Saturday, July 21, 2012
#6: Gun Control & Tragedy in CO
I'm sure you have all heard about the terrible shooting in Colorado this week. When events like this occur, it refocuses national attention on the question of gun control. This article explores the issue. What is the fundamental debate about gun control? Why do you think America has such a different attitude towards gun control than other nations (most notably those in Europe)? Would better gun control laws prevent tragedies like what happened in Colorado?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution laid down very direct and specific guidelines about gun control: Nothing can take away a person’s right to own a firearm. Now, some people argue that any state restriction at all is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment, but the general consensus among Americans is that the states shall regulate the purchase and ownership of firearms. And, as long as the weapon is not an assault weapon or a handgun, it is relatively easy to acquire in most states.
ReplyDeleteThe tragedy in Colorado is just that: a tragedy. Tighter gun laws would not help prevent this type of event from occurring (Unless they were to ban all firearms, which, by the way, is unconstitutional), but they would prevent people from obtaining firearms for personal protection. But even if a gun-banning law were to be passed, it would not stop all gun-related crime. There are illegal ways to acquire firearms. The fact of the matter is that while tragic, this event is the exception, not the rule, and there is no perfect solution.
The fundamental debate about gun control concerns the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and how citizens and law enforcement should interpret this amendment in current times. The Framers of the Constitution clearly granted citizens the right to keep and bear arms, but the debate today is how difficult it should be to obtain a gun and who should qualify to buy them. Gun control is stricter in many other countries like Canada, Britain, and Japan, than it is in the United States and I believe the reason for this is due to the United States’ emphasis on freedom in our history. The right to keep and bear arms is included in the U.S. Constitution and is a right that has been granted to citizens since the early years of our nation. I agree with Andrew K. and Eugene Volokh, in the article, that this tragedy in Colorado has no real solution. Gun laws aren’t going to be able to stop someone intent on committing a crime such as this. Tighter security in public places and other preventive measures are the only ways to prevent a tragedy of this magnitude from ever happening again.
ReplyDeleteThe essential controversy over gun control is the constitutionality of it. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states the rights of citizens to legally own firearms. The regulation of access to firearms, or gun control, is debated today because of the extent to which government can interpret this amendment. Completely banning guns would not only be unconstitutional, but also would not really stop the problem. As Eugene Volokh stated in the article, someone who has really set their mind on committing a crime like this is not easily stopped. Using stricter gun control like most European countries would not prevent these types of tragedies because of our culture. The United States culturally and constitutionally does not accept strict gun control because of our history of freedom. Even so, stricter laws regulating guns are not going to prevent tragedy. I agree with Meg when she says that preventive measures are the only thing that we can do to try to stop a tragedy of this magnitude.
ReplyDeleteAs stated above I do not think we can make a nig change because it clearly states in our constitution that we have te right to bear arms, in the 2nd amendment. A reason we are different from Europe is we have more freedoms, we aren't ruled my a monarchy or socialist government. However there are two reasons why I don't think we should make drastic changes. The first reason, is this guy is a lunatic. One persons actions should not change everything for all the other people who have guns. This is a certain case and it cant be used as a stereotype on anyone that owns guns. As Rachel said when someone wants to commit a crime like this nothing will stop them, they already have their mind set. My second problem is security. How does a person sneak into a movie with 3 guns especially a rifle and a shotgun? This is clearly an error in security. Some changes that would help would be metal detectors and the presence of police in the theaters. This one incident I believe should not change gun laws dramatically, only change the requirements to get the guns/license.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental debate over gun control is a constitutional issue. The second amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. With this being stated in the United States Constitution, it is up to the state and local governments to interpret it and make the safest gun regulations possible without them being unconstitutional. But I think that gun regulations in the state of Colorado had very little to do with the shootings. I believe that the only way the shootings at the movie theatre could have been prevented would have been better security at the theatre. As Garrison already mentioned, how could this man easily go into a movie theatre with three weapons and two of them being an automatic rifle and a shotgun? The man was an average guy who no one would think would kill and injure so many people, so why shouldn’t he be allowed to buy a gun legally? For all the license issuers know he could just be getting guns for hunting or protection. In the article Mr. Volokh exclaimed that the only major prevention that the government could do is to ban all guns. Even if that did happen, it would probably not stop people who are really dedicated to commit a crime from getting their hands on a gun. I think that reform on gun regulations would not stop people from obtaining the guns they want and would not lower the rate of murders. I also believe that stricter regulations should not be the result from this incident but stronger security at public accommodations.
