a cronut, it takes almost 2 and 1/2 hour, but whereas for a gun, it just takes less than 22 minutes to buy a .22 rifle, I believe every person needs to be vetted before they can buy a gun. Approximately, 3 million American civilians carry guns today, that is 1 percent of the entire population. Though the percentage may seem less at the start, when you look at the bigger picture, America has had the most gun murders per 100,000 residents in the year 2015 than the following 7 countries combined. With almost one mass shooting averaging per day, 291 mass shootings have had happened in the last twelve months out of which 154 alone happened in this calendar year, 6,880 gun-related deaths have taken place due to mass shooting.

Gun Murders per 100,000 residents

Repealing the Second Amendment and therefore taking guns away from everybody is going to be tough as 30% of the Total Percentage of Individuals owns a Firearm, but we can at least try to amend it by getting the Congress to pass a law to have just as diligent checks as getting a passport for the first time requirements. During the time when the Second Amendment had just been passed in 1791, the latest technology in the gun industry were muskets, which had a reload time of 15-20 seconds. Today with the advancement in technology has come so far, to empty a whole clip of a semi-automatic rifle it takes 15-20 seconds. At that time it seemed like a sensible idea for everybody to have a gun for their safety and not worry about people going on a rampage of mass shooting, but today a refined gun control is imperative for the safety of the people and for the country as a whole.

Looking at the recent unfortunate mass shooting at Las Vegas country music festival, 59 people were killed and about 525 were injured. According to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s sheriff, 23 guns were found in Stephen Paddock’s room. If anybody can so easily buy more than 20 guns in America itself, than what is the use of having a travel ban to restrict terrorist attacks!

Therefore, if we make the Second Amendment refined now, that way we will have no Paddock who can kill 58 innocents. Though we may still have some shooting here and there, this is perfect time to carefully review the lackadaisical process of buying arms. Its time we make the amendment refined and make the process of getting a semi-automatic rifle just a tough as buying a Kinder Eggs and unpasteurized milk to make brie. Let us stop lighting the candles for the victims, and light the will of fire in people to amend the Second Amendment for betterment of our posterity.

Image-1 source: Cronut vs gun (picture edited according to the preference).

Image-2 source: Gun Murders per 100,000 residents.

Gun Control

Gun control is always a big topic over the world, guns are illegal in some of the countries, and some of countries guarantees their people have the right to possess guns. However, which one of the two would bring a safer environment to their people. From my perspective, I feel safer in a country where people do not have guns. To begin with, people would not bring guns when they goes to a party or just have a walk in the park, they do not bring guns with them every seconds which makes the gun meaningless. In the other hand, if people walking around with guns, it creates a tensive neighborhood, which for me seems nobody is trustworthy.

Christopher Ingraham/Washington Post

Moreover, a person with gun could do much more damage than a strong men without weapons. If a violent gunman starts to shooting at others, people would not able to stop him if they do not have gun with them, even after police arrives, it would be a concern that suppressing the gunman would cause more damage. While it is easier to stop an unarmed person with people around working together. From my own experience, safety of a university becomes a very important factor while choosing college since so many shooting cases happened in campus, such as the case happened in Georgia Tech. Even during traveling, friend would tell me not to go outside alone in the night in some of the blocks. An article written by Jonathan Masters in The Atlantic, Gun Control Around the World: A Primer, “The United States also has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among the world’s most developed nations”. The Data in the article are shown below.

Firearms per 100 People (2007)   Council on Foreign Relations (Data: Small Arms Survey)

Firearm Homicides per 100,000 People (2013)     Jonathan Masters and Julia Ro (Data: gunpolicy.org, University of Sydney)

On October 1st, the biggest mass shooting in the United States’ history takes place in Las Vegas which causes at least 59 people dead, and 527 injured. According to The New York Times, multiple weapons were found in gunman’s hotel room. Gun control has been a controversial topic, since it was written in the constitution that citizens have the right to bear arms, to ensure the government do not have to much power over people. However, by Los Angeles Times, it collects deadliest U.S mass shootings from 1984 to 2017. The data shown that mass shooting happens every year since 1984, and 6 cases happened in the year of 2012 causes over fifty deaths. Furthermore, according to  German Lopez, “There have been more than 1,500 mass shootings since Sandy Hook”, and “On average, there is more than one mass shooting for each day in America”. Some would argue that car accidents happens everyday, more frequently than mass shooting. However, I believe that car accident should be avoid by government leading people, while people should be protect from mass shooting. They weigh differently. If the gunman comes from another country or belongs to some organization, it becomes a signal of war, the consequence from shooting would be much terrible, and it brings fear and unsafe atmosphere to people in the states.

