Q: “Is the United States citizenry, well-armed and able to defend itself, safer and more secure than a citizenry without or with very limited access to firearms, and dependent on protection delegated by a government police force?”
Currently, our nation is struggling to set a precedent that will compromise our Constitutional Rights as well as public safety. Handguns have been a part of our nation ever since our founding fathers first explored and walked our continent. Guns provided protection from wild animals as well as provided a mode for hunting animals for food. The right to own a gun was granted upon everybody, but now in current times this privilege has been abused through murder and accident. Advocate of the pro-gun movement see that guns provide a form of personal protection and feel for safety. However, the oppositors to this stance argue that if guns are in the hands of the wrong people the public is at risk. One major issue the court will be challenged by in the next decade is where to draw this line? What regulations are appropriate and necessary, but still Constituational? This complex, double-edged sword, has already made contoversy in the Chicago, Illinois suburban area where a total ban on handguns has already been put in place by the local government, but many argue that this is un-Constitutional and interferes with the power of the federal government. Advocates of the Illinois case argue for states rights. How do we interpret the Constution's Amendment? Do we challenge freedom of speech, could we? Does this give us any reason to feel the right to challenge gun bans? Experts in the gun violence field argue this controversy in many ways, and there appears to not be any completely correct answer, probably a compromise with well-known lines drawn is the answer. Gun violence research shows that the more guns in circulation results in lower gun related crime rates, and the DC area which has a strict gun ban still has an outrageous gun crime. If guns are not legalized, then that means a greater presence of illegally held guns on the market. Let us get to the root of the problem, investigate primary and secondary sources, and formulate our very own solution to the problem. Feel free to comment and enjoy!
Currently, our nation is struggling to set a precedent that will compromise our Constitutional Rights as well as public safety. Handguns have been a part of our nation ever since our founding fathers first explored and walked our continent. Guns provided protection from wild animals as well as provided a mode for hunting animals for food. The right to own a gun was granted upon everybody, but now in current times this privilege has been abused through murder and accident. Advocate of the pro-gun movement see that guns provide a form of personal protection and feel for safety. However, the oppositors to this stance argue that if guns are in the hands of the wrong people the public is at risk. One major issue the court will be challenged by in the next decade is where to draw this line? What regulations are appropriate and necessary, but still Constituational? This complex, double-edged sword, has already made contoversy in the Chicago, Illinois suburban area where a total ban on handguns has already been put in place by the local government, but many argue that this is un-Constitutional and interferes with the power of the federal government. Advocates of the Illinois case argue for states rights. How do we interpret the Constution's Amendment? Do we challenge freedom of speech, could we? Does this give us any reason to feel the right to challenge gun bans? Experts in the gun violence field argue this controversy in many ways, and there appears to not be any completely correct answer, probably a compromise with well-known lines drawn is the answer. Gun violence research shows that the more guns in circulation results in lower gun related crime rates, and the DC area which has a strict gun ban still has an outrageous gun crime. If guns are not legalized, then that means a greater presence of illegally held guns on the market. Let us get to the root of the problem, investigate primary and secondary sources, and formulate our very own solution to the problem. Feel free to comment and enjoy!
Literary Précis: “Fire Away” [A]
Pro Gun Control
In his news magazine editorial, “Fire Away,” Michael Grunwald explores the longstanding political controversy regarding gun control issues in the United States of America. This article is a fine example of Cultural Studies, in which the author utilizes the New Historicism school of thought. Grunwald first explores the historical and social context of gun ownership. The United States was a vast wilderness civilized by pioneers, often living in isolated circumstances. Guns offered a means of acquiring food and providing personal protection in a dangerous environment. Consequently, guns have symbolized a unique form of independence and self-reliance in America. The right to gun ownership has become assumed in the culture of the United States, analogous to the right to personal religious beliefs. Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms is definitively and directly articulated in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The National Rifle Association (NRA), a powerful, broad-based and well-funded political action group, has embraced the conservative stance against any form of regulated gun ownership. The author takes the stance that times have changed and that the old paradigm should be re-evaluated. Grunwald provides numerous statistics regarding the relationship between gun ownership and gun related trauma in other wealthy countries. The author also compares gun ownership laws in the individual states and correlates them with death rates resulting from guns. Politicians, including Presidents of the United States Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, have supported restriction of gun ownership, especially with regard to high power, large magazine, automatic firearms. They have advocated waiting periods, background checks, and other measures. However, politicians, especially Democrats, have found it politically dangerous to take a stance favoring strong regulation of gun ownership. Finally, the author explores the irony in the recent tragedy of the shooting of nineteen victims in Tucson, AZ, including Congresswoman Giffords, who is a gun owner and strong supporter of the Second Amendment, as well as an author of a friend-of-the-court brief opposing a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. The author is hopeful that the Tucson tragedy will change the political landscape, providing a window of opportunity for the United States to adopt a more moderate approach to gun control.
