Guns – 21st Century Citizenship

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?

Cronut vs gun — 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 Murderers per 100,000 residents — 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.

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.

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.

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.’

Gun control is a recent topic of discussion for the U.S. due to recent events occurring making people more conscious of people around them. A threat of ill-minded people with easy access to dangerous weapons like assault rifles. This has raised too many red flags to people in the U.S. and has set obama’s gun control laws in motion.

Since the massacre in newton and the Colorado theatre shooting gun control has been a big topic for Obama and his associates. This is a story I have been following during the trimester because of its correlation with our ParishGOV class. The current president of the U.S. (Barack Obama) wishes to have certain laws altered, regarding gun control, to ensure that the citizens of the U.S. are safe. The changes in gun control are not to take guns away from americans but to make it harder for people who wish to do harmful things with those guns to get them. One of the proposals that the president has is to outlaw the sale of extended clips for guns beyond 10 rounds. Barack’s reasoning behind this is that no one needs extra ammo for things that guns should be used for like hunting, target shooting, or guarding your home from intruders. Another proposal from Barack is that assault rifles be ban, previously a law that expired in 2004. The last proposal for tighter gun control by Barack is that all gun sale be heavily monitored by the salesman of the weapon. Monitoring meaning that background checks be much heavier whether it be at a public store of a private auction. None of Barack’s proposals suggest he thinks that all guns be ban, which obviously imposes on the second amendment “The right to bear arms”. This relates back to our class time discussion and class work by raising questions of “can he do that?” he being Barack Obama. During class we have talked a lot about what people in government can and can’t do by using “fun with article I” and “fun with article II” looking in the constitution and seeing what the founding fathers and past governments have decided to be just. Doing those activities during/outside class has helped me tremendously understanding what government officials are proposing and which side they stand. For instance some citizens in the U.S. think that what Barack is doing is absolutely unconstitutional and wrong. Specifically the NRA is campaigning around the U.S. trying persuade people to side with the NRA and oppose president obama’s proposals for gun control. Spending as little as $350,000 on newspaper ads local/national, internet ads, and commercial ads the NRA is campaign to the U.S. to side with them on this matter. A major aspect of this argument that citizens in the U.S. are missing is that Barack himself has shot a gun and participates in skeet shooting at the presidential retreat and has brought guest with him.

Another proposal that Obama is trying to set in motion is looking into an increase in school safety for all schools. An example is posting armed guards around the school in case of an emergency. This leads into another proposal that Barack is attempting which is looking further into mental illness and being able to spot concerning behavior in individuals that can be checked out to prevent more shootings and other harmful things those people are capable of.

These proposals are not trying to impose on amendments or take away right that the constitution provides. Barack is simply trying to create a safer environment for all U.S. citizens, including gun owners. The NRA is obviously against all of these proposals (except the advances in research of mental illness and school safety) because their association is called the National Rifle Association, but what hopefully they will realize is that these laws would simply make it harder to purchase these kinds of weapons. The only thing is the ban on assault rifles that the NRA has a problem with but that is their business and is a valid argument. In all what Barack is doing is attempting to create his version of a safer country, but everyone has their own opinions.

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.

Gun Control: Something Needs to Happen

Throughout the time we have spent studying United States politics there has been one topic that I have constantly been following, that topic being gun control. After the Aurora, Colorado shooting in July, 2012 gun control has been at the epicenter of all things political. Gun control has always been such a sensitive subject to the United States due to the many times in its history where there have been mass shootings. But very recently it seems that the attention of both the media, the citizens, and the government has been on gun control and the many recent shootings. In the papers or on the internet we read about all sorts of gun laws trying to be passed in different states and cities, and when we don’t read about those its because another incident has occurred. Whether the Sikh Temple shooting, Newtown or any other of the 21 plus other shootings that have happened in 2012-2013 alone. And in the end for the politicians and the citizens it all comes back to what can we do. For the leaders of our country it seems to not be about who has the guns, but instead what guns and equipment they have. The single most important gun related debate at this time in my opinion is the possible reinstating of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

The controversial topic being considered by Congress is the possible reinstatement of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban or the AWD for short. This ban on semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns has already been in effect before from 1994 to 2004. It ended in September of 2004 and has not been renewed since. This ban was only on specifically named weapons (stated within the text of the law) or any of those three classes of weapons with two or more military styled cosmetic features. These features include folding stock, grip, bayonet, and both flash and sound suppressors. Added on to the bill this time is also the banning of gun magazines that hold in excess of 10 rounds. For the second time the writer of the origonal bill Dianne Feinstein is trying to get Congress to again pass this bill making weapons such as AR-15’s, which were used by multiple shooters in mass killing recently, and other military type assault weapons completely illegal.