Image Source： https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/?utm_term=.51eb0b991f8

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/worldwide-gun-control-policy/423711/

Is It Necessary to Bear Arms?

 

     The second amendment indicates that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In other words, this amendment empowers people the right to bear arms. This amendment was ratified in 1791, which people have been granted this right for a long time. However, a recent tragedy brings people to think: do we need to repeal the second amendment?

    Bret Stephens in The New York Times indicates “more guns means more murder,” and which, “more guns means less safety.” He provided a few data in his article to support his opinion as to repeal the second amendment, and I totally agree with him. There exist people who say that they bear arms to ensure their own safety; nevertheless, I do not see it as a valid argument. Imagine people live in a country where no one is allowed to carry arms with the exception of military and police force. Murder cases may still happen in that society, yet there will not be one like the massacre in Las Vegas. Guns are the most powerful and destructive weapon one can carry around; thus, if nobody is permitted to bear arms, there is no necessity for one to concern his or her safety related to gun shooting.Knowing everyone else has the same right to bear arms certainly raises the anxiety: one may feel panic and worry when going to public events, and one in such country that ban gun usage will not.

     Take China as an example. One question on Quora was posed, “do people feel safe in China?” Generally speaking, no country is always safe; however, the majority of the response under that question was a “yes.” Though there are numerous factors, many of those respondents mention how the ban of gun usage promotes their sense of security. Chuli Deng stated several instances, and “the first is everybody in China can not hold a gun privately, and we never feel we need it to protect ourselves.” As a Chinese citizen myself, I partially agree with this answer; we still need to have the self-protection awareness. But indeed, people in China often worry less about their own security issues when they go out. Their relieved feeling mainly comes from that no one concerns that he or she may got random shot based on the strict gun control system.

    Gun shooting accidents have become a serious problem. In the website Aftermath® it stated, “according to the Centers for Disease Control, there were 130,557 deaths in 2013 from unintentional injuries, the 4th ranking cause of death in 2013 overall.” The New York Times author Stephens calls it as “self-destruction,“ which the intentional and unintentional occurrences of shooting accidents have become a leading factor of deaths. Government can grant people the right to bear arm, yet not everyone can be trusted with arms. A lax policy on such destructive weapon will lead to more nightmares, maybe even worse than the Las Vegas case. There is no need for citizens to own any arm, for no one needs to concern about shooting if no other people except military and police has the right to keep weapons. Therefore, repealing the second amendment cannot do more harm but only benefits the citizens physically and mentally to have a sense of security.

 

 

Image source:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOh8u46__WAhWBZiYKHf4HCO4QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wnyc.org%2Fstory%2Fshould-we-repeal-second-amendment%2F&psig=AOvVaw0URh-zeZ1eJ1cbAuNBaAF5&ust=1508609994885177

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiC_abH6P_WAhUC6iYKHU7MBHIQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fzerogov.com%2F%3Fp%3D2958&psig=AOvVaw0URh-zeZ1eJ1cbAuNBaAF5&ust=1508609994885177

Something needs to be done

Gun control along with repealing and amending the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution has been a topic of discussion among many people since the recent Las Vegas shooting. Americans are worried about mass shooting happening more often as they sadly do to often in our country. People are blaming the National Rifle Association for this, and others say that it is other things. I do not think it is the NRA’s fault, but a missed red flag by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Repealing the Second Amendment would not solve the problem, but adding more gun regulations and amending the Second Amendment could eliminate more mass shooting and take guns off the streets.

It is the right of an American citizen to “bear arms” (Amendment 2) so taking away this right is stripping away the freedom that the Constitution promises us. The United States needs to find a solution to the amount of gun related shootings, but it is not going to be an easy fix. More gun control needs to be at the top of the list which starts with harsher restrictions on being able to get a hand gun license, and the amount of ammo and guns some one is allowed to buy at one time. Harsher restrictions could come with backlash since people might argue that these restrictions are limiting their freedom, but it is should not be a walk in the park to get a license for any gun especially semiautomatic and automatic rifles.