ReplyDeleteThe second amendment right to bear arms has always been a controversial issue, specifically because people don't know what the Framers of the Constitution were thinking specifically about. Still, if I had to try and figure that out, I would say that they were talking specifically about state militias. That doesn't mean that I don't think other people should have the right to own guns, I do. But times have really changed since the Constitution was written. That means that situations have changed. When the Constitution was being designed, any man could have been in their state's militia, therefore they would own a gun. Now in the 21st century, states have National Guards to protect them. The one thing that these two time periods have in common is that the right to bear arms existed. Think of how far America and its people have come from where they were then.
ReplyDeleteAlso, having more gun restrictions might seem like that would get rid of situations like what happened in Aurora, but on the inside, there are ways to get around laws. Every law has a loophole, and gun restriction laws are no different.
The debate over gun control will never come to an end. It will constantly be argued between parties, but nobody will make a move. The thing about this debate is that there really is no one side that seems logical. The risks law enforcement would be taking by enforcing gun laws could be very bad. But, as shown by this recent shooting, maybe the gun laws aren't strict enough. Imagine what would happen if guns were completely outlawed, or made extremely hard to get, and the only people allowed to carry firearms were law enforcement. That seems like it could work really well. Until someone smuggles in some guns. If that were to happen, that person would be untouchable, because they have guns. But, if the laws were loosened and it would be easier to get a gun, there could be some serious issues.
ReplyDeleteAmerica does not want to turn into a country were guns must be taken everywhere for protection, but it also must guarantee rights given by the 2nd Amendment. There is no easy solution to this problem, and I don't foresee any action being taken in the near future.
The fundamental debate about gun control revolves around the second amendment. Should all people be allowed to carry guns and how far should the gun control laws go to prevent people from having guns. Other nations in Europe are much more tight in their gun laws and have an extensive firearms database. The reason why the U.S. doesn't have that strict of laws is because of the 2nd Amendment. In order to have laws on our guns like Europe, we would have to amend the Constitution and repeal the 2nd Amendment. Better gun control laws would not really affect the number of murders or mass killings in the U.S. because if someone really wants to kill people, they will find a gun (even if they're totally banned). Just as a cocaine drug addict will always find cocaine, even though it's illegal. Maybe doing extensive background checks and interviewing close friends and family for anyone who wants a gun will decrease the number of shooting incidents, but that would cost a lot of money and people who really want a gun would find a way around that anyways. I would probably feel safer if everyone had a gun because then if someone started a mass shooting, someone else could just shoot that person. There really isn't a true solution to keep bad people from having guns.
ReplyDeleteI can see why Millie says she would feel safer if everyone had guns, it makes sense: you're not going to be as inclined to shoot people if you know that some of them will shoot back. But then what happens when guns become an everyday object, no longer a big deal. Also, if there are guns in every household, wouldn't the accidental deaths of children who found and then played with the guns go up? I don't think everyone should have guns, I think the laws and regulations for people who have or are trying to get guns need to be tightened and enforced.
DeleteHere’s an article about how more guns=more homicides.
Deletehttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
The article reviewed literature and research that has been done concerning the relationships between the ownership of guns and homicide, both here in the United States and in other countries.
The Colorado shooting was very tragic, and it will become a very talked about shooting in classrooms in years too come. I do not believe that "poor gun control" is the reason to blame for this incident. I agree that because of this shooting there will be stricter regulations passed to prevent something like this happening agin, but like Mr Volokh and many other people have said; if somebody has their mind set on committing such a crime it will be committed. As the Second Amendment states, citizens have the right to hold and bear fire arms. I don't believe that right will ever be provoked. Even if there had been stricter regulations on being permitted to own a fire arm in Colorado James Holmes most likely would have been able to acquire one. He was very intellegent and hadn't been convicted of any crimes before this incident. Since no one knew he was so demented and mentally ill he would have been able to buy a gun. I have to question if this incident will cause the government to question theater security. I do agree with Millie that there is not one solution that can be determined that will allow us to no longer worry about this becoming another problem.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kaleigh that whether or not there had been tighter gun control laws, Holmes would have been able to commit this heinous crime. Prior to this incident he was considered a regular, even intelligent citizen who had all rights to be carrying a weapon. He would most likely have passed any tests that accompanied acquiring a gun. "“It’s hard to prevent someone who is really bent on committing a crime from getting them,” he added, and “it’s unlikely that gun laws are going to stop him.”" Mr. Volokh quotes in the article. Being as dedicated to committing this crime as Holmes was, he could have gone to any number of sources to get his hands on any gun or weapon that would've done the job.
DeleteHowever, when considering the Constitutional amendment that allows gun control on a citizen level, we must also consider the reason the Framers included this amendment, and why the states demanded it. This constitution was the beginning of the new country, and prior to that, the Articles of Confederation had not supplied much control to the government, which may have left citizens feeling unsafe and unprotected. Shay's Rebellion could have turned into a very dangerous affair, for both the government officials and the citizens involved. If the same citizens that had experienced this potential fear were also requesting changes to the Constitution that would define their lives and laws, then having the ability to protect themselves may have been especially appealing. Which brings us back to the Aurora shooting. I'm sure the people in the theater would've felt much safer had they had the opportunity and resources to protect themselves, say, with a gun.
