Gun Violence – 21st Century Citizenship

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

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.

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.

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.

The Right to Fair Arms

The Vice President spoke last night at a violence conference in Danbury, Connecticut. His audience, members of the state’s congressional delegation. Mr. Biden was there to push the President’s gun control policy. Mr. Vice President touched bases with the attendees by appealing to their pathos, “‘We have to speak for those 20 beautiful children who died 69 days ago, 12 miles from here,’ Biden said. ‘We have to speak for the voice of those six adults who died trying to save the children in their care that day who can’t speak for themselves. You have to speak for the 1,900 people who have died at the other end of a gun just since Sandy Hook in this country.’”(The Stamford Times)

Mr. Biden was at the conference to reiterate the importance of change concerning guns in this country. He tried to advocate the president’s plan of,

“Closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands;

Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence;
Making schools safer; and
Increasing access to mental health services.”(Douglas Dispatch)

Though the plan of the President appeals to many there are some that have publicly said that they disapprove of the president’s choice to push gun control laws. “The Utah Sheriff Association wrote to the President a day after he released his plan.The letter stated ‘we respect the office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties; we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights in particular Amendment II has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.’”(Douglas Dispatch)

The President’s plan is one that in my opinion exemplifies the change that needs to happen around the gun culture in this country. For the people that lost their loved ones in the shootings or the people affected by gun violence we as a nation need to change. Mr. Biden is in the right to advocate the President’s plan for gun control. These simple but necessary things will make this country safer. From background checks to banning military-style assault rifles, is where we need to get as a nation to keep each other safe. Regarding our constitutional rights, clearly stated in the Sheriff’s Association of Utah, are founding fathers gave us the right to bare arms but they met against invading forces. The fact is that no one needs a fully automatic weapons lying around their house. And to the avid hunters out there it is a little unsportsmanlike to try and hunt with a high powered automatic rifle, I believe that it takes away from the art and skill needed to hunt. Mr. Vice President is in the right to try and help our countries gun problem the fact is there are “1,900 people who have died at the other end of a gun just since Sandy Hook in this country.’”(The Stamford Times) The Utah Sheriff Association is in the wrong to think we should interpret the constitution in its traditional form, the fact is that the founding fathers lived in a different time so it would be preposterous to uphold traditions started in the 18th century. The Gun Control plan is the least that the President can do to uphold his swore oath to protect this nation and it’s people.

The Truth behind the Trigger

As the months go by, the memories of the young lives lost in Newtown, Connecticut, will forever haunt America. There were multiple school shootings before this one, but since they were such young children being robbed of their lives it hit President Obama hard. While the rest of America was dealing with the aftermath of the shooting, President Obama was working hard to figure out how to stop this shooting from ever happening again. What can be the only solution to stop this traumatic problem? Strict gun control laws. As I read the articles pouring in from almost all news outlets, I couldn’t help but be conflicted. Maybe stricter gun control laws are the way to stop lives from ending too soon before their intended time. But then again maybe these laws are just useless. Two months and a couple of articles later, I have made up my mind. Strict gun controls law will do nothing to stop mass murder.

President Obama proposed background searches as a way to stop certain people from having guns. While this may seem like a good idea to people who have seen the outcome of gun violence, I think that this idea won’t help. Background searches may stop bad guys from buying guns, but what about the good guys? A background search may deem a person sane enough to buy a gun, but what happens when that person actually has it in their hands? We don’t know if that person might have a mental breakdown and start to shoot others around them. Others might argue back with the story about Chris Kyle. Chris Kyle was a retired Navy SEAL sniper who was killed by a mentally ill veteran. Chris Kyle and the veteran had gone to go shoot guns to try to help the veteran. Kyle’s niceness fired back on him. The veteran shot and killed him. If the veteran had gone through a background check then maybe this shooting would have never happened. The background check would have showed that the veteran had a mental illness and that would stop the veteran from ever having a gun. Maybe in this situation having the background check would be good, but in other situations it can’t help. A person with an amazing background check could still act like a person with a horrible background check. They both could shoot people for no reason.

A person holding a gun can do anything. They can shoot animals. They can protect people. They can kill people. The truth behind the trigger is the person. The person can either be a sane one or an ill one. Background checks can’t stop a person from having a gun. There are illegal ways to obtain one. In the constitution, in the second amendment, people are allowed to bear arms. People are allowed to have guns. By having background checks, are we not going against the constitution? In CNN’s blog, Political Ticker, Kevin Bohn says that the NRA has “seen its membership rise to record levels as the gun control debate has raged since the Newtown school massacre in December.” Many people are against gun control laws. The school shooting brought out the issues of guns full force. If people could do background checks on the people who buy a gun, then maybe this tragedy could have been avoided. Then the shooting of Chris Kyle brought out the reason why people should do background checks. Every single shooting will leave people wishing that guns didn’t exist or that there be laws prohibiting certain people from ever having a gun in the first place, but the reality is that we can’t stop these shootings.