People on the other side might say the repealing the second amendment would solve the gun problem in America. Outlawing guns logically seems like the best idea, but many people in America own guns who would strongly disagree about this. Repealing the Second Amendment is taking away Americans freedom, but by repealing guns would stop the legal selling of guns. This would be great for those who are anti-guns, but people who are desperate enough to buy a gun could still buy them off the black market.

While repealing the second amendment seems the most logical, it would never work in the society we will live since most people own for protection or hunting even though they should feel safe in their country. I think that we should get rid of the the “well regulated Militia” (Amendment 2) since we have a national army that is one of the powerful in the world. It is not needed in modern society anymore. Since it is a right for the people to own a gun, they just need to need more regulated, which the government could put more security in place to look for certain red flags. There needs to be a certain harsher criterion for owning and why you want to own a gun. I am for people owning guns, but at some point, we need to realize that they are dangerous and not everyone should have one.

Amending the second amendment and regulating guns through gun legislation like in the past could help solve the gun crisis in that has been hurting our country for the last several decades. When John F. Kennedy was killed by Oswald, gun control was a topic of discussion after this event since Oswald bought the gun from mail order. Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut pushed legislation to regulate gun sale to people under 18 years old. He didn’t succeed at first, but finally, he got the Gun Control Act of 1968 passed which regulates firearms dealers and imposed a federal minimum age requirement of 18 for handguns and long guns. Carl T. Bogus says, “Publicly, the National Rifle Association supported the bill.” (Chicago-Kent Law Review) The NRA also spent “144,000” to support the bill. The biggest promoter of guns and the second amendment is even for harsher restrictions on owning guns. Limiting and regulating guns could decrease the mass shootings and gun related deaths in our country.

Image source:Vegas Shooting Picture 

Image 2 source: Second Amendment Picture

Presidential Cliff Diving

Throughout the two trimesters we have talked about like what president can and can’t do as well as what his roles as a president are. The president follows a certain set of laws just like everyone else does and sets an example for the rest of america to follow. Everyone has a different opinion on what the president should do and what he shouldn’t but what should he really be doing by moral standards. It is the duty as the president of the United States of America to protect and to serve his country as well as its citizens, but what is he supposed to do when there is no solution but only two options.
The president of the United States of America will be criticised regardless of how good his decisions are. This is so because who better to blame than the man running the country, and it will probably always be that way. When making a decision as the president there are no grey areas and no “what if’s” that haven’t been explored. What should a president do, besides resign, when no one majority will be happy with a decision he is going to have to make. The “Fiscal Cliff” (NBC News) for example is something that the president will undoubtedly be criticized for the next two or three decades. The president has the choice of passing the problem to the next president, or attempting to fix the problem once and for all with the risk of failure and recession and possibly depression. This kind of decision seems unfair to a president because there is no easy or obvious solution to the problem. The cliff was the new year (2013) when the bush tax cuts expire and the “White House” had to make a decision on whether to raise taxes again or to make spending cuts. So far nothing significant has been done to solve this solution, other than a small dent in the deficit that still yields 6 trillion to the debt over the course of 10 years. The biggest question I and other people have is when is something going to be done so that my generation and those to come don’t end up paying for such a great debt. Unfortunately the first problem is that no one knows WHAT to do about 16.7 trillion dollars and a huge deficit. The biggest problem i see is that this sort of thing hasn’t occurred in the nation’s history. With virtually no experience with this kind of problem and no way to really solve it, people in the “white house” are left with nothing to do but stall for time and to try and figure something out.

With such a large problem on the table for President Obama and no solutions yet, he will be heavily criticised on the amount of time it will take to act and solve this problem. The president needs to act quickly if he is going to be able to keep this problem under control for much longer. Considering the fiscal cliff situation is out of control, President Obama needs to be very careful on his progression with his gun control proposals. With so many problems at a high severity criticism only rises with each passing day as more and more people grow tired of the economic situation and social tragedies. Finding a temporary solution to the fiscal cliff needs to be found soon in order to at least maintain the debt without increasing it, unlike the solution now which raises the debt limit. Gun control proposals as well as other suggestions by President Obama will eventually be drowned out by the noise of impending economic crisis.