I honestly don't believe, as Kaleigh and Margaret both pointed out, that tighter gun control would have made a difference in this tragic event.
This tragedy in Colorado could not have been avoided simply with the installation of more gun control laws. I agree with those who said anyone determined to commit a crime, will commit it; and since when do criminals follow rules? Example: The United Kingdom has very little debate over gun control, and has very strict limits on firearms. The biggest of these, the Firearms Act of 1988, was installed after massacres and shooting sprees led to public demand for restriction. However, according to The British Journal of Criminology, gun crime actually INCREASED after these bans were enacted… by 40% in the next two years. Seems to me like more laws, or stricter laws, are not the solution. There are other factors that contributed to this attack. The article states that this chain of movie theatres prohibits firearms, but a man walked in with three guns. I definitely agree with Garrison when he said it is an obvious security fluke.
ReplyDeleteThe Colorado shooting was a tragic incident but unfortunately very difficult to prevent. As Mr. Volokh said it would take a total ban on guns to have been able to prevent a shooting like this from occurring. Even if there was a total ban on guns they would still be accessible to people illegally. There would still be illegal trafficking of guns just as there is with drugs. The chance of there being a ban on guns would also be extremely unlikely do to controversial opinions and the difficulty of changing a constitutional amendment. So it would be extremely difficult to prevent a shooting like this by using gun control.
ReplyDeleteIncreasing security is the issue that many of you had with the situation. The problem with this is we don’t know how much of a difference it will make. Movie theaters have many exits and someone could have just let him in on a side door. The problem is we can’t afford to have police at every door of every movie theater. So increasing security might help but it cannot completely prevent this from happening because it would take such a large amount of security to prevent it.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a fitting description of this tragedy in Colorado. As Mr. Volokh said, the only way to have prevented this from happening was if all guns were banned, but even that would not matter because firearms can still be obtained illegally. The Second Amendment gives us that Constitutional right to bear arms for protection, and it's not just to punish everyone else for those people who misuse this right.
ReplyDeleteStricter laws should be maintained when people want to purchase a gun, but that will never happen. There are already heavy restrictions that gun sellers don't enforce. So who's to say that they will enforce the new ones?
If anything, I believe that there should be more constraints on assault rifles. There's but so many things a person can do with that sort of weapon.
On the issue of the Colorado Shooting as it relates to gun control I believe that the laws of the United States should inflict more severe punishment towards offenders and violaters of gun control policies. So what are we talking about here, is this an issue of gun control or an issue of bad people? The United States have one of the highest percentages of gun violence. The Second Amendment does give us rights to bear arms, but it does not give us the right to abuse rules and regulations mandated by congress. In conclusion I believe that harsher gun control policies will not prevent violaters, because in the end "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental debate about gun control is what too much regulation is. The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. If the government places too much regulation, it would create uproar and would be claimed as a violation of individual’s Bill of Rights. I think America has a different view on gun control than that of other nations because America had to break off from a government so weapons were necessary to protect themselves from the British. In England, most police officers do not carry firearms, forcing police to try and use non-violent methods instead of guns. Europeans are not as safe as one would assume with their tight laws on firearms (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/10/john-lott-america-gun-ban-murders-multiple-victim-public-shootings-europe/). With this in mind, I do not think tighter laws would have prevented the tragedy in Colorado. The rapper Ice-T said it best, “…if someone wants to kill people, they wouldn’t need a gun to do it…”
ReplyDeleteThe hot controversy surrounding gun control laws stems from the second amendment, “the right to bear arms”. Some people view this as saying everyone should be allowed to own a gun for personal protection, while others view it as being out dated much like the third amendment on “no quartering of soldiers”. However, the case involving the Colorado shooting is not the place to base the decision on about gun control. It is made clear that under many of the safety regulations used to handle gun control, the man was still able to get his hands on everyday guns because he very well qualified. The answer is not to outlaw all guns, because then, only the people who mean to cause true harm will have these weapons and everyday people will have no protection. However it is a good move to start with gun safety laws and qualifications as there already are. Of course there will people that squeak through these laws and cause serious damage to people, however having regulations saves a lot more lives.
