|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 3, 2017 16:09:30 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 pflugh on Oct 5, 2017 1:09:08 GMT
The topic about supporting either gun control or gun rights is very controversial. I believe that there should be more gun control in the United States to try and prevent future incidences like the Las Vegas shooting, from happening again. Webster stated, "They're aggrieved people who have far more capacity and harm to kill in the United States because we've for the most part decided we will not interfere in the commerce of firearms." The more access you give people who have the intent to do something horrible like a mass shooting, to purchase guns then the more likely they are to do so. If it’s more difficult then I feel as if they wouldn’t try that hard to obtain one because it’s a lot more work. Here’s an analogy. Say there’s a cookie right in front of a little kid and they were told not to take it. They’re most likely going to take it. Now say the cookie was placed somewhere higher and more difficult to get to. The kid would most likely give up because it’s too much work and it’s not worth it. This is the same with guns. It may sound silly but it’s the best way to express this situation. On the other hand, Governor Matt Bevin tweeted, “To all those political opportunists who are seizing on the tragedy in Las Vegas to call for more gun regs...You can't regulate evil.” This is a very valid point to take into consideration. Yes, you can’t regulate evil, but you can try to prevent it as best as you can. There is no permanent solution to totally eliminate shootings but making is more difficult to obtain a gun at least cuts it down. I had a conversation with someone who supports gun rights, and I understand their views and why they support this. They made a point that even though drugs are illegal, people still get them and do them. If they make guns illegal or restrict them, people are still going to get them. This seems logical but if drugs were legal, there would be a lot more people doing them and buying them. No matter what is made illegal, people are going to find a way to get them. That’s just how it is. But, it makes it harder to obtain them. Therefore, makes the gun violence and mass shootings decrease.
How do you think the people of the United States would respond if some gun rights were taken away and it was more controlled? Do you think this will help the country or divide us even more?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 5, 2017 10:49:30 GMT
@aliciapflugh fantastic original post! You are the first to get the conversation started in all of the classes. You do a nice job of referencing specific texts and I appreciate the analogy.
|
|
duffy
New Member
Posts: 15 
|
Post by duffy on Oct 5, 2017 12:22:31 GMT
Non-law abiding citizens are just that; citizens who do not follow the law. The United States government may put as many regulations on weapons as they please. However, this will not stop someone who is determined to own an illegal firearm. According to Fox News, Europe has suffered more than the United States in mass shootings despite the fact that they have outlawed automatic firearms. If a citizen intends to break the law, he/she will use any means necessary to achieve their goal. Guns do not kill people, the person pulling the trigger is the killer. Because of this, I agree with placing more regulations on deadly, automatic guns in an attempt to keep them out of the hands of bad people. However, I do not believe that the problem will be solved. It is impossible to pinpoint every possible mass shooter, and that is why this is an obstacle we most likely will never overcome.
Paddock appeared to be a harmless sixty-four year old man before he killed fifty-nine people and sent five hundred and twenty seven into the hospital. Not a single person could have predicted this terrible event would take place. Who knows, maybe a person you know will commit a similar crime. We cannot see the future, and people can surprise you.The only way we could truly prevent these events would mean that we could pull out every individual with murderous thoughts and isolate them from society. But this is the real world and that cannot be done.
The Black Market is in full operation. It is a sea of illegal merchandise in which many people turn to when they want to get their hands on something that is not readily available to them. You can purchase anything from sugar, to human organs. It would not be a struggle to find an illegal weapon.
