|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 3, 2017 16:08:24 GMT
Gun Rights and Gun Control in the Wake of Mass Shootings In the wake of mass shootings, conversation typically goes straight to the topic of gun control and gun rights. Since the tragic event that happened in Las Vegas has re-kindled this topic, I would like to bring this conversation to the discussion board. *Please be aware that this is a fluid situation, meaning news is constantly being updated. As soon as I attach an article detailing what is known at this time, new information will emerge and will continue to emerge as this discussion board is active. Activity-as defined for last DB assignment- deadline for this thread will be Sunday, October 8 at 11:59 pm. Be advised, you will not be in school Monday- You lucky ducks! AM There are multiple articles to read. There are many articles for your background information. The most thoughtful and high scoring responses will use a multitude of articles; referring directly to them as evidence in your response- This is not an open forum for you to rant with nothing to back it up. You by no means are limited to these articles alone, so if you want more materials- FIND THEM. Some of the articles are INTENTIONALLY opinionated, these articles are marked by ”op-ed ” or opinion. Please make responses closer to 300-400 words for this original post. Respond to a minimum two of your peers with @studentsname. For full credit, it needs to be more than one sentence. These are guiding questions to consider when reading the texts: 1. Is there compelling government to limit (we could never suggest completely banning ALL guns unless the Second Amendment was amended) gun possession in the United States? Explain your reasoning. 2. Is there a more valid reason to limit certain guns than others? 3. Why is this such a heated debate (even when tragedy does not spark the conversation)? 4. What role does a government play when it comes to the conversation about gun rights versus gun control. 5. What is the answer or where should the focus be in the wake of a mass shooting? Gun control? Gun ownership? Background checks? Mental health? Background Articles: This link summarizes the gun debate in the United States- gun-control.procon.org/This link distinguishes automatic and semi-automatic weapons- www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/02/difference-between-automatic-and-semi-automatic-we/This article provide U.S. gun statistics- www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html - This article comes from a British news source: www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/us-gun-control-ownership-violence-statistics Current Event Information: www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-shooting-what-we-know-so-far www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/02/us/vegas-guns.html Purposefully chosen opinionated articles to spark conversation www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/02/gun-control-in-europe-is-almost-total-it-hasnt-stopped-mass-shooting-attacks-like-las-vegas.html www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/10/03/america-is-exceptional-for-its-unique-deadly-gun-culture/?utm_term=.e47fb41cc71e www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/10/02/las-vegas-proves-gun-debate-is-over-gun-rights-crowd-won-nancy-kaffer-column/724724001/ www.forbes.com/sites/ritarubin/2017/10/03/las-vegas-massacre-gun-violence/#30ed60bd38af www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/02/san-bernardino-gun-control-thetruthaboutgunscom-editorials-debates/76700270/- an article from 2015 following the San Bernadino shooting www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-defilippis-hughes-gun-myths-debunked-20160708-snap-story.htmlAs always, if you want printed copy of the resources, please see me. |
|
|
|
Post by Lindey on Oct 7, 2017 17:45:42 GMT
Many people come to the conclusion after an act like the Las Vegas attack that they need to have more control on guns. But will just having more control on guns really solve the problems of shootings that happens in this day and age? Many people say that we need gun control when they do not know much about guns to begin with. There are different types of guns such as automatic and semi-automatic, the difference between them is that semi-automatic only fires one bullet at a time with one push of the trigger, while the automatic fires cartridges repeatedly until the shooter takes their finger off the trigger. There have been regulations put into place in the United states such as the 1934 National Firearms act that restricts automatic weapons that are sold. Additionally from PolitiFact, “To buy a fully automatic rifle, a prospective owner must pay the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms $200 and pass a federal background check that shows no record of domestic violence or felony convictions.” There is restrictions on guns to be able to make it harder for people to get their hands on them, but people can still alter semi-automatic guns and make them fire similar to a automatic gun. Even though it is illegal, there are government- approved devices that allow semi-automatic machine guns to simulate a machine gun fire. From the New York Times, “At least one rifle in Mr. Paddock’s suite had a “bump stock,” a device used to retrofit a semiautomatic firearm to make it function like a fully automatic weapon.” If the government wants to increase gun control, then why would they be approving something that can change a gun that fires a single shot at a time into one that shoots more? Is the government really trying to help control guns? In the article from Forbes it states, “Not that Webster wants to ignore what happened in Las Vegas, but he wants people to understand that the most-publicized mass shootings, as horrible as they are, represent only a small percentage of firearm deaths in the United States.” This shows that not all deaths from firearms are from mass shootings, two-thirds are from suicides, also found in the article. Additionally from Fox News, “ this may be the first mass public shooting in the U.S. involving a machine gun, if it turns out the killer did use such a weapon.” So even though machine guns are commonly used in the rest of the world, it is not the case in the U.S. From the article from USA Today, “showing how this policy or that law couldn't have made a difference, that nothing could have stopped him.” Even though there are rules and regulations on guns it will not be able to stop killers from getting guns for shootings. The Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, and allows people to guarantee safety, life, and freedom. Even through all the Amendment gives us, from Fox News states, “But one sad fact that everyone calling for gun control needs to consider is that, as Europe has shown, you can have all the gun control laws you want and you still won’t be able to stop horrors like this from happening.” So even through all of the background checks and other precautions that people can take, it can still not fully protect people from what others will do.