In order to maintain his title as “President” of the United States of America President Obama must act quickly and with wit to fix, or at least somewhat fix, the problem with the fiscal cliff. His criticism is hindering him especially with his new gun control proposals that are only causing controversy with the NRA. While the solution choices seem dim President Obama should be able to work something out in the peoples favor that won’t tap out the middle class but will still be fair to the higher earning people. This situation is the toughest i have seen and most worrisome i have heard about because it is effecting everyone and a solution needs to found quickly to ensure the safety of this nation’s economy.

Obama Takes a Stand Against Gun Violence with New Propositions for Gun Control

 After the Sandy Hook shooting, gun control has been a hot topic issue in modern America. According to a Reuters article on Obama’s speech, Obama says that he “can’t put this off any longer”  and vows “to use ‘whatever weight this office holds’ to make his proposals reality.” Obama uses quotes letters from children that were affected by the shooting saying “Guns shouldn’t be allowed.” He wants to use this tragedy to help the gun control laws get passed easier and quicker. The President has taken several important steps to protect everyone from something like Sandy Hook happening again. One of his main points is to have more intense background checks before anybody buys a gun. This rule is criticized heavily from gun owners because they say that this rule won’t do anything to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook because the gunman got it from his mom, who got the gun legally. Obama also wants to ban military style guns, like the ones used in the Sandy Hook shooting. This law is more likely not be passed because the majority of Congress are Republicans and will not give up their military style guns. Another one of Obama’s pushes is to allow federal funded research on gun violence, along with 23 more steps that he plans on doing without Congresses approval.  A main critic of these upcoming laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA wants more security for schools, better counseling and mental illness help, and to ban violent video games.

Kids letter to Obama about gun control

In my opinion, I think both sides should come to an agreement. Though I don’t think we should ban guns all together, I believe that some gun control laws should be put into action to protect everyone’s safety. Guns have been an influential part of our American history, but at the same time people have to see that gun violence is a serious and very pressing issue in America today. I also agree with NRA that there should be a better mental illness system, so that insane people can get help easier and faster. The old saying, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is a vital part to the NRA’s argument, and I agree with that. Although it’s easy to shoot someone, you have to start at the source of the pain and suffering of the shooter to completely stop these massacres and get those people help so they can get better and live normal lives. I think that we should definitely have better security for our school and better counseling for our children and teens to prevent shootings and massacres from happening in the first place. Security could also be a huge help in preventing tragedies like these. This also goes back to the old “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” in that if America starts helping the sick and mentally ill to begin with at a young age, then everyone will be safer.

Obama at his speech about gun control

This article can be directly related to our class in many ways. President Obama is wearing two hats in his speech, Legislative Leader and Chief Executive. Legislative Leader is an important role in this article because he is looking to get several laws passed by congress because he cannot pass them by himself. Chief Executive is equally as important in this article because he is reassuring the people in that he will  He also is needing to go through Congress for his actions, vowing that he will use “whatever his weight this office holds” to make these laws a reality. This article really shows the President’s viewpoint and his ideas on gun control, while also making balanced by showing his critics.

 

President Obama on Gun Control in State of the Union

Recent massacres such as the Sandy Hook shooting in Newton and the “Dark Knight” shooting in Colorado have raised awareness on gun control in the United States. Liberals feel as if new laws should passed as to which kinds of guns are legal to sell. On the other hand, conservatives see to it that restricting which guns they own affects their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Despite the debate between parties,the country does recognize that something must be done to prevent such shootings in the future. Christina Wilikie’s article in the Huffington Post reports on President Obama’s State of the Union speech in which he addressed the issue of gun control in America.

To begin his assertion, President Obama stated that this is not the first time the United States has labeled gun control as a concern. In spite of this, he declared that the Newtown shooting in which 20 innocent children and 6 adults werekilled demands that subject must finally be dealt with accordingly:

“Overwhelming majorities of Americans -– Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment — have come together around common-sense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.”

