The Gun Debate, Again(link)
October 1st, 2017 marks the day of the deadliest shooting in modern America. The Las Vegas massacre killed at least 59 people and injured more than 500. In the wake of this tragedy, the entire country is in mourning, however, Democrats are looking to take action by demanding more gun control laws, whereas Republicans are offering their prayers and condolences, but no real solutions.
Democrats are saying that offering prayers are not enough. Congresspeople need to learn from this tragedy and take action. However, Republicans are accusing Democrats of politicizing a tragedy. Both parties are approaching this tragedy differently, but there are still people dead and there are still mass shootings that will happen in the future and these debates are not resulting in a practical solution that is going to protect anyone.
Despite the severity of this shooting, it is predicted that it will not contribute to any meaningful change in gun politics even though public support for more regulation typically spikes after mass shootings.
In fact, with Republicans monopolizing power in the White House and in Congress, chances of reform appear less promising for Democrats than when President Barack Obama failed to do so after the Sandy Hook school massacre in 2012.
Many Republicans sincerely believe their stance on the gun issue and that it is a fundamental aspect of America itself. Additionally, the NRA plays a major role in American politics and can pose a threat to Republican congresspeople if they do not support the NRA.
Trump used his campaign to accuse Democrat Hillary Clinton of conspiring to subvert the Second Amendment, in a wildly popular play to the Republican base. Barring some stunning conversion, he is unlikely to start pushing for more restrictive gun laws.
On Monday however, he looked to reach a wider audience, accepting a President's duty to offer solace at times of national trial. He did not, as he has often done -- for instance, after the Orlando massacre last year -- seek to leverage tragedy for political gain. And while his scripted remarks were a perfect match for the moment, it remains to be seen if he will be as apolitical and restrained after he has had time to absorb the quickening Washington debate over the killings.
In the end, gun rights campaigners understand that reform will take years and will begin in states and cities.
But that means outrages like the one in Vegas will not swiftly reshape the political terrain. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a longtime champion of stricter gun laws, was asked Monday whether anything will change this time.
"You know, I thought Sandy Hook would. I thought Columbine would. I thought 101 California would," she said. "None of that did."
Questions:
1. Do you think significant gun control laws will ever be implemented in America?
2. How severe would a shooting have to be for politicians to put partisanship aside and come up with a meaningful solution to protect the American people?
3. Just because something is in the Constitution, should we follow it word for word? In other words, should the interpretation of the Constitution change with the time and technologies or should it be interpreted as the Founding Fathers wrote it?
Actually, we will read the 2nd Amendment verbatim to decide what it means "word for word." Stay tuned...
ReplyDeleteSignificant gun laws have been introduced in America, though only on the local which may be the reason for their lack of effectiveness. The gun problem in America isn't legislative but cultural. Politicians on the right don't want gun control because those they represent don't want it. This isn't likely to change, as America become more and more adverse to open discussion on any topic, let alone something as near and dear to many Americans as the right to bare arms. If far reaching gun laws are ever introduced on a federal level, it will be in a very different America.
ReplyDelete-posted by Jackson Gravagno
Delete1. I believe that eventually, tragedies will become more frequent and, as a country, we will have no other choice but to take action and limit many of our rights to bear arms. In fact, I believe that this problem can only be solved if significant gun laws are implemented because making it more difficult to get firearms and limiting the amount a person\household can have will limit the severity and frequency of mass shootings.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how bad mass shootings get it is unlikely that real gun control will ever been made into law. Mass shootings which use a specific add on to make a gun deadlier, such as a silencer or a bump stock (like the ones used by the guy in Vegas), could get those items banned, but guns will always be a part of American culture. Because owning a gun is guaranteed by the constitution , law abiding gun owners will never give up their firearms.
ReplyDeleteQuestion number two is worded in a very interesting way. The question for liberals is usually how bad a shooting has to be for there to be gun control legislation (which is the question that I tend to ask), but the question for many conservatives and especially NRA members is extremely different. For many of them, they want guns, unrestricted, no matter what, and they are not even considering the severity of the next act of violence/terrorism. That's why, in the next few terms, gun control legislation is unlikely to pass, no matter if a shooting happens or not.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that significant gun control laws will ever be implemented in the foreseeable future. The gridlock that exists now for gun control will likely stay and few law abiding citizens would ever hand over their weapons if needed be. I believe that the second amendment and number of guns in circulation currently serve as a deterrent of sorts from any meaningful legislation. If gun control laws would take effect, then the dilemma of which guns to restrict or ban would arise. There has been significant push to limit or ban class 3 weapons, but an overwhelming majority of gun violence within America is committed with handguns. In the end, I think that there is too much division on the issue to expect any changes soon.
ReplyDelete1. No, because there would never be an agreement between both sides. Democrats want less guns on the streets to be able to ensure safety where as Republicans want more to ensure protection. Both sides have drastically different opinions in general and simply could not come to a consensus without the other side thinking that they are trying to rule their ideals out.