Gun Control: Obama’s Time to Act is Now

The two extremes in the gun control debate must find a middle way in order to assuage the heat of the debate. Following the mass murder in Newtown Connecticut, the debate has grown to be volatile. Since the massacre, President Obama has presented his rationale in supporting steps to more controlled gun policies. The President understands that complete gun control is impossible because the Constitution is nearly impenetrable. The second amendment states, “the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” (Amendment II). A bill that does not violate the second amendment and is still effective requires strenuous work in Congress. As of today, 2,033 people have been murdered by guns since The Newtown tragedy and certain liberal states are becoming impatient, while the republican states are becoming aggravated (Slate). For the President, the time to act on gun control policies is now.

With the majority of Colorado siding towards democratic policies, gun-control bills have already been passed. According to MinnPost, the Centennial State has “hosted to two of the worst gun massacres in recent years” and is now seeking action against guns. The Colorado House of Representatives passed four bills on February 28, 2013 that will limit gun ownership in Colorado: “ammunition magazines limited to 15 rounds; a requirement for background checks for all gun transactions; a requirement that gun purchasers pay for their own background checks; and a ban on concealed guns in stadiums and on college campuses” (MinnPost). The Senate, who is mostly democratic to a lesser degree than Colorado, has not yet voted upon these four policies. The President has proposed similar gun legislation in his State of the Union of “an assault weapons ban, background checks and restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines” (Fox News). If passed, those on the side of gun control will have won a battle, but not necessarily the war. If one of the policies were to violate the constitution, federal law would trump state law and the policy would be declared impossible. While some states have leaned toward gun control, others are taking the exact opposite approach.

Missouri, a southern conservative state, has a few extremists who want to take action towards banning gun control protests. Though

this law is practically assured denial, a “Missouri lawmaker is proposing to send colleagues to prison for introducing gun control legislation” (Fox News). It is not the attempt of lawmaking that is important, but rather the point that Missouri will not tolerate gun control. In fact, every attempt to create a bill has an equal and opposite reaction. Missouri’s “Republican-led Legislature has taken a different approach — more guns, not less.” One Senate committee is even trying to broaden the gun laws by declaring the right to bear arms “unalienable.” The policy would reflect the Constitution’s Preamble, however would no make much sense. The founding fathers did not consider the right to bear arms unalienable. If they did, the second amendment would not be necessary. I do not think a law to extend the rights of gun owners would be beneficial to the morality of America. However, the increase in weaponry could alleviate the Federal deficit. A country that prioritizes its economy over its integrity is a country doomed for failure.

The President has laid out his plans for America’s gun legislation, now it is up to Congress to decide the extent of the power of a bill that is to be passed, or any at all. There will always be tension between those for and against guns, but the only fair way to act is to find a median that minimizes opposition. The two extremes’ propositions are practically impossible to pass in America today. Thus, the only resolution to such a complex problem is through negotiation and acceptance by both sides through warranting leeway for the greater good of the USA.

Colorado Shoots for Gun Control

Ever since the shooting at an Aurora movie theater last summer there has been a national rise of gun control proposals to stop these unfortunate events from happening again. Also with the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting gun control has become a popular debate topic in politics. This debate over whether or not to enhance restrictions on firearms has become a constant focal point for state legislators this year. Gun control is an issue that the United States has been dealing with for a long time. It is very hard to find a solution that both sides would agree with, but since these recent shootings there has been more pressure into finding an agreeable solution to gun control.

With these shootings the United States is trying to figure out how they can reduce gun related violence. We must act fast before another tragedy occurs due to gun violence that results in multiple deaths. There is one state that has been pondering tougher gun laws since the Columbine school shooting in 1999, this state is Colorado. Colorado has had recent experience with gun violence due to the Aurora “Dark Knight” shooting. This state has lived under the shadow of two of the worst mass shootings in United States history. Gun proposals are being pushed hard by state Democrats this year due to the recent gun shootings. In the article from New York Times lawmakers in Colorado have moved closer on passing a package of new gun restrictions this past Friday. Colorado’s House of Representatives gave approval to legislation to require background checks on private gun sales and also placing limits on ammunition magazines.

