Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Jack Colaianni Current Events Blog Prompt
To what extent do you believe the National Rifle Association is correct in saying that strengthening background checks for assault weapons and making them harder too purchase is not the solution to preventing tragedies such as the school shooting in Connecticut?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with what the NRA has to say about assault weapon control. I think that if these weapons are made difficult to purchase and full background checks were done on individuals that bought these weapons, then it would help prevent tragedies such as the shooting in Connecticut because there will be more information on the individual who bought the weapon that can be looked at. Guns wouldn't get sold to random people who walk into a store. They would be checked any violent history, possibly mental problems, any trouble with the law, this type of stuff to ensure that the person being sold the gun isn't off his rocker. I also have to agree with what Mariana said about when a killer wants to kill, it doesn't take much. People will find ways to obtain these types of weapons even if they are made harder to buy. We live in an age where it is very easy to purchase or sell illegal weapons over the internet so completely banning them is almost impossible. But certainly increasing the level of security around these guns would help. Doing nothing is simply giving potential copycat killers or other maniacs the ability to cause another tragedy. If the NRA believes that this will not help the problem then I have to ask what will? Making assault weapons harder to purchase may not be the miracle in preventing tragedy but it's a good first step.
ReplyDeleteI personally agree somewhat due to the fact that simply having or being able to purchase such weapons does not mean that more shootings and incidents such as in Connecticut will happen more often. Because when a killer wants to kill, it doesn't take very much. On the other hand, I also disagree because it may not prevent these incidents from happening, but certainly will influence and support people to own these weapons and that makes a lot of people quite wary. Do you agree or disagree, why or why not?
ReplyDeletei believe that having background checks will not help decrease the amount of tragedies because first of all the people who are committing these shootings are not getting their firearms from a legal seller. They are getting them illegally from the black market, so i don't really think it will make a difference because if they are getting these weapons illegally the seller doesn't care about background checks, all they care about is getting as much money as possible.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think that background checks are something that is absolutely necessary when it comes to the purchasing of assault riffles. Other then hunting, to me, assault riffles are used for murder and crime. The background checks should not just check for the criminal background of that individual, they should also check the criminal backgrounds of family members. Someone with a criminal record could easily have a family member with a clean record purchase the gun for them. As well, I think that the mental heath of the person purchasing the gun is also important. Personally I don't think that someone who is mentally ill should have access to guns. For example, I feel that the man who did the Connecticut shooting should not have had access to a gun. He faced a serious mental illness that played a great role in the shooting. If background checks also included the mental health of the person purchasing the weapon, he would never have gotten a gun and that massacre would have never happened.
ReplyDeleteI think that background checks will always be necessary for people buying weapons of any kind. If someone is planning a murder I'm sure they're prepared for a background check getting a weapon, but it's better to check and make sure that the person did at least seem normal and okay. I think tragedies will still occur, because there are a lot of sneaky people in our world. However, background checks should be stepped up and make it harder for people to just buy weapons.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what David was saying about how background checks and making them harder to access with help improve prevention to killings like the one in Connecticut. I personally believe that there should be restrictions to purchasing a gun because they can be a serious concern when it is in someone's hand. I believe that there are other safer weapons out there than a gun. If you're buying a gun with a hunting license that is a little different but it is more of a concern when you are just buying a serious weapon just to have one. In the article LaPierrie states the reason why for increase in gun purchasing, "No wonder Americans are buying guns in record numbers right now, while they still can and before their choice about which firearm is right for their family is taken away forever." LaPierre quote shows that families are buying guns just to protect their families but is that necessary to buy a gun for your family? I understand the reason to feel the need to protect your family but there are other more safe ways to protect your loved ones. I believe that if we are more strict on restrictions to gun access then it will help protect our country against dangerous killers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David in that I think that background checks will partially help to reduce gun violence. It will definitely make it more difficult for people to acquire guns. However, it may make people that will not pass the background checks more likely to purchase guns over the black market where they may purchase more powerful and dangerous weapons than they would not be able to acquire in legal stores.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if somebody really wants a gun, background checks will only slow them down. They will eventually find a place that either does not do background checks because they are a black market seller or a place where the background check was not done thoroughly enough.
