sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/democrats-gun-control.html
https://www.people-press.org/2018/10/18/gun-policy-remains-divisive-but-several-proposals-still-draw-bipartisan-support/
Unlike previous Democratic campaigns, it seems that the 2020 presidential candidates are noticeably more united on the topic of gun control. Largely a result of numerous mass shootings throughout the country, there has been a growing shift in political fervor towards stricter gun laws. According to the NYTimes survey, all 19 candidates support an assault weapons ban, with Biden even calling for a ban on online gun sales entirely. When asked, a majority of candidates, 17 to be exact, said they were prepared to use executive orders in order to carry out their gun proposals.
According to the article, candidates are more comfortable proposing progressive gun plans after public opinion on the matter has steadily become increasingly homogenous (this of course is not saying that all conservatives are in support of gun control; however, studies by Pew Research Center show that there is growing favor for increasing policies regarding the issue).
The largest dividing line among Democratic candidates is the issue of buybacks (whether or not the American government should make selling already purchased assault weapons to the government required or voluntary). Candidates like Biden, Warren, and Sanders are in favor of making it voluntary, arguing that citizens who already own assault weapons only need to register them. On the flip side, candidates like Beto O’Rourke and Kamala Harris are campaigning on the proposal to require all assault weapons already owned to be sold back to the government.
My two cents: While I’m happy by the fact that all Democratic candidates are placing gun control firmly in their political agenda, it is unsettling to think that it required hundreds of gun incidents to get to this point. In an attempt to connect this to the political parties chapter, I think it is interesting to note the diversity amongst the 19 candidates’ agendas. Arguably this is largely a result of political parties lack of influence and power over political candidates. Unlike in some European countries, American officials can largely develop independently from their affiliated party’s political agenda. People like Donald Trump are a clear example of this, conforming more to chaos and the forgotten people of America (coal miners and steelworkers) than to the Republican platform.
Questions:
What are your thoughts on gun control?
Should the government enforce a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons?
10 comments:
One thing I believe it is important to recognize in gun control related polls is that those in favor of gun rights tend to be significantly more zealous that those opposed, with many in the pro camp considering gun rights to be their "defining issue" which dictates which candidate they support. Many polls overlook this by simply asking if one supports or opposes a piece of gun legislation without considering that most anti-gun Americans do not consider it to be their most important issue (and are thus willing to compromise) whereas pro-gun Americans are rarely willing to give up any of their current rights. With this in mind, I do not think that Democrats will manage to get much gun-related legislation through, even with the presidency as Republicans will, in the interest of their constituents, filibuster the relevant laws.
I'm not sure that a mandatory buyback program on assault weapons is a realistic goal. It would cost the government much time and resources in order to retrieve all assault weapons, and would definitely be met with resistance by many pro-gun members of society. I believe that anti-gun politicians will want to focus on how to increase protection in the future since it is obvious that although tragic events, the shootings will not be undone simply by removing some of the weapons used during them. Like Alexander said, I agree that anti-gun, most often Democrats, may be more open to compromise involving gun legislation. I think it would be more useful for government resources to focus on a compromise of gun laws, rather than wasting efforts on a piece of legislation expected to be blocked within the Senate. I personally believe that gun control should be stricter within the U.S. And yet, I understand that many pro-gun believers are difficult to reason with; they feel that a weapon is necessary to protect themselves and use the 2nd Amendment to support them. As a result, I hope that a compromise may be made soon to deter the possibilities of more mass shootings.
While I don't think guns are the most significant cause of gun violence, I'll support stricter gun control laws because, frankly, no one's proposed any better solutions, and we can't just sit idly by any longer. In conjunction with gun control, I believe there needs to be more resources dedicated to untangling the root causes of this mass shootings epidemic. Obviously, that'd be a job for psychologists and scientists, not for legislators.