Both Republicans and Democrats were paying close attention to this issue to see the results of this topic. State Representative Rhonda Fields who is a Democrat said “There is a common thread that we see in these massacres” he believes that these mass shootings are happening because “They’re using high-capacity magazines.” Since they are using high-capacity magazines it gives them the ability to unleash as many bullets as they can to fulfill in committing these mass shootings and killing off as many people as they can with the ammunition they have. Many Republican legislators argued that the proposed magazine limits would have little to no effect on gun violence. Jared Wright, a Republican who is State Representative from Fruita, says “It makes no difference to public safety if there are 10 rounds in a magazine, whether there are 15 rounds in a magazine or whether there are 30 rounds.” Personally I agree with State Representative Jared Wright on how making magazine limits will have little effect on gun violence. By trying to change the size of the magazine of a gun will not effect or stop people from causing another tragic event from happening again. I believe that there needs to be more drastic gun control laws so we can stop these shootings from happening. Republicans also are not in favor of the background check proposal because they say people that are buying guns from a federally licensed gun dealers must already undergo a background check in Colorado just like in every other state that is under federal law. Republicans state that all of these new proposals for gun control will not stop criminals and felons from committing another mass shooting and I agree with them. I do want to see stricter gun laws but these proposals will have little effect on gun control in the United States.

There are many aspects and views on gun control and citizens of the United States should research and learn about the topic before giving their own opinion about it. What I learned from reading this article and comparing it to our government class is that there’s a difference between finding a solution to a problem and the politics behind the solution. Both sides have to agree on the solution and it needs to satisfy each of the sides view on the problem.

Is the Second Amendment right under fire?

Gun Control is one of the most debated issues that we all have to deal with in our everyday lives. Lately, there have been many controversial attempts to band automatic weapons because of events that have occurred recently like Sandy Hook and Chris Kyle. Gun control is a major issue today because of the controversy between the two very passionate sides of debate. One side of the group believes that people kill people, while the other side of the group believes that guns kill people. Personally, I believe people kill people. I know that the events that have occurred recently are catastrophic, but in the end it is not the gun that pulls its own trigger… it’s the person behind that in the end pulls the trigger.

Recently President Obama has been reaching for security on handling automatic weapons. President Obama has outlined four major legislative proposals aimed to limiting the gun violence that has escalated quickly in our country today. They are; universal background checks for all gun buyers, a crackdown on gun trafficking, a ban on military-style assault weapons, and a ban on ammunition magazines holding more than 10 bullets. President Obama wants to strengthen the background checks, research on gun violence, and also proved training in “active shooter situations”. These four steps with the help of stepping up security in this subject are what President Obama is looking to do with his gun-proposal for the better of our country in the future.

The process in buying a handgun is difficult enough as it already. One must show photographs, a birth certificate, proof of citizenship, proof of residency, any arrest information, a letter of necessity, and lastly a social security card. The security in buying a handgun or any automatic weapon is not the problem we have. The problem that we have is the people who do not use guns correctly. That is why in Texas, you have to take the gun safety course, so the one handling the gun knows what happens when it fires, the cause and effect of firing, and in all around general teaching of handling a handgun or automatic weapon. To get a handgun license is not easy. You take classes all day and also take a test at the end. It is not an easy thing to pass. Personally, stepping up the background checks is not necessary because the background checks in general are already top of the class.

I disagree with President Obama’s gun-proposal because it is not the gun that pulls its own trigger; it is the person behind that in the end pulls the trigger. As a native Texans and a hunter with my grandpa, I know what to do with handling a gun, and also what not to do with a gun. The problem we have in our country today is not the gun itself; it is the one that is in procession of the gun. What I believe we should do is teach others the importance of handling automatic weapons and handguns. I know the Sandy Hook Shooting is a major tragedy along with the murder of Chris Kyle, but in the end, it is not the weapon that causes the damage. I think banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets is not necessary. There is just no point behind his want to ban ammunition. If he is trying to prevent murder, it will not happen because someone can easily buy more than one magazine at a time.

As the gun control debate goes on, we all need to realize that in the end, no side of the debate will get what they want. Everyone has different opinions and that is normal for a topic like this. I think it is important that we continue on forward and find ways to prevent more shootings and tragedies to occur, but it is also important that we understand that its not the objects fault, that it is the one behind the object that make the decision.

It’s Easier Said Than Done

On December 14, 2012, twenty children lost their lives to a bullet.