In reality, no law or restriction is going to truly end gun violence. Murderers are going to kill no matter what the law says. That is the sad truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weber on Oct 5, 2017 21:19:52 GMT
The recent event of the Las Vegas shooting has made gun control and gun rights the main source of controversy. This kind of event has rarely occurred in the U.S, only 29 times in history. Since it is such a rare thing to occur, once it does happen, it gives people a reason to protest even more on these firearms and disputing on the Second Amendment. There are two types of firearms; either automatic or semiautomatic. An automatic firearm is a gun that has repetitive fire and a semiautomatic firearm is a gun that uses one bullet at a time. Automatics are the guns that do the most damage, or so we thought. They are a limited gun, as said on Politifact, they are “not able to make new ones since National Firearms Act was passed in 1934.” This is the weapon that people fear, hence why it is illegal and has stopped being made. But it does not mean that people do not buy the limited ones left, but that’s not the only firearm that can shoot repetitively now. Politifacts also stated that semi automatics have been altered with “a device called bump stock, which would allow a semiautomatic gun to fire at a rate similar to automatic.” Automatics may be illegal, but bump stocks are not, which if anything they should be illegal as well. But I disagree with getting rid of firearms. The Washington Post made a comment saying “That to be free means to accept the deaths, every few years of dozens of Americans.” This mentality does not have to be this way towards firearms if you look at the greater outcomes or other solutions. If our the government would amend the Second Amendment, only a small portion would be solved, but it could turn into much more devastating outcomes. There are still weapons besides guns, much more devastating weapons, such as nuclear weapons. If they would be taken away, how would we defend ourselves? Not in retrospect to nuclear weapons and wars but the wars on foot with weapons that are ready at their side. The Washington Post also said that, “The United States is Far from fragile confederation of ex colonies that needed to defend itself in the face of meddling European empires.” Yes, it is true that this country has developed and changed over the centuries, but it is wrong in the sense that we, as Americans, do not need to defend ourselves. We do still have European countries that are our enemies or just wanting more power or tyranny. What would happen if we did not have guns then? An attack that could overthrow, hurt, kill, and destroy our country as we know it. An hypothetical situation yes, but one that is not far from a possibility if so happens. Another perspective was quoted in the Fox News article, saying “countries such as France may have made all semi automatic guns illegal, but that hasn’t stopped form killers from getting fully automatic machine guns to use in mass shooting attacks.” This shows that even if we did ban or get rid of semiautomatic guns, it would not stop people from going out to get automatic, which are illegal as it is. People are the reason that guns have become a weapon, not the gun itself. What needs to be done is to look more into mental health conditions of people and to do further background and tests instead of blaming it on the object, when its the person behind it pulling the trigger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caldwell on Oct 6, 2017 0:20:13 GMT
We as Americans tend to admire the words “freedom” and the “power to own what we desire”. This brings up the current topic about gun control and whether there should be restrictions or less government interference. The Las Vegas event that occurred on October 1, 2017 has once again brought about this controversy on what should be done to end these tragic events. Nancy Kaffer the writer from the US Today article said that, “because the folks driving this train have decided that this is the way we live-that to be free means to accept the deaths, every few years, of dozens of Americans” this displays the government views on the people as the issue not the weapon. In this the government believes what has been put into place by the second amendment should not be altered. Nancy is stating that she believes majority of Americans will agree in they want smarter gun control. She also states that most Americans do not want to fear attending public events, but our lawmakers over the past years have not changed their minds. Nancy says “This fight is over. It was over after 26 first-graders and school workers were murdered in Newtown, Conn.” Her view on gun control is that we as Americans in the US need to have further restrictions, but the lawmakers will and are continuing to loosen, not tighten, gun laws. The other side to this gun control controversy is that even if one was to put restrictions on gun ownership it will not stop similar events to the Las Vegas attack from happening. As John R. Lott from fox news said, a fact that people calling for gun control need to understand is “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.” In other words even with restrictions one can still go against the system and cause damage. We as Americans want to believe this action will stop people but we also know that “everyone” is a risk taker and can perform crazy things. When events like this happen, we investigate the scene and try to find an answer as to what the intent was. In some cases it will always be a mystery and never understand why the action was taken. My stance on gun control is that we need to have further restrictions. Although it may never end these horrific attacks I believe it will limit the amount of attacks drastically for people will become more afraid of the consequences for action that would also need put into place.
If the information is finalized that the weapon used was a semi-automatic rather that an automatic do you believe that there is now going to be a more complicated system for purchasing semi-automatic guns as well? Explain why or why not.
|
|
|
|
Post by pflugh on Oct 6, 2017 0:22:44 GMT
@ayslynduffy I agree with your point that the problem will never be solved. It's a very complicated situation to decide which is "right" and "wrong". Paraphrasing what you said that "a man who is determined to own a firearm will get one," which is very true however, I personally think that having somewhat of control on guns would lessen the chance of that man getting one. I can see from your point of view that gun control won't really help because guns don't kill people, people kill people.