ReplyDeleteThe "Right to Bear Arms" will always be a topic of debate in this country. I think that this constitutional right should not be messed with. I realize that many tragedies have occurred over recent years, but I still fell like people should be able to own a gun in their house for protection. Guns are extremely accessible, which makes it hard for the government to crack down on those that buy them for the sole purpose of hurting others. I think that the requirements for buying guns should be revised. For example, a person should be limited in the amount of ammunition that they can buy at one time, or maybe certain psych tests could be administered before the purchase of a firearm. I do not think that a person's constitutional right should be abolished, but I think that the government needs to find out how to limit the ways that a madman can get his hands on a firearm.
ReplyDeleteAs stated in the article by Mr. Volokh, “The only weapons-control solution that could do anything about this kind of murder would be a total ban on guns”. Above Andrew and others have already pointed out that such a ban is clearly in violation of the 2nd amendment and is thus unconstitutional. Even if congress passed an amendment allowing the ban of firearms, James Holmes would still have had access to them in some way. It says in the article he was a neuroscience student, so it is safe to assume he isn’t stupid. He would have found ways to acquire weapons even if a ban was in place. This tragedy is similar to many others in that there are few ways to prepare for it. An inclined maniac most likely would not have been stopped by increased security. Although this event stirs up emotions that make many want to take action to prevent similar attacks, the best way to prepare for disasters is to make people more aware. Also law enforcement may need to step up training or create new ways to deal with such calamities
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental debate about gun control is what regulations states can create on obtaining weapons. The second amendment says that we have the right to bear arms, but what does this really mean? Much of the Constitution is very vague and open to interpretation, which creates a lot of controversy. The gun control laws in European nations are stricter than those in America, and it is because America has always been about freedom and individual rights, and the ability to bear arms is just another right that the people have. Better gun control laws might have prevented the tragedy in Colorado only because there was speculation about Holmes having a "psychiatric disturbance", and if there were to have been a more thorough background check on Holmes it might have been caught before he was able to purchase his weapons. But, in the future hopefully it would be more clear whether or not someone is mentally ill, so stricter gun laws may not help that much.
ReplyDeleteThe debate over gun control has been a large part of our political discussion for at least the past twenty-five years according to internet discussion on the recent shooting in Colorado. Legislative efforts to restrict gun laws has swung both ways in most states and nationally during the same period. When tragedies like the killing of twelve innocent movie-goers at the Galaxy Theater in Aurora, Colorado occur, the issue moves front and center even while we mourn the victims. And the question remains the same, whether more strict gun control could have prevented this shooting and others. I believe no form of gun control could have changed what happened in Colorado that night. The suspect was clearly plotting to kill and bring attention to himself. Regardless of this event, I still believe that gun control makes sense for this country. The only kind of guns people need are for sport or protection. The fact that the suspect, James Holmes, easily purchased an assault rifle without restrictions frightens me. Yes, it appears that he had no history of mental illness or similar issues in his background, but what about others? It is not the lawful citizen with a gun who I fear, it is the felon, the ex-convict, or the mentally ill. I think thorough background checks make sense when purchasing any type of weaponry and that assault rifles should never be included in that purchase. The Second Amendment clearly provides us the right to bear arms, but I do not believe this should include assault weapons.
ReplyDeleteWhile a tragedy, the movie theater shooting in Aurora couldn't have been avoided. This is the type of thing that happens every once in a while (Columbine, V-Tech) that arouses a nationwide debate over gun control laws. The 2nd amendment grants the right to bear arms for protection, not to break into a movie theater and fire upon hundreds of innocent people.This protection granted occurs most often when somebody may break into your home and you feel the need to protect yourself. The "assault weapon" was perfectly legal. Anyone over 18 can spend the money to buy just about any semi-automatic gun they want, and even automatic guns can be obtained through a strict process. In North Carolina at least, anyone can walk around, as long as you don't impede on private property, openly carrying a gun, and you may not be persecuted. The man who shot up the movie theater appeared a normal, sane minded person, so screening before gun purchase wouldn't prevent him from getting these guns. Simply put, there is no amount of laws that can be passed to prevent these things from happening. With as lenient as gun control laws are, it is amazing these mass shootings don't occur but every few years.
ReplyDeleteThe debate over gun control has been ongoing for a very long time and probably will be in the future as well. On this issue, I believe that the government should not ban the purchase of firearms, but some precautionary measures such as background checks would be a good thing. The 2nd amendment of our constitution does give us the right to bear arms, but the modernization and increased effectiveness of our firearms today could lead to a new interpretation of the amendment due to the dangers some of these modern weapons create. The right to own a firearm for protection is more than understandable, and should not be denied. However, purchasing automatic military-grade assault rifles for this purpose is not necessary. Handguns, on the other hand, wouldn't be unreasonable at all for self protection. Hunting rifles are also not a problem because people all over the country hunt. It's just the military-grade automatics that create the most potential for a problem and there should maybe be a certain standard of mental strength and a clean record in order to purchase one of these weapons. I do believe the saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." However, an automatic assault rifle makes it a lot easier for people to kill people.