Emilie Alice Parker was one of the children shot at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Six teachers, who were dedicating their lives to education, lost their lives to a bullet. Newtown, Connecticut lost family and friends to a bullet. Adam Lanza shot these innocent children and blameless teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School. This means there is an angel in heaven that will not be able to celebrate his/her seventh birthday because of a gun. This incident brings the United States together to discuss gun control. In Barack Obama’s State Of The Union Address on February 12, 2013, gun control was saved for the last part of his speech, as this is one of the most controversial, frustrating topics to find a solution to. There is the discussion of making more detailed, secure background checks, preventing criminals from receiving weapons, and sending votes to Congress. The most sincere and significant part of Obama’s address was when he said, “I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different.” This time is different. This occurrence isn’t even remotely similar to any other event. These were pure and righteous citizens who lost their lives. When a first-grader loses his/her life from a twenty-year-old man, we know the United States needs an adjustment. What that adjustment is? What should the revised gun control regulations be? It is unknown. But, with the assistance of Barack Obama and all the various rolls he plays, a more stable and safer future is sure to come.

As I have learned in my Government and Economics class, Barack Obama has numerous rolls and responsibilities. These jobs will greatly impact the outcome of gun control. Obama is the Voice of the People and Protector of Peace. These two roles easily place him as the leader of gun regulations. First, as the Voice of the People, he must understand and comprehend what the citizens want. He represents us. He is a human being with every citizen’s words inside him. He doesn’t just listen, but responds to the opinions of this country. If we want certain guns banned, he can follow through on that. If we want to have a majority vote, then he can follow through on that. If we, as citizens, do not want guns to be allowed within a hundred feet from all schools, Obama can follow through on that. He is our voice. He is what we want as a whole country. Also, the President is the Protector of Peace. When an event or sudden disturbance somehow troubles the People’s peace, it is the President’s job to step in and help. It is the President’s roll to maintain peace. When an occurrence, such as the one taken place at Sandy Hook Elementary, happens, Obama is the one to act. This may include making decisions that are best for the United States. Sometimes the United States can’t have what is best for the country and what each citizen wants. Obama is the leader and decision-maker for both the Voice of the People and the Protector of Peace. He will be able to lead us to more thorough gun regulations.

Based on discussion in class, my own research, and the news, I realize that history keeps repeating history. Nothing is happening. In Colorado, there was a shooting at a movie theatre. After a few months, during which Obama claimed to have been making a change, innocent children were killed at their school. The same nerve-wracking episodes will keep repeating each other until something is actually put into place. I also do not necessarily agree with the voting mentioned in Obama’s State of the Union. Why is a vote necessary? The ones who vote ‘no’ for gun control bills are the ones who shouldn’t have weapons in the first place. The wrong hands are getting a hold of weapons. I obviously do not have an answer to the problem. I do know, however, that something needs to happen now. We can talk about it all we want. Putting a plan into action is different. Just like people say, ‘It’s easier said than done.’

How to Approach Gun Violence

Ever since the “Dark Knight” shooting on July 20, 2012, the nation has been in a frenzy over gun control. Since then, there have been multiple infamous events including the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Gun control has been a popular debate topic for quite some time now, but why? Shootings are not a new issue, so why are they so important now? To start off, the media, our main source of knowledge as 21st century citizens, is blurred with filter bubbles. Filter bubbles are essentially the systems in media sites, like Google, that automatically do an advanced search to help find the most relevant information one is looking for by tracking one’s history. Although intended to be helpful, filter bubbles might provide only one side of information to a researcher and not allow them to get a full perspective. It is common knowledge that the media tends to be liberal; with that in mind, the information a citizen sees tends to be filtered for the liberal agenda. This extends to say that when President Obama, our Democratic president, makes an announcement there tends to be less counter argument due to these filter bubbles. Every person is biased, making filter bubbles inevitable, but it is the responsibility of a citizen to pop these bubbles and get down to the basic information and facts on a topic. Back the the original question, why is there such an issue with gun control now? This question is hard to answer, and so far hasn’t been answered because gun violence is not a new issue. It is obvious to say that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting added fuel to the debate. Using this event as an example, a responsible citizen must look at how they approach an issue before developing an opinion on a topic, much like how they should with the Presidential Election.

There are surplus amounts of stories on gun violence on the news, and it is important to step back and look at the facts. First, the increase in gun violence stories has increased rapidly partly because of filter bubbles. Look at these stories but remember to take away the bias emotion associated with them. This is not a new idea either: in Federalist #78, Alexander Hamilton approaches the idea of letting go of one’s emotions and just focusing on the facts with his argument about the “ill humors” of the people. Second, remember the Constitutional rights. The second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution gives citizens “the right… to keep and bear Arms.” The radical solution to get rid of guns is unconstitutional, and not logical. Remember where and why amendments were made: what is the history behind this amendment?