With regard to Carlos's second question, Grace claimed a mandatory buyback program on assault weapons is unrealistic, and I'd add to that and say it's morally wrong, too. Most people who legally own assault rifles aren't using them to shoot at crowds of people; they use them for recreational purposes, which don't hurt anyone. The government would be wrongly punishing these people by taking away their guns, and probably "buying" them for less than they're worth. I don't think it's morally acceptable to punish someone who committed no crime. If I don't own any guns, and I feel this way, you can imagine the outrage and backlash that would ensue if a mandatory buyback program was implemented.
While I’m definitely not the most knowledgeable about guns, it’s hard for me to understand why people need assault weapons in the first place. You don’t need an automatic rifle for recreational purposes like hunting, and there are for more just as effective options for self defense; there just doesn’t seem to be a reasonable explanation why people need to own weapons that have the potential to mow down large numbers of people so quickly. At the same time, it’s highly unlikely that the mandatory buyback program will be implemented with so much pushback. As Josie said, people who had done no wrong would be punished, however I think that at this point I think the risk is too high to give people the benefit of the doubt. There’s no knowing who could potentially pull the trigger, either as a result of some kind of trauma or mental disability or even by accident; with assault weapons, too much is at stake. At the end of the day, however, there would definitely be too much pushback against a mandatory buyback program for it to be implemented. It would be a more realistic goal to focus on stricter background checks that have a stronger base of support already.
I agree with Olivia on this one. While I understand that people have their reservations about gun control laws and how it would potentially infringe on their constitutional rights, there's also that increasingly elusive concept called common sense that people strive to possess (and fail miserably, might I add). Why in the hell would a citizen need a semi-automatic AR15 that is capable of shooting around 600 rounds per minute? Whhyyyyyy? I don't understand. Is that what people are doing for fun now these days? Yeah, I don't think so either. Though as to whether or not this "selling back guns to the government" business will work, I really, really, REALLY doubt it. People who fought tooth and nail against simple background checks aren't just going to tuck their tails between their legs and say, "yes, Mr. President. Please buy our guns. We don't want them anymore." Something so extremely unpopular would just die in Congress, never to be heard from again. On the subject of background checks, I personally think they are insufficient. Some of the mass shooters had actually purchased their firearms from licensed gun dealers that already required background checks. Clearly people are slipping through the cracks and taking advantage of a system that just can't figure out how to align all their ducks in a row, or even in a freakin' circle, or better yet any direction at all. Although I'm no expert, so my opinion is probably flawed somewhere or other, I believe that certain guns should be completely banned (ahem ahem semi-automatic, automatic, etc.), there should be limits to the amount of magazines a person is allowed to purchase with a gun, the acquisition of the gun should have a mandatory waiting period following the actual purchase/sale, background checks need to be MUCH stricter, etc.
NOTE: That was all based on the reality that people have guns. I actually believe that citizens should be unable to have guns, period. Better yet, I wish they'd just disappear off the face of the Earth and people go back to fighting with sharp sticks (or, here's an idea, not at all). However, based on the improbability (*cough* impossibility) of this miracle, I just kinda rolled with whatever.
Although I do support the enforcement of new gun control laws, I believe having people send back their guns back to the government is unjustified. Similar to what Olivia said, owning automatic guns isn't really needed as it is not required for hunting nor is it too beneficial for self defense. Something like a pistol or simply just a melee weapon would work just as fine as an assault rifle and the only perk of having such firearm would probably just be how it looks. Enforcing new gun laws would most likely be the best solution to solve the current problem of gun violence as it would prevent future mass shootings. Personally, I find that owning an assault rifle is pointless, and should only be used in times of war or battles. Additionally, having stricter background checks would also be pretty beneficial.