One of the ways Obama is trying to manipulate gun control is by placing a ban on all military-style weapons, such as automatic weapons that carry extremely large magazines. However, the National Rifle Association feels as if their Second Amendment rights would be violated if such a law were passed. The Amendment clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The text obviously supports that weapons can be possessed, but the argument arises from what the text does not say; there is no indication that all arms are legal, nor any sign that certain weapons are prohibited. The liberal side to this argument is that simple changes are eligible to be added that can simply imply restrictions to which arms can be owned. The flip side of the argument (the conservative side) cherish their right to own any weapon they please. As long as they pass the standard background checks, or even more intense improvements to the background checks, there is no reason they should be stripped of their assault rifles.

President Obama, being a liberal democrat, wishes to restrict the weapons that can be owned. The president’s point of view is clearly controversial, but through one speech, Obama “disarmed the argument… that no law can eliminate all gun violence,” Wilikie wrote. Obama was able to dismantle the opposing opinion and gain significant amounts of supporters by exploiting Neustadt’s theory of a president’s power to persuade. As Neustadt declared in his book “Presidential Power”, a president is able to use his “status and authority to yield bargaining advantages.” Obama, knowing he would have the nation’s full attention, focused the majority of his State of the Union speech on gun control. After addressing the issue at large and his solution, Obama made an emotional appeal about one of the many victims of gun violence:

“One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends, they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house.”

President Obama receives a standing ovation at the conclusion of his State of the Union Speech

Obama’s telling of Pendleton’s story was an excellent method of executing Neustadt’s theory. He enflamed emotions throughout the audience, which left people yearning for change. The touching anecdote resulted in a standing ovation and overwhelming support for Obama’s gun control bills. Through his words, he was able to convince his people that protecting the children is more important than owning a fancy gun.

While Obama’s State of the Union speech undoubtedly put pressure on Congress to vote on new gun control bills, the debate still fumes as a conclusion has yet to be reached. Meanwhile, the nation impatiently awaits a contentious resolution to the gun control issues that are plaguing many cities in the United States.

Gun laws, Debt ceiling, whats next?

Source: NY Times

Over a week ago President Obama gave a major speech, The State of the Union address. Within this speech President Obama spoke about major things he is going to concentrate on during his next 4 years. The speech varied all the way from things like The creation of a China task force to monitor trade violations, to problems about the current debt. A few things that really stuck out during the speech were when he mentioned gun laws, the debt ceiling, and taxes. As everyone in the world knows at the end of 2012 the United States was supposed to go threw something called the fiscal cliff. Both parties worked together to try to avoid these massive cuts, and eventually something was worked out, well what was worked out is just going to push this back until March. Obama went in to detail about something called the Buffett rule which states a minimum 30% tax rate for individuals whose income exceeds $1 million. No tax increases for anyone earning less than $250,000. Personally I think that is a fine idea and would work out great but it’s still not enough money to bring down the debt ceiling we are talking upwards of 16 trillion dollars, raising taxes isn’t nearly enough. Budget cuts are going to be critical if the US is going to get out of debt, the one major problem, the political parties. If the US cannot get both political parties to work together the debt will just keep increasing. Making it nearly impossible for us to bring down our debt, this must be something both parties are  going to have to loose something on.

Source: Media Matters

The next big thing everyone is worried about are the gun laws, Obama has said he will use his executive power to set laws if the parties can’t come to an agreement. As the President doesn’t have the direct power to do this he has many ways of convincing the right people. I agree with the majority of the Americans that something must be done with guns, no gun is worth a child dying. In 2012 the NRA did a study relating firearm deaths to motor vehicle deaths in 10 different states, the results were horrible. In every single state studied the death by firearms exceeded the death my motor vehicle, this information is appalling to hear and see.

These few things I took out of the Presidents speech were the things that stuck out to me and felt had a large influence in class. The Taxes and fiscal cliff problem were things I would of never considered researching or worrying about but being in Government it has really opened my eyes about what happens in the news, and really helps to explain things.   For all of the things being said about gun laws nothing is really happening yet, and after the SOTUS Obama really showed that he will use his power as President to make things happen in Washington. Without Government class this year I think many of the major things that have happened throughout the world and the states regarding politics would still be in the dark for me. This class has also help me form opinions about many things that are happening in the news and in D.C. as it hasn’t forced me into a position to pick a political side I think that it has really helped broaden my perspective on politics and really give me an overview that I would have never been able to receive if the class was bias towards on political side.