Do you believe that putting more rules and regulations on gun control will help our country become more safe for the future? Or do you believe that nothing will change?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilbert on Oct 7, 2017 18:03:50 GMT
The recent event of the Las Vegas shooting is a tragedy, which makes people wonder why there is not more gun control. The United States has had many mass shootings over the years which have killed and injured many people. Guns cause danger; people have died in mass shootings, individual shootings, and suicides from guns. More than 12,000 people have died from guns in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Would gun control really help this problem? The shooter of the Las Vegas shooting, Stephen Paddock, used an automatic gun to kill 58 people and injure nearly 500. According to Politifact, the sale of automatic weapons have been restricted in the United States since the 1934 National Firearms Act was passed. So, Stephen Paddock has gotten an automatic weapon even though it is restricted. This makes me realize that people will get what they want if they want it bad enough, especially if they’re planning to harm others or their self. There is always going to be somewhere to get a gun even if we have gun control. There is illegal drug dealing and there could easily be illegal gun dealing, too. Some people are harsh and have bad intentions; it is hard to control people like that. Gun control could help the country a minimum amount, but not a lot because there is always going to be gun violence and abuse. The only way we could get gun violence to stop is to take guns away, which could never occur because of The Second Amendment. This gives us the right to bear arms, so we can protect and defend ourselves. The government could try to use some gun control through background checks, but how much is that really going to help? Someone who is mentally ill could have a clear background check and be able to buy a gun to harm their self or even others. Or someone who is a good person, that wants to protect themselves, could have a stained background check from their past and would not be able to buy a gun because of it. Banning certain guns could possibly help our country, but again there is always going to be someone that is going to disobey the law and illegally buy guns. There is always going to be guns around as long as The Second Amendment stays in place, so will gun control really help our country?
|
|
|
|
Post by L.Pierce on Oct 8, 2017 0:13:36 GMT
With the recent mass shooting, there is clearly a problem at hand. According to the Washington Post opinionated article, there were numerous graphs that showed how much more guns we have, compared to other countries. I believe this is unacceptable. If we want to "be great again", then we need to make sure that we stop killing our fellow citizens. More stricter guns laws need to be in place. It sounds like an impossible feat with the Second Amendment in place, but there is surely some ways to fix the problem at hand. The scary thought to me, is the fact the shooter brought at least 17 guns into a hotel! With the kind of modern security we have today, they should not be able to allow people with guns in. It might be breaking public privacy, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who never wants this tragedy again. We might not be able to limit the buying of guns, but we should able to limit where people take their guns. In most buildings, we should not allow people to bring guns in. And the fact that full-auto guns were used, and are illegal are also frightening. How do people get these guns? Foreign exports, makers and sellers? We should have private investigations to get to the black market of automatic guns. Another way that we could in-act gun control would be to do very large background checks. Does the buyer have a violent history, have they been to jail, have they ever broken any laws? There needs to be a good way to limit the amount of people buying guns. We could never stop the selling of guns, but we could find ways to prevent it. Questions: Do you think there is any better way to prevent certain people from buying guns? If there isn't what could be done to remove the violence?
|
|
|
|
Post by L.Pierce on Oct 8, 2017 0:21:45 GMT
@gilbert: Yes, there could be some laws to help prevent gun control, but there is no solid way to prevent gun violence. People will always have their guns, and removing the Second Amendment would just be unorthodox. Any way we could try to stop gun violence, there is anyways other ways. For example, if we ban buying guns from foreigners, this could just start a huge rant about discrimination, and this might even increase the amount of guns in the country. Back to your question, my answer is no, there will always be someway, somehow, someone will have guns.