ReplyDeleteThe debate is how to interpret the second amendment to the constitution and how it applies to our current times. The second amendment states that the citizens of this country have the right to bear arms. Many people argue that the second amendment was put in place so that the colonists could protect themselves from the government if it tried to completely govern over them, just like the British did. Many believe the founding fathers intended for the second amendment to be a protection from government and its troops. They don’t believe that that the amendment applies to our current times and that it is no longer required. Others believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right that is clearly stated in our constitution. I think that this attitude towards gun ownership that is distinct to our country is due to our history. It was a right the colonists thought they should have, and is a right that was fought for in the founding of our country. I don’t think that stricter gun control could completely help prevent tragedies, like the one in Colorado, but I do think it could help. If someone really wanted to do damage like that they could, but with stricter gun control it would make it harder for them to do so. I think that it would definitely help some but not get rid of the problem. Completely banning gun ownership might decrease the number of killing significantly, but that is not something I believe is realistic. There are too many people that support gun ownership and it is so heavily debated that is would be nearly impossible.
ReplyDeleteThe widespread debate surrounding the second amendment and the right to uphold firearms is one that will never end. The struggle of trying to restrict those with firearms, as well as those who wish to own one opens up so many doors paved with nothing but controversy. Placing restrictions on Americans in order to prevent gun usage will not stop these Americans from misusing their weapons; as the final decision to pull the trigger is up the individual. As America is a country centered on being “freedom” based, weapons such as “assault rifles, shotguns, and handguns,” can be easily accessed to any American or Non-American citizen. Therefore, I strongly agree with Meg D when stating the usage of tighter security, also the use of restricting who can buy certain firearms. Administering personality tests before purchasing firearms can use these restrictions. Of course these tests will not be full proof and will have their flaws, however, it may better assist to keep a gun out of the hands of a potential murderer, and hopefully save a life, maybe a few and overall prevent such tragedies as the one that occurred in Colorado.
ReplyDelete-Marissa B.
The second amendment protects every citizen of the United States’ right to bear arms (own a firearm) and I believe that there should be no further restrictions placed upon owning a firearm simply because of one man’s act of insanity. One man’s actions should not allow the government to try and take away or restrict the rights of other citizens to bear arms when they had no involvement in such an event. Many could argue that tighter gun ownership laws could help to prevent such catastrophes from happening again, but there is one thing that many people tend to forget; the black market. Just because someone is prevented from buying a gun in a store or showroom doesn’t mean that they can’t simply pull some strings and get their hands on a weapon from some other back street or out-of-country source. Another flaw in this argument lies in the fact there is no way for authorities to anticipate when, even those who have a license to carry firearms, will have a bad day and decide to take out their anger on innocent people. In addition, most people don’t realize that ramped up gun control will take away those guns that many people use for personal protection to keep their families safe. Here is an interesting fact; as gun purchases increase, crime levels decrease. If criminals know that a family owns a weapon, they are less likely to attempt some type of criminal act upon that household due to fear of being harmed themselves. The reason behind the United States having a different attitude towards gun control than other countries is the fact that our Constitution (the supreme law of the land) states that we all have the right to bear arms and this right cannot be taken away. Members of my family own guns for self protection and I want to keep it that way.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Second Amendment does protect the right to bear arms, we must take into account that this document was written over two hundred years ago. At the time, guns were slow firing, inaccurate, and generally less deadly. The fact that we have the right to bear arms, does not mean we should just let people build up arsenals of assault weapons. The purpose of such weapons is just that, assaulting people. Shouldn’t we ban weapons whose sole purpose is to end the lives of other human beings? Pistols for instance, have no little if any use in hunting. We have a large amount of easily concealable weapons whose only purpose is to kill other people in the hands of private citizens. We should regulate this more strictly to prevent future deaths of innocent people.
ReplyDeleteGuns are a big issue all around the world. People believe that you can just regulate everything about guns and make it nearly impossible for a person to buy a gun but there will always be people trying to get those big guns and just to be that one guy or girl that has that gun. But then you will have operations like "Fast and Furious" that will come back a slap you in the face all because of a mistake. But also those people that already have high powered rifles and high caliber weapons, you can't take those guns away from. Those people that have those weapons may have a physiologic break down and go do something like this.
ReplyDeleteSome people may just want to protect their family also. Those people in Colorado have to worry about wildlife coming into their backyards all the time. So it's not that rare to see a person with a high caliber rifle for a bear or some other big game that are popular in that region. Also John Lott the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" states that crimes of violent nature are less likely to happen because of states that have "shall issue" concealed weapon laws, just cause of the perpetrator doesn't know who is armed and who is not.