I agree with the NRA, but I also disagree. I think there is a certain extent to which strengthening the background checks will help. I think that strengthening the checks will help in some cases in not allowing people who want to cause harm to others get assault riffles but I also think there are people who don't pass background checks that don't deserve for their rights to be restricted. I agree with Sasha that people are prepared for background checks and if they want to cause harm to others know that they will be able to pass the checks or have taken steps to ensure that they will. If a person wants to own a gun, or an assault riffle, that's their right, and there is no way to know for sure what their intentions are with that weapon. Going off of what Ford said I think that the background checks will just make black market sales more common which is just the opposite of what the background checks are trying to accomplish. Background checks can help in some cases but I think that there are more people that wont pass the checks who are harmless, and who will probably be upset with the restrictions on their rights, than there are people who wont pass that had bad intentions, and people are always going to be able to slip through the cracks of the system.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David when he says that background checks will be a first step to making gun purchasing harder. I think that creating background checks will help it make assault weapons harder to purchase but it won't fully help the situation.I also agree with Sydney when she brings up the point about how background checks can help but the people that don't pass and they are actually harmless will probably be upset and think it is a violation of their rights. Although background checks can be helpful with the gun purchasing issue, it may create more black market problems and it could elevate into more issues in the world. I think that it will only be a minor solution because even some criminals or murderers seem like innocent people and may not have a bad record and are able to purchase weapons.
ReplyDeleteI am in a similar situation as Sydney, I partially agree with the NRA's statement that strengthening background checks will help, but only to a certain extent. If a person is an offender of the law then that will stop them from being able to purchase a gun, but what about the people who already have the guns? They can't do anything to the people who already have the guns or they can argue that it is a violation of their rights. Now I do agree that strengthening background checks is a good first step towards their goals, but they need to do more than just that. They should also limit the types of guns they could buy, like Jack mentioned in his presentation. I don't see a use for owning a semi-automatic gun. The owners say they would use that for hunting, but a gun is a gun.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Michele said that people who are using guns to kill other people are usually getting them illegally and therefore, would not be affected by a background check when acquiring a weapon. I think that having background checks are necessary for purchasing guns but strengthening background checks would be an unnecessary reflex to a horrible tragedy. Increasing background checks for assault weapons would only make it harder for people who responsibly use weapons to purchase them. There are probably people who have legally purchased guns and used them illegally. However, in most cases, those people would have gotten guns illegally or would have purchased the guns even with the strengthened background checks. That is why I agree with the NRA's statement regarding gun control.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think that yes background checks are deffinately required, but the background arent exactly what we need. What we need is front ground checks.the problem lies with background checks because if your looking at his past you can never know what he will be like in the future! You man from New Town could have had a fine past and then because of one incident in his later life, he became what he was, or vise versa! It might be a guy that got falsely accused of a crime, and just wanted to go hunting but they wouldnt sell him a gun! We need a measure of what he is going to do!
ReplyDeleteMy opinion it is that legal gun owners who commit shootings or crime are rare. Most of the gun violence and crime is being committed by people who have not obtained their firearm legally. But then again how are criminals getting a hold of the weapons. The requirements in certain states are to easy to pass. I agree with what most people have said about requiring background checks and i also think that you should be required to take s safety course and have a limit on how many and what types of firearms you can buy. I think that the country needs a standard of rules for purchasing firearms.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the National Rifle Association is correct with some situations. While it may be harder for many people to gain access to a gun, those who truly wish to preform acts such as this will find a way to acquire a gun. While in the case of the Connecticut shooting was a case of a boy finding his parents legally obtained fire arms, many individuals pursuing such acts will find a weapon even if by illegal means. I also believe that making guns harder to purchase will just raise the amount of illegal gun imports. I also agree with Mariana when she says "when a killer wants to kill, it doesn't take very much". I agree with this because on the same day of the Connecticut shooting was an attack on a school in China by a man wielding a knife. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/world/asia/china-school-knife-attack. If a person is so intent on doing harm to others, then they will find a way no matter what.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement that background checks and making weapons nearly impossible to make available to citizens is not right, and will not do anything to prevent situations like the Connecticut shooting. I believe this simply because it goes again our constitutional right to bear arms. When I look at this situation, I think that government is getting far too involved with citizens and their rights that were stated by our founding fathers. What happens if the government makes it nearly impossible for civilians to posses guns? Well, it would make it extremely easy for the national government to take control and citizens could very well become defenseless to the government and living in this country under those conditions could make the government all powerful and just as dangerous, if not more dangerous then the gun regulations we have as of now. Having gun legislation that takes away constitutional rights does not sound like a democracy to me at all. Personal defense is extremely important from where I stand, therefore I completely agree with the views of the National Gun Association.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the view the National Gun Association has based on the fact that even if gun control was tightened tragedies like Sandy Hook are still very possible. Just because a gun is made nearly impossible to purchase, if someone wished to commit a violent act with a gun, it wouldn't stop them if they couldn't buy it. A person could buy a gun in the black market if they were that desperate to purchase on, and in the black market their is no gun control so that wouldn't solve the situation. Like Ali stated it is a US American citizens right to bear arms, which strong gun control would infringe upon therefore being unconstitutional. I think stronger background checks need to happen when purchasing s gun, but to make it almost impossible is an infringement of an American citizens second amendment right. Which is why I agree with the NRA on the idea that stronger gun control won't stop tragedies like Sandy Hook from occurring.
ReplyDelete