An interesting take on why gun control is having such a difficult time getting through Congress, even in its most watered down forms. Do you agree with the point made in this article? How good has the Times' coverage of the gun control debate been in general?
It interests me that even after recent incidents like the Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting in December and the Aurora Shooting earlier in July that there are still many people who believe that the right to bear assault weapons should be valued. Personally, I just dont see the purpose of a civilian having the "need" to own an assault rifle. These AR-15 rifles, also referred to as carbines, can be used safely in the hands of those responsible and clearly deadly in the hands of the criminally insane. In regards to the article, I like the point made about a lot of Americans who, "...don't realize that those laws are far weaker than they think." The Second Amendment is clear and the right to bear arms is one of the many freedoms we Americans have, it's just a question of whether it's a necessity.
What's interesting to me is that the article states that 39% of Americans are "very happy or relieved" that this gun control legislation wasn't passed, when President Obama said that over 80% of Americans supported it. Someone got it wrong, and as the more-liberal Times probably wouldn't make those numbers up, I'd say it's on the White House's end. On that note, good coverage by the times, as the thesis of the article probably goes against the morals of the editors who compiled it. Ignorance surrounding gun control in general is a very relevant issue, and I'm happy to see the Times covering it. I myself barely know anything about the laws already in-existence, but something as simple as basic background checks seems like a no-brainer. As a more liberal person, I still believe American should have the right to carry and own firearms, but it seems asinine that conservatives refuse to contemplate that the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and guns are a little more pointless now that pretty much anyone can be annihilated with the press of a button. Grim outlook, but on the other end if this legislation could save one life from a killer, it would be worth it. For the meantime, at least, the threat of a government gone wild is less looming than the chance a raging lunatic will be running into a crowded area soon, and using a gun that should've been more difficult for him/her to acquire. But yet again, even as a liberal I'm reluctant to continue to hamper the rights of the individual, which have seen a most horrible decline since 2001. And yet again (again), with that in mind this STILL seems like a no-brainer. Just shows you the frightening power of lobbying and propaganda in this country.
started by Holly Parkin on 28 Apr 13
An interesting take on why gun control is having such a difficult time getting through Congress, even in its most watered down forms. Do you agree with the point made in this article? How good has the Times' coverage of the gun control debate been in general?