The major debate about gun control is a constitutional issue about who should be able to own guns and why others should not be allowed the same liberty. Currently, people who have been convicted of felonies, have a mental illness, etc. cannot own a gun. By doing so, you have limited the amount of people who are "a plausible threat" to safety from getting one of the most dangerous things you could own, a firearm. However, that does not stop most people. Just like the drug trade, there is an underground movement of gun trade. Therefore, if the government were to increase laws on gun control it would be an infringement on second amendment rights and also increase the illegal gun trade. In other European countries, like Sweden, it is very complicated to obtain a weapon since you need a license for anything from pepper spray to a gun. According to the International Herald Tribune, the European Parliament and Council adopted strict gun laws to differentiate themselves from the "gun-friendly culture of the United States." This is understandable because Europe is more socialist in their ways than the United States, meaning that the government has more control over people. The United States on the other hand, escaped from those views because the founders believed that they were unalienable rights.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental debate on gun control is the question of what regulations to place over who can obtain a gun. This debate is one that has stumped Americans for decades. American citizens are unlike any other in the world; we have strong control and influence over who can do what in our country. But with this unique control comes unique conflict. How are we to balance opposing opinions? While no one wants to worry about a homicidal psychopath interrupting their daily activities, many are resistant to increase gun control for fear of losing their right to bear arms. However, when we experience crises such as the tragic midnight shooting in Aurora, Americans are faced with the fact that while new laws may have a positive effect, until we stop arguing and take action, these crises will not cease.
ReplyDeleteThe debate on gun control is a constitutional issue that has been going on for a long time. Every shocking event involving a gun brings back the argument of who should be able to own guns and why others shouldn't. People can have the right to own a gun taken from them if they have certain convictions or mental illnesses. By restricting certain types of people from owning a firearm we can at least know that legally they do not have a gun in their possession binging at least a little peace of mind . However not allowing people to own a gun legally doesn't stop many people if they want a gun bad enough. Their are many ways to obtain a gun illegally. My point is that Increasing or changing gun restrictions to be more harsh or strict would not change or help with things like the Colorado shooting. If people want a gun their are just as many illegal places as legal places they can obtain a gun. The restrictions don't need changing. What needs attention is shutting down or stopping people from obtaining guns illegally.
ReplyDeleteAmericans do tend to have a greater love of firearms than most European countries. I suspect that it's due to it being a constitutional right to own them. More over, firearm possession has become a deeply held belief, and beliefs are not things that can be changed through simple debate. But the real debate is not over whether Americans can or cannot own firearms, it is about what kinds of firearms they can own. Assault weapons and pistols are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. Assault weapons give civilians military grade firepower, and pistols are easily concealable into restricted locations.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether or not stricter gun control laws would prevent these tragedies, I would like to think so. The gunman at the Aurora shooting wouldn't have killed and wounded as many people in the theater if he hadn't had an assault rifle and a shotgun. But at the same time, someone with enough focus and the will to do it could find assault weapons by illegal means. Short of eliminating the second amendment, I don't see how we could stop all gun crimes. And by doing the latter, Americans than use their firearms for completely legal activities like target shooting and hunting would pay the price.
I believe the debate on gun control will never seize. The question isn’t if people should be able to own guns, but how do the obtain them. Current debates are really focused how people should be required to obtain them. Foreign countries such as England and Canada have strict gun control laws. Our second amendment disables us to have strict gun control laws. As Meg stated, our country emphasizes the doctrine of freedom, which doesn’t allow us to have strict rules like other countries. This issue will most likely never be resolved, but I believe tighter security, like more metal detectors will help prevent tragedies like this, from happening with such ease.
ReplyDeleteAs stated by many students above, this is clearly a case concerning the second amendment to the United States Constitution. The second amendment states “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is believed that all Americans have the right to bear arms, or basically have the right to own weapons. The fundamental debate is therefore, who is allowed to carry weapons? It is widely believed that Americans convicted of a felony or convicted of a crime, and/or diagnosed with a mental illness should not be allowed to carry a gun permit. This believe itself is an infringement upon the second amendment since it limits who is authorized to carry a gun permit. To be politically correct, the second amendment should be altered so that the individual states should have control over who has the right to “bear arms.” Back to the situation, James Holmes was a very intelligent and determined man. Stricter gun regulations and increased security would not have stopped him. Stricter gun regulations are unfair since it punishes all Americans and if Holmes couldn’t sneak those guns into the theater, he could have just as easily went in guns blazing.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental debate about gun control rides on the rights stated in the second amendment of
ReplyDeletethe Constitution. The issue is determining to what extent ones rights to obtain weapons should be
protected in today’s society. Strict regulations can help limit the amount of arms that circulate
throughout the country but allowing all to have access to a means of protection can help prevent
defenseless situations. It’s a choice of which would be more affective. Europe appears to
sympathize with the first solution; there are tighter gun laws compared the United States. Meg D.
