Lindsay Robinson Raddled English 109-02 2/9/2013 Gun Control: The Ongoing Debate It was a typical cold, Friday morning in December for the village of Sandy Hook in Newton, Connecticut. Sheila Harper kissed her son Johnny good bye and watched as he skipped toward his first grade classroom without a worry in the world.
With a smile on her face, she headed towards Black Bean Coffee, picked up her usual hot mocha latte, and continued down the snow-covered streets to the offices of The Newton Bee.The phone rang as she set her coffee down next to the recently earned Reporter of the Month" plaque on her desk. Her world turns completely upside down, as she receives news that her innocent 6-year-old had been a victim of what became the second deadliest school shooting in the United States history. Like Sheila, a countless number of Americans have lost loved ones resulting from a mass murder and/or accidental shooting.What laws should be enforced to control the growing number of citizens who are losing their lives? There have been a variety of views introduced regarding the gun control debate since it has been in progress for close to five decades. While most individuals offer ideas of particular policies that might be best for the US today, Donald Barman and Dan M.
Kahn introduce a process they believe each individual should utilize before the ultimate decision of a policy is made.In their Emory Law Journal entry, "Overcoming the Fear of Guns, The Fear of Gun Control, and the Fear of Cultural Politics: Robinson 2 Constructing A Better Gun Debate", Barman and Kahn turn their attention away from any opinions on enforcement of particular policies and focus instead on the decision-making process regarding this issue. They begin by recognizing two sides of he debate: those who believe we will be safer with guns versus those who believe we will be safer without.They suggest that currently, decisions based on these sides, are being influenced too much by emotions and culture which are in turn, hindering their power of argument.
Then they propose potential principles that could be followed to bring about a more meaningful result. As summarized in these principles, Barman and Kahn suggest that people should focus on thinking about what kind of society THEY want to live in (4). It is believed that this thinking process will provide a session backed by identity-affirming personal values that could potentially enhance its power of persuasion.From this individual decision, they introduce an idea they call identity vouching suggesting that "Individuals of diverse worldviews can be persuaded to accept a middle-ground solution on a culturally charged issue when figures-- who share their cultural identity and whose commitment to it are beyond question-- assure them the compromise is acceptable"(4). Basically, Barman and Kahn are saying that people tend to adopt the decisions of those they trust. They go n to say that as more people adopt this trusted view, its power of persuasion will get stronger.
It can De Interred Tanat Barman anon Kananga malign Delve Tanat ten Tate will continue until we, the people of the United States, can follow the process he has introduced to make our own powerful compromises on the best policies for our country. (Barman 2006) Robinson 3 Gearing more toward popular reaction to the debate, Andrew Romano and Pat Wingers introduce policies specific to their opinion in their news article entitled "2,405 Shot Dead Since Tucson".They begin by introducing a young man, Colic Goddard, who took four out of some 200 bullets fired by Sung-Huh Choc while sitting innocently in his French class at Virginia Tech in April, 2007. In attempt to persuade officials to address this situation, Goddard put together a pro-gun documentary entitled Living for 32 that conveniently aired one month after State Representative Gabrielle Gifford was injured in yet another shoot-out in Tucson, Arizona.Since this incident, thousands have been shot dead and according to Wingers and Romano, President Obama, despite the claims he made about changing America, has done thing but make open-ended promises on gun control Just to "cross his fingers and hope they forget" (3). They go on to explain that gun safety advocates are not looking to challenge the policies that have already been established by the Second Amendment rather, the majority are recommending that a background check be run for anyone who buys a gun, as well as the banning of high capacity clips.
Results from a 2011 NEWSWEEK-DAILY BEAST poll show that 86% and 51% of respondents support the idea of these enforcements accordingly (3). While one of the policies suggested by Wingers and Romano was simply banning the clips for these guns, Joe Klein suggests banning assault weapons all together as well as establishing an advanced recording system for ammunition purchases in his Time magazine article "How the Gun Won. In reference to the mass shootings he notes, "The violence has a lot to do with the state of our mental health, the increased mobility and atomization of our Robinson 4 society, the time young men in particular spend alone staring into television and computer screens, the comic-book depiction of brutality-- and yes, the availability of ever more kinetic weaponry'(l). In other words, Klein might believe that these young en that have a reduced state of mental health are more prone to wanting to take the stories simulated by video games and comics and turn them into reality.
He then goes on to introduces the idea of enforcing stricter background checks as well, in attempt to keep those mentally unstable from purchasing any guns. While enforcing these polices might keep some of these individuals from purchasing a weapon, Klein reminds us that technology is still increasing, which can also result in the increase of unstable people. Controlling this, he might suggest, is beyond any control of the president (4).While one of Kelvin's ideas includes the establishment of a recording system for ammunition, Hugh Lafayette believes in taking that system one step further. In his philosophical Journal piece, "Gun Control: The Issues", he suggests that comparison between whether owning guns is more harmful or more beneficial should be assessed to make gun control legitimate.
The strong correlation of . 67 between any gun prevalence to overall murder rates according to Lafayette, is the "Test emplace evidence we nave" to snow Tanat guns are In Tact more marital than helpful (18).He aims to steer away from any policies involving an extended amount of overspent intrusion in due to the high cost of these interactions. Based on this evidence, he proposes his policy idea: to make all gun owners liable for any harm done Robinson 5 by their weapons. In extension to this, he also proposes the purchase of liability insurance by gun owners to cover potential losses.
In association with protecting our freedom, The United States Constitution does in fact reserve the right of a United States citizen to bear arms.That right however, should reserve restrictions in order to more efficiently protect citizens. Americans do tend to let those above them, such as heir parent's, teachers, and preachers, influence the decisions they make about anything from laws to which football team to cheer for. The decision process introduced by Kahn and Barman should be utilized immediately so that a powerful argument can be introduced to the government, forcing them to act right away.Those arguments should include stricter background checks, as mentioned by Romano and Wingers, a ban on assault weapons as Klein suggests, and making all gun owners liable for any harm done by their weapon, as proposed by Lafayette.
Despite Leaflet's suggestion on keeping government intrusion to a minimum, it is Roth the protection of US citizens to extend background checks preventing anyone with evidence of mental instability from purchasing a gun. There is no legitimate reason for anyone to personally own an assault weapon.