I definitely support stricter gun laws and a ban on all future assault weapons sale. Assault rifles seem completely unnecessary unless a person is actually fighting in the military. The weapon's name literally suggests that its purpose is assault, and I don't think this is needed to hunt or protect oneself from an intruder. I'm not super knowledgeable about guns but I can say pretty confidently that there are other guns that can be sufficiently used for those purposes that are not semi-automatic assault weapons. Given the amount of destruction and devastation that these weapons specifically have caused, especially in recent years, I don't think there's great enough justification to not enact some sort of restriction. It actually angers me that it is taking this long for any action to occur when it is so desperately needed, and I hope that we end up with a candidate who will follow through with stricter gun control or, at the very very very least, stricter background checks. In regards to the buyback program, I don't think it should be mandatory. First, it would be near impossible to do this and use up lots of government resources. With the sheer amount of assault rifles already bought and the difficulty of tracking those down, forcing this program to occur would cost a lot of money and time, and there's no way the government would be able to buy back all the guns. Also, with all the pro-gun supporters, I can't imagine such an extreme policy ever getting passed.
I definitely support stricter gun laws and a ban on all future assault weapons sale. Assault rifles seem completely unnecessary unless a person is actually fighting in the military. The weapon's name literally suggests that its purpose is assault, and I don't think this is needed to hunt or protect oneself from an intruder. I'm not super knowledgeable about guns but I can say pretty confidently that there are other guns that can be sufficiently used for those purposes that are not semi-automatic assault weapons. Given the amount of destruction and devastation that these weapons specifically have caused, especially in recent years, I don't think there's great enough justification to not enact some sort of restriction. It actually angers me that it is taking this long for any action to occur when it is so desperately needed, and I hope that we end up with a candidate who will follow through with stricter gun control or, at the very very very least, stricter background checks. In regards to the buyback program, I don't think it should be mandatory. First, it would be near impossible to do this and use up lots of government resources. With the sheer amount of assault rifles already bought and the difficulty of tracking those down, forcing this program to occur would cost a lot of money and time, and there's no way the government would be able to buy back all the guns. Also, with all the pro-gun supporters, I can't imagine such an extreme policy ever getting passed.
I definitely support stricter gun laws and a ban on all future assault weapons sale. Assault rifles seem completely unnecessary unless a person is actually fighting in the military. The weapon's name literally suggests that its purpose is assault, and I don't think this is needed to hunt or protect oneself from an intruder. I'm not super knowledgeable about guns but I can say pretty confidently that there are other guns that can be sufficiently used for those purposes that are not semi-automatic assault weapons. Given the amount of destruction and devastation that these weapons specifically have caused, especially in recent years, I don't think there's great enough justification to not enact some sort of restriction. It actually angers me that it is taking this long for any action to occur when it is so desperately needed, and I hope that we end up with a candidate who will follow through with stricter gun control or, at the very very very least, stricter background checks. In regards to the buyback program, I don't think it should be mandatory. First, it would be near impossible to do this and use up lots of government resources. With the sheer amount of assault rifles already bought and the difficulty of tracking those down, forcing this program to occur would cost a lot of money and time, and there's no way the government would be able to buy back all the guns. Also, with all the pro-gun supporters, I can't imagine such an extreme policy ever getting passed.
I definitely support stricter gun laws and a ban on all future assault weapons sale. Assault rifles seem completely unnecessary unless a person is actually fighting in the military. The weapon's name literally suggests that its purpose is assault, and I don't think this is needed to hunt or protect oneself from an intruder. I'm not super knowledgeable about guns but I can say pretty confidently that there are other guns that can be sufficiently used for those purposes that are not semi-automatic assault weapons. Given the amount of destruction and devastation that these weapons specifically have caused, especially in recent years, I don't think there's great enough justification to not enact some sort of restriction. It actually angers me that it is taking this long for any action to occur when it is so desperately needed, and I hope that we end up with a candidate who will follow through with stricter gun control or, at the very very very least, stricter background checks. In regards to the buyback program, I don't think it should be mandatory. First, it would be near impossible to do this and use up lots of government resources. With the sheer amount of assault rifles already bought and the difficulty of tracking those down, forcing this program to occur would cost a lot of money and time, and there's no way the government would be able to buy back all the guns. Also, with all the pro-gun supporters, I can't imagine such an extreme policy ever getting passed.
Post a Comment