made a good argument I agree with. She felt that the United States less stern with our gun
regulations because of the “emphasis on freedom in our history”. Our nation is built of the belief
that we are a “free country” that offers boundless opportunities and freedom; those opportunities
are endless in some minds, including James Holmes. Tighter laws and requirements, I feel, can
contribute to lowering the violent attacks, yet no matter what there will be people who will break
any rules to get their point across.
the argument and debate today is whether the second amendment is still relevant today and in today's times. Some people think that we have a written right that says that we can own guns. But on the other hand people want to to put restrictions on the use of using and selling guns.some people think that we have a right to guns and that we shouldn't have restrictions on guns and its against the the constitution. I think america is different than other countries because we have so many conflicting beliefs and nobody wants to be told there long.As of in Europe you have a group of people that all believe the same thing and therefore there is no debate on who is wrong and who is right.Better control fixes nothing because there is still a black market and other ways to get around the laws. I think that just let people buy guns to protect there own selves and then less people will die.
ReplyDeleteI agree with my classmates who trace our gun control debate to the second amendment. It guarantees that everyone can be granted with a firearm and has the right to use it. But like every other amendment, it has exceptions. The controversy surrounding gun control is about which groups are targeted as exceptions to this amendment, and in some ways more importantly, what restrictions apply to people who owners granted firearms. It was founded in early American history. Colonists wanted free use of firearms for protection in a new land, and they also served as a source of power and superiority. Since then, people have distrusted government and have wanted to keep protection in their own hands. This sense of freedom has been ingrained into American values, so I don't believe people would agree with the stricter gun control laws of the United Kingdom and other nations.
ReplyDeleteWhen faced with the question, “could this tragedy have been prevented,” I feel uneasy about the answer. Mr. Volokh says "It’s hard to prevent someone who is really bent on committing a crime from getting them...it's unlikely that gun laws are going to stop him," I think he is being very reasonable. If people really want something, they will get around their obstacles. However, I don't think that stricter gun control laws could hurt anyone.
I think that Colorado should increase its restrictions on guns. The “may issue” strategy is in my opinion a much more effective way to determine who can and cannot own a firearm. It allows a person instead of a computer to asses an individual’s ability to process a weapon. I believe that this face to face interaction will help those in charge be able to better judge a person’s intentions.
ReplyDeleteEven with tighter restrictions on gun control events like the one in Colorado cannot be stopped. While it has potential to help decrease the number of events like this, I’m not sure that it would. A person determined enough can find a firearm with or without laws preventing it. The only real way to stop this kind of violence would be to ban guns completely, but that is prevented by the second amendment. Owning a firearm is an American right and with regulation and careful distribution can be a positive thing.
Like many of the students before me have said, the debate over gun control was not just brought up one time on account of the Colorado shooting; it has been going on for a long time. The big question that most are trying to answer when dealing with this debate is how can we create and stabilize a safe environment for our citizens without fully banning guns? The problem when trying to find the answer is that the majority of people who own guns are not abusing them. It is hard to punish everyone for only a few people’s actions. I believe that Americans are clever enough to get around most gun controls laws, if more were to be enacted. Although we have signs and laws stating that guns are not permitted in certain areas we still have shootings that end in tragedy. We need to do a better job of making sure that these regulations are kept up in order to try and prevent further tragedies.
