President Obama recently returned to Connecticut once again to memorialize the victims of the school massacre that took place there. While there, he will continue advertising his campaign to reduce gun violence. This is especially important since this is happening at the beginning of an important week in Congress for gun-control legislation, as legislators return from their two week spring break.
While some Republican senators have threatened to filibuster any emerging legislation tightening gun-control laws, President Obama plans to bring members of the victims' families to Washington to provide a counterbalance in the form of emotional perspectives and first-hand accounts from the victims' relatives. He hopes the families will meet with lawmakers and have a persuasive influence.
With the Aurora murders and shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a serious drive for federal gun-control legislation has arisen, something at the top of President Obama's legislative agenda.
While opponents of gun-control legislation argue that the issue should be left for the states to decide, President Obama and fellow Democrats feel that a federal law is needed to provide legislative uniformity nationwide, especially when it comes to the issue of background checks for those purchasing guns. Though states such as Colorado and Connecticut have already enacted their own gun-control laws, there is still an overwhelming demand for a federal stance.
Although lawmakers from both parties claim that President Obama's lobbying has had little effect on opponents of gun legislation, White House officials fully support his actions, asserting that he has helped keep the issue alive, speaking on behalf of the majority of Americans who have asked for stronger background checks and restrictions when it comes to gun ownership.
Sadly, the prospects of a Senate gun-control bill are dim, and the Republican-led House said it will only act if the Senate passes a measure. Since President Obama's proposed ban on military-grade assault weapons has been shot down, the fight has shifted to a focus on background checks and records to be kept on fun purchases.
Questions: Do you think coming off spring break will have a positive impact on politicians engaging in debates and negotiations surrounding gun-control legislation? Do you think bringing victims' families will have any impact on decision-making in Congress? In your opinion, should gun-control legislation be reserved to the states or is a federal law necessary? What are the most important issues surrounding gun ownership that should be addressed in Congress?
5 comments:
Personally, I dislike the notion of federal gun control when both the role and the usage of guns vary by district. For example, a person living in close proximity to bears may have the need to carry shotguns, while a similar person who lives in an urban city may only need to carry a pistol for self defense.
Nobody needs a gun which can shoot 5 bullets, or even 3. In theory, one bullet would be enough. In fact, using a gun poses the risk of being disarmed and having the gun used against the victim. Fists, however, do not pose this risk. You cannot be disarmed using fists, unless you are disarmed literally. Furthermore, fists are a generally non-lethal method of resolving the situation, similar to a taser. You can have my hands, when you pry my hands, from my cold, dead hands.
With all due respect, Anguna Munat
Myself, I think that the above example is the only situation in which regional gun laws make sense. Otherwise, there is no logic in, for example, one state requiring background checks while another doesn't. That implies that the citizens of one state are less likely to commit violent crime than another, which doesn't make any sense. Proponents of state controlled gun legislation are encouraging a situation in which the opinions of the state's citizens are what control the amount of restrictions put on guns, which, when dealing with such dangerous weapons, seems unwise.
While better gun regulation is necessary, the specific way to go about it can be complex. Regional gun laws make it more complicated within one state to know what exactly the laws are, since it would vary from region to region. Some sort of uniform, basic gun regulation should start at the federal level, while specifics can be ironed out within states themselves. While coming off of Spring Break won't change very much in Congress's opinions, its important to keep the issue on the table instead of letting it fade away as more time passes, or until the next big shooting.
In response to the effect of the victims' families being present in Congress, I definitely think that their presence will cause a stir in the media. However, I sometimes wonder why both the survivors and the families of the victims appear so often in the media. Especially for the survivors of the shooting, who are still elementary schoolers, I certainly don't think that spending time in Congress and being exposed to media attention is the proper way to heal from this tragedy. Although a heartless point of view, it makes me wonder if the parents of the survivors are secretly enjoying the public attention that their child is receiving.
Nevertheless, the first-hand accounts of these shootings may become an influence on the decision-making in Congress. The picture in the blog post shows two children, which automatically catches people's attention. In addition, appealing to a person's pathos is oftentimes quite effective (assuming all Congressmen have the ability to empathize). No matter how much the Republicans may protest against stricter gun control measures, after a certain point, it's hard to lead a fight against heart-wrenching stories and crying children.
Something newer that should certainly be addressed in congress is this. The NRA is thinking about arming teachers. While Obama may be trying to increase gun control and decrease overall usage as a result, the other side of the gun control spectrum is working towards the opposite. Because of this, I don't know how well Obama will do in fulfilling his goals, especially with a seemingly unsupportive congress.
As for the NRA plan to arm teachers, it seems pretty silly to me. Teachers don't need guns. Besides, they are human after all, and using the gun as a source of power might be dangerous. The plan also seems like a bit of a preemptive power grab on the NRA's part. Doing something that seems so drastic so soon after their armed guard suggestion will win them no support.
Really, I find this fight over gun control to be quite messy. It is very sloppy on both sides due to the fact that it is so hard to find a balance. And we all know how good congress is at compromising and finding a balance...
Post a Comment