ReplyDelete2. I'd say we have already had a shooting that was big enough for the two sides to even consider trying to reach an agreement. Shootings like Columbine were absolutely horrible and showed the idea of people going to far to try and reach an upper hand. It would horrifying to imagine something worse than we've already had, but even now it was crazy to think that these shootings can actually get worse. Also judging from the internet jokes that have spiked since the Vegas shooting, it doesn't seem like people really care anymore
3. I think it's worth noting that overtime mindsets change and eventually the constitution does too. Change has never been a bad thing until it goes too far (like communism in Russia). Although this being the case, if we need to change certain aspects of the second amendment to be more specific than it already is then so be it, but i think it's important to know that just changing a rule does not mean people will follow it.
1. I don't think that there will be specific gun control laws imposed in the future due to the complicated dichotomy between individuals who are pro or anti guns. The continuous debate about protecting the second amendment right or the horrifying tragedies that have occurred are all whats leading to a political gridlock in which leaders can't figure out the appropriate laws. Its hard to say whether in the future there will be any laws imposed regarding guns, however, if the phenomenon of mass shooting continue to occur then leaders must push for a change and influence a law that does advocate strict gun control.
ReplyDelete2. A shooting would not only have to be very severe for politicians to put partisanship aside, but I believe that the shooting would have to directly affect both parties. As cited by the CNN article "The Gun Debate, Again", even after the Orlando shootings, "68% of Republicans [still] opposed more restrictive measures". Therefore, I don't think that numbers are as important of a factor as who is affected by the shooting in determining what will force the parties to work with one another. So far, although many people have been affected by the shootings, large leaders in the Republican party have not, and without personal motivation to change their party's stance on gun control, there is not reason for Republicans to work with Democrats on the issue of gun control.
ReplyDelete1. No, not really. For better or for worse, Americans will always have a deep-rooted, visceral fear of big government, instilled in them by the tyrannical British government mowing down thousands of citizens with advanced weaponry. One of the biggest concerns for the average American (especially a Republican) is that the government will one day turn on them. They see a limited number of losses to gun violence each year as a small price to pay for protection against their own government. Now, I don't agree with this sentiment, but it is important to understand the arguments of the other side.
ReplyDeleteThe Second Amendment sites the right for citizens to bear arms, but it is irrational to follow something written nearly two and a half centuries ago word for word. The interpretation of the Constitution has to change with time and technology in order for the country to progress. If we consistently update our phones for all the updates available, then there shouldn’t be a reason not to update our interpretation of the Constitution. The words of the Founding Fathers are important, but words of the past does should not bar the safety and security of future lives. 59 people have died in Las Vegas shooting alone. Defenders of gun rights often argue for the safety and protection of themselves from ill-intentioned people, but there is no reason for semi-automatic rifles in cases of self-defense. It should not be easier for someone to buy a gun than it is for them to vote. People should not be able to obtain a gun without proper screenings. 33,000 people die from firearms each year. We should not let words of the Founding Fathers threaten the safety of our future generations.
ReplyDelete1. I do not believe significant gun control laws will be implemented in America. The second amendment is a very important part of the Constitution for many and they do not want to see it change. It is difficult for those of us who do not use guns to understand. To us, we see the millions of people who die due to gun violence. But to those who support the use of guns, it is a part of their culture, and when restrictions are placed on this, they feel as if their culture is being violated.
ReplyDelete1. I think that because of America's love for tradition and our constitution, there won't ever be significant gun laws implemented. I think it would take a massive nationwide gun disaster for major gun laws to be put in place. I think right now, there is too much controversy and polarization for this to happen.
ReplyDelete1. Significant gun control laws will never be implemented in the U.S. because owning a gun is a constitutional right. Another amendment would need to be passed in order to nullify the second amendment and because of the support for gun ownership by the public and interest groups such as the NRA, this would never occur.
ReplyDelete1. Significant gun control laws will realistically never be enacted in the United States, because the current interpretation of the second amendment favors allowing guns. In order to pass significant legislation, the second amendment would have to be repealed, and there would never be support by 3/4 of states.
ReplyDelete1. Significant gun control laws will never last in America due to the second amendment. Any laws put into place will be challenged by Republicans saying that it will violate their second amendment rights. Democrats will push for stricter regulations on the laws but will never be supported enough to pass anything.
ReplyDelete1. Although I would like to believe that serious gun laws will take place and have a significant meaning in America the reality is that it won't due to the Second Amendment. However, if something were to happen, another amendment would need to be added to the Constitution that would state that reasoning behind a more controlled gun laws.
ReplyDelete1. I feel that there will never be significant gun control regulations put into place because first, the second amendment creates a huge barrier. In addition, interest groups and other large groups such as the NRA are so large and influential that they can block most things from happening.
ReplyDelete1. I feel like it is very hard for there to be significant gun control regulations in the United States. This is definitely caused by the 2nd amendment and such a large amount of people supporting guns. I do believe though that restrictions should be added to help with this problem and help prevent incidents in the future.
ReplyDelete1. I do not think that significant changes will be made to the laws regarding guns. Guns are much to prevalent in today's society to take away or restrict from citizens. There is no chance this would get pass as citizens would stand up and take action for their individual rights.
ReplyDelete