|
|
|
|
Post by pflugh on Oct 6, 2017 0:38:50 GMT
@charleecaldwell Your use of quotes was very useful to explain both sides of this controversy. To answer your question, yes, I do think getting a semi-automatic gun would be harder if the information is finalized. I think this because this attack was so massive that it injured over 500 people and put hurt onto those families involved. This will open up the eyes of the government and realize there needs to be a harder process to acquire a gun. Hopefully, this will decrease the amount of gun violence in the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 6, 2017 0:49:21 GMT
I am proud of you girls for getting started early, making great original posts and Alicia, your responses to them are a model for other students to follow. You all do a great job of referencing the texts and backing up your stances thoroughly. Keep up the Great work, it does not go unnoticed!-AM
|
|
|
|
Post by @aliciapflugh on Oct 6, 2017 10:53:55 GMT
The topic about supporting either gun control or gun rights is very controversial. I believe that there should be more gun control in the United States to try and prevent future incidences like the Las Vegas shooting, from happening again. Webster stated, "They're aggrieved people who have far more capacity and harm to kill in the United States because we've for the most part decided we will not interfere in the commerce of firearms." The more access you give people who have the intent to do something horrible like a mass shooting, to purchase guns then the more likely they are to do so. If it’s more difficult then I feel as if they wouldn’t try that hard to obtain one because it’s a lot more work. Here’s an analogy. Say there’s a cookie right in front of a little kid and they were told not to take it. They’re most likely going to take it. Now say the cookie was placed somewhere higher and more difficult to get to. The kid would most likely give up because it’s too much work and it’s not worth it. This is the same with guns. It may sound silly but it’s the best way to express this situation. On the other hand, Governor Matt Bevin tweeted, “To all those political opportunists who are seizing on the tragedy in Las Vegas to call for more gun regs...You can't regulate evil.” This is a very valid point to take into consideration. Yes, you can’t regulate evil, but you can try to prevent it as best as you can. There is no permanent solution to totally eliminate shootings but making is more difficult to obtain a gun at least cuts it down. I had a conversation with someone who supports gun rights, and I understand their views and why they support this. They made a point that even though drugs are illegal, people still get them and do them. If they make guns illegal or restrict them, people are still going to get them. This seems logical but if drugs were legal, there would be a lot more people doing them and buying them. No matter what is made illegal, people are going to find a way to get them. That’s just how it is. But, it makes it harder to obtain them. Therefore, makes the gun violence and mass shootings decrease. How do you think the people of the United States would respond if some gun rights were taken away and it was more controlled? Do you think this will help the country or divide us even more? Alicia I like this question because I think that you will get a lot of different responses. Anyways, my response to this is that people would be upset if there were more gun restricts on our right to bear arms. I believe that it would further divide our country and people would argue that we should either all together make the process harder for one to purchase guns or only those with specific evidence to prove they need to be questioned are unable to purchase a weapon that they desire. I believe that "majority" of Americans want to be able to still have guns in their ownership, but events like this make citizens and the government question how to end things like this from happening again. |
|
|
|
Post by @charleecaldwell on Oct 6, 2017 10:57:05 GMT
Sorry I was the one to respond to Alicia's post I was confused and typed in here name as guest name. I'm sorry
|
|
duffy
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by duffy on Oct 6, 2017 14:33:23 GMT
@charleecaldwell I would like to specifically pull out the statement you made regarding the “fear of consequence”. Personally, I feel that those willing to commit these violent crimes have zero fear of the consequences they would face. Mass murder is not something that would go without punishment, and these criminals are aware of that. They do not care about what happens after they commit these crimes, their goal is set. Restrictions won’t sway their plans in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neely on Oct 6, 2017 16:23:48 GMT
Guns or any weapon are not intended to harm humans for any matter, but that is what it is turning into, the Las Vegas mass shooting is a prime example. People today can relate very much on the topics of limiting a certain amount of gun control and rights. Some Americans could argue that guns are important to their, life due to their job, such as in law enforcement or for hunting animals. In an article published by NBC News, Tom Winter poses the question, “ Should automatic guns be banned from citizens, unless they are in the military or a form of government?” An automatic gun is defined to be a weapon that are designed so that the shooter only has to hold in the trigger to fire and then release. I’ve concluded that in order for someone to own an automatic type of gun they must go through a background check, to show officials where that person lies on the lines of their own mental health and their abilities to react to certain situations, such as if someone gets on their nerves they need to stop and think before over reacting right away. In contrast to this, anyone whether they have mental issues or not can flip out on someone over something,which leads to mass shooters motivations in some cases! Can the government stop gun violence? Certainly not, due to the fact that people today do not necessarily know how to react in certain situations, but the government can try their best to. Anything such as murder is going to continue in this world no matter what. Americans are good at finding their ways around things, as seen in previous situations. We as Americans along with the government need an action plan for these types of situations.
Why do people feel obligated into killing other humans who may be guilty or innocent? Is it an act of revenge, mental issues, or possibly how they’ve been brought up? In addition, how do you think the government should control large public events such as the one in Las Vegas recently? Should there be more security or more in depth background checks and bag checks for the people going to see the concert in the surrounding hotels and at the concert gates?
|
|
|
|
Post by Neely on Oct 6, 2017 16:36:02 GMT
@ayslynduffy
I most certainly agree with you on the fact that you stated by saying, "Guns do not kill people, the person pulling the trigger is the killer. Because of this, I agree with placing more regulations on deadly, automatic guns in an attempt to keep them out of the hands of bad people. However, I do not believe that the problem will be solved." because in the modern world today"bad people" can be anywhere. You really never know. For example, they could be the person you're standing by in line waiting for food. I've concluded that the government will try to do their absolute best to try and stop all the gun violence, but as you've stated it is nearly impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neely on Oct 6, 2017 16:45:00 GMT
@charleecaldwell
If the gun used in the Las Vegas mass shooting was proven to be a semi-automatic weapon, there should be harsher guidelines put into play for purchasing one. In addition, for owning any type of gun, I believe a background check should most definitely be required even if they use the gun for other purposes such as in animal hunting seasons. Due to having background checks, there would possibly less gun violence then we’ve seen in the past years, let alone the past couple current events.
|
|