@lindy: I am going to have to say there is no solid way to prevent gun violence. Back to my comment to Gilbert, even if we prevent the gun market to a certain group of people, they may move to a black market of guns. There might be a way to prevent certain guns and make our country safe for the future, but in the current state we are in, I see no positive outcome. Like what you said with the device to make Semi guns Auto, that is a deadly factor. There could be a way to stop violence by banning that, but people will always find another solution. There is no easy solution to this problem, and it might remain a big problem in the near future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lindey on Oct 8, 2017 2:18:28 GMT
@gilbert There are two different sides to this argument, one side being that gun control can help prevent things from happening and can make it harder for people to be able to have the guns that they do, but on the other side if someone is really trying to get a gun then they will find a away to. There still should be precautions and other measures that are made to try and get guns under control. Also People want to be able to feel safe and protected in their homes or wherever they go, and to have them feel more protected there has to be control on guns. But to really tell the truth, gun control will not be the overall answer to helping our country, because like it said in many of the different articles, if someone really wants a gun then they will find a way to get one, so we are really not protected. L. Pierce There are ways to help prevent people from buying guns like more background checks and to keep background checks on them throughout their life, and to go through more challenging and vigorous tasks to be able to buy a gun. But really there is not something that can truly be done to get people to not buy guns, because in the end someone could buy a gun off of a friend and use it for bad measures. They should start not allowing certain places to sell guns and only having professional gun stores supply and sell the guns, this may help prevent some violence from happening in the end. It can also make someone not want to purchase a gun if they have to take more time and energy to get a gun. Additionally, if only one place or a few places were selling the guns they can be able to keep an eye on every persons purchases, incase something does not seem right and is out of the ordinary. This may be the key into keeping down the violence that can occur. |
|
|
|
Post by Donaldson on Oct 8, 2017 2:52:51 GMT
The recent mass shooting that occurred has sparked concern about our current gun laws. In the article by Fox News, it talked about how mass shootings with fully automatic guns still occur even with the semi-auto bans in Europe. This is an important factor considering criminals will always find a way to get their hands on illegal things by any means possible. Another point is the fact that if more gun control is passed then eventually our 2nd amendment would slowly be meaningless. It is essential to own guns for many reasons, such as Self defense, hunting, and target practice. The big thing being, " 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". This means that the people need to have guns to hold our government to the truth and ensure our freedom. If more gun control would be passed then our chances of standing up against the government would be nonexistent. Another statistic to put in perspective is the fact that in Chicago where guns laws are the strictest in the country, 58 deaths occurred in 28 days with illegal firearms. This supports the fact that criminals do not care what the law says, since they are criminals to begin with. Instead of hurting the average law abiding citizen who uses guns correctly, there should be higher punishments for people who use guns to murder people and obtain them illegally. Currently the minimum sentence is only 25 years for murder with a firearm. If this punishment was stricter, then maybe less crime with guns would be committed. The big takeaway is guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Does your background with firearms affect your opinion on gun rights and gun control?
Do you believe in a higher punishment for criminals that use firearms in murder, considering the minimum sentence is 25 years?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilbert on Oct 8, 2017 16:24:03 GMT
DonaldsonYou are right, the guns are not the problem, the people are. When a person stabs someone to death, no one will blame the knife; when a person uses a bomb to kill people, no one will blame the bomb. So this brings out the question of why are we blaming the guns? A killer will remain the same, they will still find a way to kill even if they can not get a hold of a gun or they will just find a gun elsewhere. The innocent gun holders such as the hunters and the people that want protection would be the ones paying the price if there was gun control. There is no reason to make innocent people pay the price because of others that abuse guns. Criminals will do whatever they want without realizing the consequences so I do not think higher punishment will help anything, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaffer on Oct 8, 2017 19:06:47 GMT
With all the mass shootings and gun related deaths we look to find a way to reduce these events. In the United States we own half of the worlds privately owned guns and have the most shootings. The problem is if we ban guns or make it harder to get them it won't change anything. People will still find a way to get a hold of these weapons and use them. For example, there are drugs that are highly restricted but we still have problems with them. Other countries have banned guns those countries still have problems with gun related violence. Also in the Las Vegas shooting the shooter had multiple weapons that were fully automatic that are already highly restricted by the state but he was still able to get his hands on those guns. So how will it be any different if we ban guns altogether. Every state also has different laws about guns and how to access them. Many people in our country own guns for hunting and self defense. If people have weapons for self defense they can protect them selves against these attacks. In the second amendment we have the right to bare arms and taking away guns will make that amendment meaningless. This could create a conflict because many people in our country embrace this amendment and taking it way will definitely not make them happy. With all these mass shootings we can't blame the guns we can only blame the people who committed these crimes. Also most states don't allow fully atomic weapons or semi automatic weapons for hunting and to own these guns you need special requirements so there are already limits on these weapons. Something that stunned people was how the Las Vegas shooter was able to have so much ammunition and so many guns in his hotel room with out getting caught. It would have been impossible for him to move all that firepower in a short amount of time. Our problem could be our security in public places. If the 2nd amendment is amended it will never fix the issue we have.