ReplyDeleteThe issue over gun control comes up whenever there is a mass shooting like the one that happened in Colorado. Almost every year something like this happens and almost every time laws and regulations are questioned because everyone is trying to figure out how to prevent this from happening again. The truth is that there is no way to stop these types of shootings from happening when people only look at the regulations. If someone really wants to get a gun they can get one. The only way to truly stop these mass shootings is to put a ban on guns. Even that won't work because people still can obtain guns illegally. There are to many arguments out there that support the right to own a gun. The biggest one of them all is the second amendment “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That right there is the main reason why gun advocacy groups are so successful in keeping gun control legislation from being past. Everyone tries to put blame on the government for not putting more regulations on gun control when thy fact remains the same, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
ReplyDeleteI believe that there needs to be some certain restrictions of the second amendment. Yes it is a free country and we should be able to protect ourselves against others but at what cost. People like these have no right to have guns for the things they have caused. Every once in a while a shooting like this will come up and once again the law is challenged. However, to be honest there really is nothing to be done. Most people they will commit these crimes wont have any criminal record and are perfectly able to buy these weapons. Im not saying we should get rid of the amendment but just harshen the limits with it. Other countries don't have these laws because a lot of them I feel don't have the same problems as us. They don't have as many drugs, and the laws aren't saying yea go ahead and buy a gun. So once again for us to prevent things such as this we would really need to get rid of the whole amendment itself. Im not for that it just seems to be one of the safest things to do.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental debate of gun control is the second amendment. Our attitude towards gun control is very lose because of our founding idea were allowed to bear arms as stated in the constitution. Just our society alone is very different from other countries like japan and other European countries. we feel the value in our freedom and praise it. Stricter gun controls only make it harder, it does not mean a tragedy like this can ever be solved. Like my peers have said there is no such thing as a "perfect" solution to this. I can only hope that something like this can be recognized and to further increase security and make the facility safe as possible.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental debate about gun control revolves around the Second Amendment, which clearly states that citizens have the right to own a firearm. The interpretation of the Second Amendment is the main debate regarding gun control. That is what causes this to be a constant controversial issue. This is an issue that may not have a real solution. Like Volokh said, anyone who is really devoted to committing a crime is going to commit a crime. If someone really wants to get a gun, they'll find a way to get a gun regardless of the gun control laws. Stricter gun control laws will punish everyone, not just those who abuse the right to own a gun. Such laws will only make it harder for people to get guns for protection, it won't keep a criminal, who doesn't obey the law anyways, from getting a gun and using it to harm those who will no longer be able to defend themselves. But I do agree with Thomas' suggestion of banning weapons whose purpose is to kill. Or at least keep them out of the hands of the general public.
ReplyDeleteGun control is a controversial issue because no one really knows if making gun laws stricter would make enough positive difference in society to be worth it. The question is whether or not stricter gun control would stop some accidents from happening and how that conflicts with the Constitutional right to bear arms. Even though most say that stricter gun control would not have stopped the incident in Aurora Colorado, the Government should take all possible action against the threat. If there is a chance that it would save lives than it is the Government’s responsibility to step in. Stricter laws on gun control do not take away the persons right to a firearm, they are just making it harder to get one; it is not impossible.
ReplyDeleteThere is essentially only one debate when it comes to gun control, and that revolves around how tight the restrictions on guns should be. The Second Amendment clearly states that Americans have the right to bear arms, but it neglects to say anything about the process to get it. I believe that the process should be more strict, such as the processes in Europe. They have less gun related crimes and less suicides from guns than America, so it seems their tactic is working. You also have to remember that the Second Amendment was created in the 18th century, where Indians were a constant threat and many people hunted for food. This is not the case today, and i do not believe that this tragedy would have happened if there were stricter laws regarding guns.
ReplyDeleteAdding more gun control laws would not prevent this massacre from happening. As the Second Amendment states that citizens have the right to bear arms, Colorado chooses to support it very loosely. Although we wish it were otherwise, like Volokh said, anyone who is really devoted to committing a crime is going to commit a crime. therefore increasing the strictness and difficulty of bearing and arm, could possibly decrease the amount of crimes committed, but not completely end them. Like Stephen said, the debate is not about whether or not Americans can own a firearm, it's about what type of firearm they are allowed to own.
ReplyDeleteThe debate about gun control is over the second amendment and how extensively it should apply in modern times. Obviously we can't have zero gun laws, but at the same time we can't have draconian gun laws that make it nearly impossible for the average person to acquire a firearm. Currently, guns are rather easy for the average person to purchase, and the vast majority of the time this isn't an issue. Gun control only becomes an issue when tragedies like the Aurora shootings happen and the masses demand to know how something this horrendous could happen. The fact of the matter is tighter gun laws wouldn't have prevented James Holmes from opening fire in that Colorado theater. Short of completely halting all gun production in the entire world, there will always be guns for people to purchase, whether legal or not. It shouldn't be these tragedies that inspire people to lobby for stricter gun laws, it should be the 30-40 people who are murdered by guns each day; those are the people who might be saved by stricter gun control. In the end though, I don't think any gun control laws that would ever have a prayer of passing would really make much of a difference. Like it or not, guns rights are a fundamental part of America's culture and that doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteI do not know what to believe when it comes to gun control. I would LIKE to believe that if all guns were banned there would be less violence. However this is not the case. Like the author said, banning all guns will not prevent shootings like this from occuring. Somehow the people who should not have the privilege to own guns have the most destrutive ones. The people who do not abuse the right to bear arms should not have it taken away. They have done nothing wrong in this situation. It would be even more frightening to not be able to defend yourself. The solution to this problem is tracking the movement of destructive guns. My views conflict because I believe that gun control should be restricted but I also think doing this would be useless. The reason gun control is so controversial in the United States is because our country was founded on the right to bear arms. Some people think that the constitution should be changed due to society and how different it is today. If innocent civilians do not abuse the right then I think it should stay how it is.
ReplyDelete