However, gun advocacy groups such as the NRA as well as the many pro-gun members of both the House and Senate have spoken out against the ban and have gone so far as saying that its unconstitutional and goes against the second amendment. However, they do say that they will consider a magazine limiting law that cuts down on the amount of ammunition someone can carry. Senator of Connecticut Christopher Murphey has been about as involved as anyone could be since the recent shooting in his home state, he has said, “We do know that historically in these instances, amateurs have trouble switching magazines,” referring to the high-capacity ammunition feeding device used by Mr. Lanza, Newton shooter, and others to shoot put out more ammunition “I believe, and many of the parents there believe, that if Lanza had to switch cartridges nine times versus two times there would likely still be little boys and girls alive in Newtown today.”(article) Senator Murphey as well as many other gun advocates agree that magazine limitations is most likely the best way to cut down on unnecessary gun violence and deaths.

Hopefully before another large scale shooting occurs and more innocent people get hurt or killed the two separate sides of this argument can meet somewhere in the middle and better the gun policies and control in the United States. Whether that means banning all military assault style weapons or just limiting the amount of ammunition allowed in a single magazine for the guns, something needs to happen so this unnecessary violence can stop.

A Time to Lead

Gun violence, and the movement for gun control and how it relates to the 2^nd Amendment of the Constitution has been a simmering issue in our country for decades. It was not until the tragic school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut that this issue received an emotional burst and was thrust back into the national debate. There is no doubt our country’s divided political ideology prevents most from taking an objective approach to the complicated problem of gun violence. I believe our Nation’s culture needs to change in order to solve this problem and, from what I have learned in our Government and Economics class; sometimes it takes a true leader to break through the national political scene to make positive changes for the future of our country.

The mere fact that the Newtown shootings sparked the gun control debate, enflamed gun rights and 2^nd Amendment advocates as they believe the more liberal gun control advocates politicized this tragedy. As a means to push for tighter gun restrictions, the American public may be more vulnerable and quick to get behind a so-called solution that would only cause people to “feel better” but yield no meaningful results.

Parties from both side of the gun control debate cite compelling statistics often times taken out of context to bolster their respective arguments. According to factcheck.org gun murders are at their lowest rate since 1981, gun aggravated assault are at the lowest rate since 2004, gun robbery is at the lowest rate since 2004, non-fatal gun injuries are at the highest rate since 2008 and gun suicides are at the highest rate since 1998. What do these figures mean? How does gun violence in our country related to other countries? Regardless of what statistics are used or how they used, it seems evident that both sides of the debate refuse to think more broadly in an effort to make our country less violent while protecting our Constitution. Does gun violence alone account for the violent crimes in our society? Is anyone interested in how we care for the mentally disabled, how we embrace the violent nature of our movies and video games, how parents have lost control of their children? Are our problems related to broken families, poverty, ethnicity, and people unwilling to be held accountable for their own actions, people who do not value human life. Where is our leader?

ap127770430055__large — Source: Illinois Public Media

Great leaders present a vision and develop a compelling reason to change the culture of a Nation. Our President had the opportunity to show the Nation and world he has the characteristics of a great leader during his recent State of the Union Address. He had the opportunity to begin to change our Nation’s culture by outlining his vision for widespread change with regard to violence in our country. He had the opportunity to compel people to collectively begin answering the many questions posed above. He had the opportunity to transform the gun violence issue from that of a purely political matter to a problem that only Americans could solve, not a single political party. Unfortunately our President missed that opportunity and chose to take the easy way out: to be a politician. When President Barack Obama gives his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, “gun violence will be center stage, both literally and politically” (Bresnahan and Gibson). He invited several victims of gun violence to be his guest during his speech. He then framed the portion of his speech that addressed gun violence by saying “Of course, what I’ve said tonight matters little if we don’t come together to protect our most precious resource – our children. “ He then went on to use the victims of gun violence to call for a vote from Congress to pass certain measures related to gun control. He named certain victims and events, then, in a campaign chant meant to evoke applause from his political party, repeated that each victim “deserved a vote”. The obvious ploy was to gain popularity for his gun control plan (his party’s gun control plan). As usual, “Obama’s remarks were short on evidence that his gun control proposals would work.” His evidence mainly was “sorely lacking” (Carlson).