Works Cited for Article [A]
Grunwald, Michael. “Fire Away.” Time 24 Jan. 2011: 36-39. Print.
Literary Précis: “Supreme Court Hears Chicago Handgun Case” [B]
Neutral Gun Control
In this National Public Radio interview, Neal Conan interviews legal experts on civilian gun ownership rights concerning the upcoming Supreme Court case that could challenge state and local governments’ power to regulate handgun ownership rights. This work is a good example of Sociological Criticism in the form of a national radio news program panel discussion. In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down an outright ban of handgun ownership in the District of Columbia (D.C.) on the basis that D.C. is a federal jurisdiction and that the Second Amendment is applicable to federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court will consider a similar handgun ban involving a local jurisdiction, Oak Park, IL. The host and several legal experts explore the issues of handgun control and its relationship to the Second Amendment in the context of states’ rights. The experts discuss the fundamental Constitutional question regarding the limits of federal and state authority with regard to the regulation of firearms. Certain issues have been clearly settled by the Supreme Court, such as prohibiting the possession of firearms in specialized, well defined, and critical areas of government function, including courtrooms, airports, airplanes, hospitals, and public entertainment venues. However, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that outright bans on gun ownership violate the Second Amendment. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has clearly allowed regulation of the Second Amendment as evidenced by the adoption of computer background checks prior to gun ownership as well as a waiting period. The Supreme Court has not yet clarified the right to own firearms in broader public forums such as college campuses, restaurants, and bars where the specialized governmental interests are less defined. The Supreme Court has also not defined whether carrying firearms openly or in a concealed fashion makes a difference from a Constitutional standpoint. Ultimately, the gun control issue may rest upon the notion of whether the society is “safer” with a well armed citizenry able to provide self protection balanced against the dangers of occasional disastrous misuse of firearms by citizens. The scientific data in this area of social science is conflicting and controversial. Mr. Alan Gura, an attorney that helped in the pro-gun rights side of the Chicago gun ban, provides evidence that states that have more guns do not experience more gun crimes. The experts conclude that the issues related to the Second Amendment will be sorted out in the Supreme Court within the next decade, much as the courts sorted out limitations of the First Amendment in the 19th century. Where will the Supreme Court draw the line?
Works Cited for Article [B]
Savage, David, et al. “Supreme Court Hears Chicago Handgun Case.” National Public Radio. Washington, DC. 2 Mar. 2010. Panel.
Literary Précis: “Gun Control Debate Revisited on Anniversary of Virginia Tech Shooting” [C]
Neutral Gun Control
On the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre, the interview explores arguments for and against gun control in the United States with a moderator and an expert on each side of the issue. This work is a good example of Sociological Criticism in the form of a news interview on a daily PBS newscast. The program begins by recounting numerous mass shootings in the United States, primarily by people who are mentally disturbed. Ironically, most gun crimes occur with weapons that have been purchased legally. Mass killings receive high-media profile, but in fact account for only a small fraction of one percent of the murders in the United States. Mass killings are more prevalent in countries where guns are absolutely banned, such as Germany, Finland, and Switzerland. Mr. Levy of the Cato Institute argues that a well-armed citizenry acts as a deterrent to the criminal use of guns. In a retort, Daniel Webster of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research argues that the problem is weak laws regarding gun ownership and usage. The sellers of guns should be held accountable for assuring that weapons are sold only to law abiding, mentally stable individuals. Examples cited include the fact that individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors, as opposed to felonies, are still allowed to purchase guns, and these individuals are much more likely to commit gun crimes. However, in 2008 the Supreme Court confirmed the Second Amendment right for individuals to keep and bear arms. By doing so, the Supreme Court placed the burden of determining the middle ground of gun control on the government, and the government must show that regulations are necessary, that they are effective, and that the results could not be obtained without limiting rights to self-defense by carrying arms. Mr. Webster argues that the role of government is to do what is “prudent in the interest of public safety.” Ms. Judy Woodruff, the moderator, argues that government has been unable to deal effectively with this issue because of political intimidation by the National Rifle Association. The participants disagree regarding the question of whether a well-armed citizenry provides deterrence for violent criminals. The interview participants agree with regulating automatic weapons, those that fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger. They disagree about regulation of semi-automatic weapons; those that fire one round with each pull of the trigger, because these weapons are used for self-defense and shooting sports. The interview concludes leaving unanswered the question about what reasonable legal policies will be effective at preventing dangerous people from committing mass murders.
