Gun control has been a very "hot" topic for quite some time now. Although I, personally, do not know much about it, I do know that many people go crazy over this topic.
I totally agreed with the authors that this gun situation has gotten out of hand. Adam Gopnik was right when he brought up the fact that the Virginia Tech shooter was clearly disturbed/mentally ill, but he was still allowed to buy guns that are only used for killing. Shouldn't background checks be conducted to see what kind of people are acquiring these harmful weapons? Why are these guns even available for purchase in the United States? It makes sense to need them for war and such, but there is no point in selling them at the corner gun store! Shouldn't it be obvious for the store owner to see that these guns primarily kill people and are not used for hunting game, etc.?
Another great point made by Gopnik was that the time to talk about security is not AFTER the terrorist attack has already happened. Once something happens, it's not like we can just go back in time and erase it! It is more important to prevent something before it happens than let tragedy occur and have innocent people die.
The essay also explained that after tragic incidents in various countries occurred, their gun control laws changed and as a result, there haven't been any more mass shootings. However, after everything that has happened in the United States, gun control laws have stayed fairly the same. There is a direct correlation between gun control and violence; why can't U.S. legislators see that? Of course, we can't control everything that happens, but we can dramatically reduce our risk by not letting any person buy harmful guns.
Susan Sontag's portion of the essay was extremely negative. I found it humorous that she called Bush "robotic." I agree that it seems like public officials want to always express their confidence and grief management...
Maybe I'm being too close-minded or concerned, but I do believe that guns are becoming a larger and larger issue that needs to be fixed! How many more incidents like Virginia Tech and Columbine will it take before reform occurs? Somewhere between easy access and no access to guns is probably the best for America at this point.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Chelsea-I completely agree with you. I don't know that much about gun control either, but it's so obvious that something needs to be done about it! I like your statement about how once something happens we can't go back and erase it. I agree that we need to try to stop tragedy BEFORE it happens. It makes no sense that guns made to kill people are being sold to anyone--let alone people with a mental illness. I think you're right in concluding that we need to land somewhere between easy and no access to guns.
ReplyDeleteNice analysis, Chelsea. You raise a lot of good questions about the way we deal with guns in our society. I'm not sure the author Adam Gopnik is saying that we shouldn't talk about gun control after a massacre (although I think he'd agree with you that talking about it beforehand would be even better). It seems like a point he's making is that after a tragedy our leaders call for "healing," even if that means avoiding hard questions about why that tragedy occurred. If we don't ask these questions, however, we're doomed to experience more tragedies.
ReplyDeleteNice work on your blog-- keep it up.
If you haven’t already, check out the blogroll on the class resources page, so you can start seeing what everyone else is up to.
Chelsea,
ReplyDeleteI liked your response a great deal. Your use of questions got me thinking.
I do have an answer for one of them. Where you ask "why can't U.S. legislators see [that gun control and violence are related]?--The answer there would be the NRA. There are such strong lobbying groups that are against gun control that they can successfully blindfold the legislators with the Benjamins.
I was disappointed that you didn't speak as much about the Sontag article. With your response to Gopnik's article being that strong, I had hoped you'd have one just as good for Sontag. I'd like to hear your opinion on it.
-Andrew
I do agree with you that background checks should be required before one is allowed to purchase weaponds that are designed to kill.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of your response. I think that the government needs to recognize that there's a problem at hand and events as tragic as Virginia Tech will keep occurring unitl they make a change with gun control. I think it's unfortunate how things often play out in this world when tragic events happen. I agree that it's too late to change things after the fact, but I do think there's always room for improvement to prevent future tragedies.
ReplyDeleteOverall that was really well done! But I agree with Andrew when he says he would like to see more about Sontag's essay (I'm not one to talk though, I found much more discussion topics in the first essay as well).
Thanks Chels!
:)
Nice analysis. I found that I agree with what you stated almost entirely. I agree that Susan Sontag's article was extremely negative. As for Adam Gopnik's article, I also agree that gun control does need to be tightened down on.
ReplyDeleteAnother strong point that you mentioned was that things need to be prevented. It is a lot cheaper to prevent something than to clean up and treat a mess that could have been avoided.
Anyways, great article and keep it up!
I have to agree with everyone on this. The backgroung check is a huge thing that nobody is doing. If there is a five day waiting period, why not pull records?
ReplyDelete