Do you think if we as a country made it mandatory for gun owners to take gun safety classes to protect them selves against others would decrease the gun related deaths?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaffer on Oct 8, 2017 19:19:25 GMT
DonaldsonI think your background with firearms does affect your views with gun control. For example people who grow up with guns in there house usually have a better understanding and better respect for guns that someone who rarely comes in contact with firearms. @lindey I don't think gun control will change anything with the problem we have. It also may get even worse because people will no longer be able to protect themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dudich on Oct 8, 2017 21:49:17 GMT
"So to our political opponents, congratulations — this is the world you wanted. We just have to live in it. If we can." These sentences are from the end of the USA today's article title, "Las Vegas shooting: The gun fight is over and the gun-rights crowd won". This article was about the recent mass shooting in Las Vegas and how the government should tighten a grip on guns and weapons. The problem I have with this article is the last part(which I started this response with). They make it out that the people that want less gun laws are responsible for these tragedies. When talking about people who are pro-guns and people that want more gun laws and which is better I like to think about it as if the guns were drugs. Even if you make them illegal people will still illegally get these "drugs" and "use" them. But also if you make them more easily to get then more people will use them and "abuse" them. There is no real win win to these types of situations. If terrorists or psychotic people want to commit these acts they will probably find a way even with laws against them. What makes me sick is that people strictly use these tragedies to further there political agenda. An example of this is when Hillary Clinton tweeted out on October second(referring to the Las Vegas Shooting),"The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get." Why would you ever do this, this wasn't a long time after the shooting and referring to it a few years or mouths later this was a DAY LATER. Instead of coming together you split the country up even more.
My question for you is why do you think people use tragedies to further there social agenda?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dudich on Oct 8, 2017 21:52:20 GMT
Sorry if you think my analogy is offensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilson on Oct 8, 2017 23:03:57 GMT
There are a lot of debates going on in America right now but gun control has to be the most prominent in this time because of the recent shooting in Las Vegas. Injuring or killing more than 550 people, this was the largest shooting in American history. Now, the issue of gun control was being pushed before this and it is being pushed more than ever now. People are using this tragic event as an excuse to argue gun control. Bringing politics into something where it is not necessarily needed. Under the second amendment, americans are allowed to own and operate firearms but this could be changed in a very short amount of time. People standing behind the right to bear arms are not happy about the thought of their guns or their right to own guns being taken away from them. Although pretty much everyone that is of age and is mentally stable is allowed to obtain a gun, there have been restrictions that have been put on what kind of guns you can purchase. You are now only allowed to own a semi automatic gun, whereas a fully automatic gun is illegal. I can see where this would be a good safety precaution to take in a time like this but even though they are illegal, that does not mean people can’t get around it. A “bump stock” can provide the same effect as a fully automatic gun. Meaning anyone can purchase this stock and transform any semi automatic gun into a fully automatic for just a small price. This is exactly what the shooter in Las Vegas did. However I do not feel as if the problem is gun control, it’s the people using the guns. People with an unstable mental state or a history of psychological disorders are not allowed to purchase guns but again people find ways to get around it, for example the Las Vegas shooter who had a psychological disorder but never went and got help so he did not have it on record. So I guess my question is, even if more laws and regulations were put in place, would it help at all if people find a way to get around everything?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilson on Oct 8, 2017 23:07:29 GMT
@shaffer
I don't think that taking a gun safety class will help put people in the right state of mind. Anyone that would use a gun for harm over good is not thinking about the safety of a gun or the safety of anyone else, they are going to do what they want to do no matter if they take a class or not. However, if better background checks were put in place, we could prevent a lot of mass shootings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilson on Oct 8, 2017 23:10:09 GMT
@lindey
I think that there are always going to be ways for people to get around the regulations that have been set in place so no matter what they do, it is not going to dramatically effect the safety of our country at all.
|
|