One of the cornerstones of the success of our country is based on the debate of differing opinions, in an effort to compromise, gain consensus and develop laws and policies that are best suited for most Americans. How we act as a people, our culture and values cannot be negotiated in the political process. We need to be inspired to act better, do better, live better and treat each other with more respect. Our President missed an opportunity to be impactful and the American people will most likely be the victims of such inaction.

Guns in America: The Rise or Downfall of American Society?

Whether we like it or not, gun violence is everywhere. It is in the movies or TV shows we watch, the video games our children play, and worst of all, it is right outside our homes. Now don’t get me wrong, police and military must use violence to protect and serve our country, but it is still violence nonetheless. According to Science Daily, more than 30,000 people are killed yearly in America by guns, which is about 85 people per day.

Some people have gone to the radical side and say that guns need to be removed from American society as a whole. This is not a rational and plausible solution to solve gun violence for two reasons. The first, and most important, is that is a second amendment right. The Constitution clearly states that, “ the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” (Amendment II). It is also not reasonable because in order for the public to be protected, the proper authorities (i.e. police, military, etc.) must have access to guns for them to have sufficient power over criminals. The other side of this coin is that other people are demanding even looser gun restriction laws in America. While people do have the right to have guns in America, there must be certain rules and restrictions that come with trying to possess one of these killing machines. While there is still a lot of negotiating to be done regarding guns in America, the only way to come to a plausible solution is to compromise from both sides of the equation.

The argument that involves a person’s right to own a gun is not the problem that we are facing today. The second amendment protects a person’s right to bear arms, and if a gun is their choice, they have the right to own it. This is a common point that the NRA (National Rifle Association) and many Republicans use to protect their right to own guns. While not necessarily pointing towards eliminating guns completely, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have headed a special teams of experts working on solving this ever-growing problem of gun violence.

Republicans and Democrats will have to work together in order to get the ball rolling on gun control

The Democratic side has leaned towards more of a “cutting back” approach, rather than a “fully cut” method for a solution. Jeff Mason of Reuters explains some suggested ideas this team have included, “including the assault weapons ban, and a measure to ban high-capacity magazine clips” (Reuters). This idea would not only help reduce gun violence that is based off of these particular aspects, but could also start a movement to have even more restrictions on guns in order to prevent more horrific tragedies that are caused by guns today. Without a doubt, there is an uphill battle for new gun control laws to be passed in Congress, but that only way to make it happen would be for both Republicans and Democrats to come to a median, and do what is best for the safety of our country, and not what is best for each party in the upcoming elections. The Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Democrats in the Senate along with the President will have to sacrifice some of their own beliefs, and conform their policy around something that they may not feel comfortable with in order to create some sort of solution, or to at least engage in a stepping block to get there. Mason also refers to the democrats will try to compromise by the reason that , “Obama will need to get his proposals passed” (Reuters). The proposals that Obama has begun tinkering with, besides the reduced magazine clips and assault rifle ban, are the increased background checks. These new and improved background checks will be more strenuous in their processes and will give more support to the efforts in keeping some of the world’s deadliest machines out of the hands of those who are not fit for them.

The increase of gun usage in America stems from the core of what we believe in as Americans. Since we have the right to bear arms, many Americans have decided to exercise this to the fullest, and purchase way more guns than any human being would need. Others have decided to stay away from guns because they have seen what they can do. According to Slate, 1,793 people have died from guns since the shooting in Newtown. The aftermath, though, has been quite astonishing. While the politicians and gun experts are trying to solve this gun issue, more guns are flying off the shelf.

The weeks following the Newtown shooting have brought some of the biggest times of profit for gun stores and exhibitions. While most people believe and buy these guns for protection and recreational use, the other reason is because they know that in the near future, they may not be able to buy these guns. They know that at some point the United States government is going to restrict their rights, and they want to be prepared for it. These people are exercising their fundamental rights and beliefs in order to protect themselves from not only criminals on the street, but also the government that has sworn to protect them. The citizens of the United States must learn to live with guns because whether or not we like them, we will be seeing, hearing, and responding to them in the time to come.