Works Cited for Article [C]
Woodruff, Judy, Robert Levy, and Daniel Webster. "Gun Control Debate Revisited on Anniversary of Virginia Tech Shooting." PBS NewsHour. Washington, D.C. 16 Apr. 2009. MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. Web. 18 Jan. 2011. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124243589.
Literary Précis: “Disney Under Fire” Article [D]
•Pro Gun control
Disney under fire by Nicholas Wapshott is a very controversial article about a Disney employee who was fired bringing a gun to work after instructed by Disney not to. Edwin Sotomayor, the man who was fired by Disney, refused to let Disney security guards search his car because it defied the First Amendment, which allows peaceful protest and the Second, which gives sane citizens the right to bear arms. This article seems to be attacking Disney for firing this man because their actions denied Sotomayor his rights under the Constitution. Although you could argue Edwin had no reason for bringing a gun to a family fun park, he claimed he needed it for protection. I think Disney is unfairly accused for firing this man. Disney told him not to bring a gun and he did anyway, so they fired him. Edwin says “Disney wants to control government and society.” I believe Sotomayor was more interested in money or fame than actually being concerned about his own safety while on Disney grounds. This article also says that Disney portrays guns as bad, evil things.
Works Cited for Article [D]
Wapshott, Nicholas. “Disney Under Fire” New Statesmen . 4 august 2008
Literary Précis: “Understanding Crime and Gun Control Law” Article [E]
•Against Gun control
“Understanding Crime and Gun Control Law” by John R. Lott Jr. In this interview, Mr. Lott argues that adults with no criminal record or any type of mental illness should be allowed to carry guns. States with the greatest percentage of gun ownership show the lower rates of violent crime. The interviewer argues back that it seems much more logical that crimes involving guns would decrease if more people were aloud to carry them. Lott says “for each additional year that a concealed handgun law has been in effect the murder rate declined by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent. “ Lott says there are two main reasons for allowing law-abiding citizens to carry handguns to reduce violent crime. First they reduce the number of attempted crimes because it scares the criminals. They do not know if the victims can protect themselves. Second, victims who have guns are much better off defending themselves. The interviewer also says that violence is often directed at women and more guns put women at higher risk. Lott answers back that murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns. A gun represents a much larger change in a woman’s ability to defend herself, and the murder rate for women declines by about 3 to 4 times more when a woman carries a gun rather than man. Lott demonstrates extensive research and knowledge when responding to all the questions posed by the interviewer. Although it seems illogical that the murder rate decreases when more law-abiding citizens carry guns, it is portrayed to be true by factual evidence. Lott’s main point is “some people do use guns in horrible ways, but other people use guns to prevent horrible things from happening to them.”
Works Cited for Article [E]
Lott author of more guns less crimes, John R. "Whole article."
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html. N.p., n.d.
Web. 20 Jan. 2011. <http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/
493636.html>.
Literary Précis: “To Keep and Bear Arms” an Anglo American Right Article [F]
•Neutral gun control
“To Keep and Bear Arms” an Anglo American Right by Joyce Lee Malcolm, a Professor of History, steps into this argument to analyze the gun control issue. Malcolm argues that the Second Amendment owes much its to seventeenth century English Law and that this legacy has been misunderstood. The article is mainly about the English Bill of Rights and the political conflict that occurred in the seventeenth century. The article says that in “1993 Congress passed the Brady Bill, which requires a five-day waiting period before the purchase of a handgun, during which time the seller must perform background checks on the buyer”. This passage of the Brady Bill was widely seen as a defeat for the previously all-powerful National Rifle Association (NRA). In 1994, an anticrime bill that would have banned the manufacture and sale of nineteen types of assault weapons was approved by House and Senate negotiators and seemed certain to become law. It was derailed, however, by a procedural vote that blocked it from reaching the floor of the House. The derailment was attributed in part to successful lobbying by the NRA.” Gun control advocates point to Europe to demonstrate low gun related deaths. In Europe it is much harder to carry a concealed handgun. This issue is like a game of ping pong, it just keeps getting knocked back and fourth. We may never come up with a solution because the conflict between the adversarial gun control advocates and associations like the NRA.
Works cited for Article [F]
ABA Journal. LXXX, August, 1994, p. 94.
American Rifleman. CXLII, April, 1994, p. 27.
History Today. XLIV, April, 1994, p. 57.
Insight on the News. X, June 6, 1994, p. 28.
London Review of Books. XVI, July 21, 1994, p. 20.
National Law Journal. XVII, October 3, 1994, p. B14.
The Observer. August 7, 1994, p. 21.
The Wilson Quarterly. XVIII, Summer, 1994, p. 90.
No comments:
Post a Comment