CNN does a good job of keeping up with the gun control debate. In the article and video, Biden: Obama exploring executive orders to combat gun violence, Josh Levs goes through not only the main issue about violence, but also introduces ideas about the effects a change will have on gun sales. When approaching this article, it is important to notice the biased viewpoints. The article consists of quotes by Vice President Joe Biden. His perspective is that change will “affect the well-being of millions of Americans, and take thousands of people out of harm’s way.” This is only one opinion. The article breaks down filter bubbles by bringing in the National Rifle Association, who “has argued that it is committed to keeping people protected, but that a focus on stricter gun control is misguided.” The evidence of no filter bubbles is prevalent again when CNN gives information past Biden’s quotes. The fact that “Wal-Mart initially said scheduling conflicts would prevent its “experts” on gun control from attending” but later “announced it will send representatives to the Thursday meeting” provides key information on changes, even on the economic level. Showing that Wal-Mart is getting involved provides information to a voting citizen that gun control does not only affect the safety of people.

There are many aspects of gun control, and an accountable citizen should learn all facets of an issue before developing an opinion, even if that means suppressing passionate emotions. The CNN article above serves to show what an article without filter bubbles looks like; multiple perspectives, and an overall look at the situation. There are a lot of emotions wrapped up in gun control, and it is illogical to make a decision on an emotional whim.

What the Gun Control Debate Teaches Us About Government

President Obama speaks after the Sandy Hook shooting

On December 14, 2012, a shooting occurred at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, claiming the lives of twenty young children. Soon after the tragedy, the United States became captivated with one question: What can be done to reduce gun-related violence? The ensuing debate about gun control has helped display many of the concepts that we have learned about in our government class. The Constitution, the pathways of action, and the powers of the Presidency have all come into play during the last few months. The current gun control discussion is an excellent real-life demonstration of how the government works together to deal with issues.

The first, and most basic, way that the gun control debate intersects with our government class is through the Constitution. During our learning, we have been asked to take on several case studies of the Constitution. We must interpret a Supreme Court case (real or fictional) and decide whether the events that transpire are constitutional or unconstitutional. In terms of the gun control debate, the second Amendment to the Constitution reads 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” (Amendment II). Obviously, this brings just as many questions as answers, but the interpretation that the law has used for most of American history until now is that American, adult citizens have the right to purchase and keep guns. However, in a government heavily influenced by John Locke, a major duty of government is to protect both its citizens’ lives and liberty. Thus, when certain firearms go well beyond the necessary stopping-power needed for protection, many believe that the government must implement gun control in order to keep Americans safe. On the other hand, there are great deals of people who argue that the government attempting to regulate guns violates the Second Amendment and interferes with the liberty that the government is meant to preserve. Because of the dichotomy of views on gun control, any potential legislation will likely have to be a compromise, that both ensures the safety of American citizens while not infringing too greatly on the rights of gun owners.

NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre gives a statement on gun control in the midst of protest

Another area in which our class and the real world have overlapped is the pathways of action. In the wake of Sandy Hook, the largest pro-gun lobby group, the National Rifle Association (NRA) made their official statement regarding gun control. Instead of conceding stricter gun laws, the NRA argued for increased protection, including armed guards within every school. Pro-gun control groups like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have also had their say. Additionally, individual Americans have attempted to create change through grassroots mobilization. Through the Internet and social media, getting the attention of many people has never been easier. Facebook posts, a variety of Twitter hashtags, YouTube videos, and whitehouse.gov petitions have all been used to try to create momentum for both pro and anti-gun control sentiments. Finally, a few politicians and leaders have attempted (albeit with little success so far) to enact cultural change. Many believe that American culture is too overtly violent, and some legislators have attempted to change that by adding potential restrictions on the depiction of violence in movies, television, and video games.

Finally, both the formal and informal powers of the President have been prominent throughout the last few months in the gun control debate. President Obama has strongly navigated the roles of Chief Legislator and Voice of the People. As Chief Legislator, Obama created a task force to explore all options available in the fight to reduce gun violence, and to make propositions about what needed to be done. During the State of the Union, Obama became the Voice of the People, concluding his address with a moving segment meant to stir up the American people and demand change. The President made use of Executive Orders after his initial proposal, and continues to play a key role in the discussion of the topic between Republicans and Democrats.

In the end, our government class has trained me to not just see the end product of a passed bill, but to also see all the work and effort in both directions that goes a nationwide policy debate such as the current argument about gun control. While the way in which our government works as a whole can be quite complicated, having knowledge of civics and government allows me to break down each component of change and progress. I believe in gun control policy that both keeps the public safe while respecting our freedoms and rights; government class has allowed me to make an informed opinion and analyze the situation.