Blog Stage 5

Just Put Up a Sign

     When it comes to gun violence in America, one of the proposed measures for curbing the violence is Gun Free Zones. Numerous senators and congressmen back this effort, which would create more areas that would make it illegal for anyone to carry a weapon on those premises whether licensed by the state, or in blatant disregard for the law. The problem here is, at least in Texas, it is illegal to carry a handgun on your person without being tested, background checked, qualifying with your handgun to meet state standards, being finger printed, and finally, licensed. You cannot be a convicted felon, convicted of a Class-A misdemeanor involving the person's family or household, nor have any specific order issued at the state or federal level prohibiting your ownership of firearms. These measures are put in place so that anyone lawfully carrying a concealed weapon in Texas already fits into certain categories: trained, responsible, vetted, non-criminal, etc. As for those carrying illegally, we already know two things about that person: they are currently violating the law, and have made a conscious decision to do so, even in the presence of "The Sign".

     In 1990 the "Gun Free School Zone Act" was adopted, and prohibits anyone, licensed or not, from carrying a firearm of any kind onto the grounds of a public school. This measure was soon individually adopted by many private schools, universities, and public businesses. Since the passing of this measure, American's have seen the likes of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, the Amish school shooting, the Sikh Temple shooting, and far too many others. The shootings I have chosen to highlight are the most recognizable events in recent history, and all of them occurred in gun free zones. James Holmes, the Aurora, Co. theater shooter passed seven other theaters on his way to his target. Why? They allowed patrons to carry concealed weapons with permits. Holmes knew that the target he had chosen would not allow an environment where people can protect themselves. Adam Lanza killed his mother in order to steal her guns; he then went to a local elementary school in Newtown, Ct. and murdered 20 children and 6 educators who were trying to protect them. Although they gave their lives fighting for the protection of the children, those 6 educators were unsuccessful. Lanza took advantage of a gun free zone, and even had time to turn the gun on himself before police arrived.

     This is not an argument for arming teachers, or putting a gun in the hands of every citizen, far from it. However, it does seem as though the gun free zones are not having the force field effect on criminals that was originally intended. Doesn't it follow logical reasoning that someone who is in violation of the law by carrying an illegally concealed firearm, would also ignore any posted signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms by law? Where does this naivety come from? If we follow the line of reasoning that gun free zones and signs will reduce crime and the chance of crime, then we can also conclude that erecting speed limit signs will stop speeding, and signs prohibiting drunk driving will curb drunken driving related incidents. But we have speed limit signs, and still people speed, so what do we do? We place enforcers of those laws along our streets to ensure the adherence of the people to those laws. Are children in schools so much less important than commuters on a highway, that the differences in the level of protection and law enforcement provided are so stark? This just strikes me as backwards. People deserve the right to protect themselves, or be protected by others no matter where they may be. Some would argue that their right to life and safety trumps my right to carry a firearm. I would argue that my right to carry a firearm protects both of our rights to life and safety.

     We cannot keep throwing laws on the books expecting that one day, criminals will decide to abide. This, in fact, is what makes them criminals. If someone does not want the responsibility of owning or carrying a firearm, that is their choice; just as it is my choice to protect myself and my family by any means necessary while not impeding on the rights of others. Some would argue that I don't need to carry a handgun to protect myself because we have police. Well the police could not help the 12 people killed, and 58 injured in Aurora, and they could not help the children of Newtown. You, and only you, are the first layer in the defense of yourself. Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Blog Stage 4

“If the United States, with a nuclear arsenal 15 times larger than that of any country other than Russia, is not prepared to reduce further, can it credibly argue that other nuclear weapons states should not build up or that other countries should not acquire nuclear arms?” Absolutely. America has taken on the role (some would say a self-appointed role) of the global enforcer. Regardless of you agreeing with this statement or the role itself is pretty much insignificant. We are filling the role whether we want it or not. Now to return to the opening quote, taken from the blog of Steven Pifer and Jonathan D. Pollack of Brookings.edu. Allow me to present an analogy. A police officer has been in a stand off with a suspect at gun -point, the officer has about 5,550 rounds of ammunition on him, the suspect has about 8-10 rounds. Can the officer credibly argue for the suspect to put down his weapon, before the officer relinquishes his? Again, absolutely. Let’s reflect for a moment on what would happen if the officer laid down his weapon, I see three possible outcomes.

One: The suspect, after seeing the shining example set by the officer, puts down his weapon, the two shake hands and live happily ever after.

Two: The suspect uses the disarmament of the officer to his advantage and flees, only to possibly assail again in the future.

Three: The suspect sees a defenseless officer before him, the same officer he has sworn the destruction of time and time again. The suspect then shoots and kills the unarmed officer.

Now, the authors continue their article with some very valid points such as their closing line, “A nuclear-armed North Korea undoubtedly represents a serious threat to stability and security in Northeast Asia. But that is no reason to argue that Washington should not pursue the next stage of nuclear arms reductions with Russia.” Precisely, the reduction of the number of weapons in the world arsenal is a must. The redundancy of the production of those weapons was ludicrous to begin with. The Telegraph, of the UK, posted a quote by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she said, “We (U.S. and Russia) have more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over.” Because you never know how many times you may need to destroy the planet! Sarcasm aside, the officer from our analogy could undoubtedly begin reducing the number of bullets in his possession as an example to the suspect. But to take your aim off of the threat for one moment opens up an opportunity for him that none of us are prepared to face.
Getting it Wrong on North Korea

Blog Stage 3

The events in Newtown, Ct. hit home with every American who possesses a heart, and regardless of your views on gun violence/rights/control, it was a time when the nation came together to look for answers. Anyone with a spotlight put it to use, and there are those on both sides of the fence who approached the issue with complete disregard for facts. Rather, they used the immediate emotional response of the country to push their agenda with no shame. “…My position on guns has been one of naivety and willed ignorance.” These are the words of Terri Francis, author of the Op-Ed piece, Gun Control: It’s on all of us. Well ma’am, you said it, I didn’t.

Terri goes on to liken the gun control debate to the adoption of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which requires federal background checks on firearms purchasers in the Unites States. She also draws a comparison between the parents of the children of Newtown, and Candice Lightner, founder of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), which was founded in 1980 after the death of her 13-year-old daughter. The only difference I see here is that the Brady Act did not ban handguns; in fact it wasn’t even on the Brady family’s agenda after James Brady was killed protecting President Reagan. Candice Lightner never pushed for the ban of alcohol to quell drunk driving, but rather for the education of young people, stopping underage drinking, and stricter policies on alcohol serving establishments.

So why the immediate rhetoric from so many demanding the ban of sporting rifles, and certain types of magazines? I would argue that it stems from so many articles like this one where the author contends and opines whilst simultaneously void of any education on the subject. She calls for the education of people on the names and characteristics of firearms, so that they may better understand and therefore debate their position more intelligently. Truly understanding the capabilities and limitations of certain weapons, and the safe storage and usage of them, seems to be secondary to demonizing anyone fighting to retain their rifles/magazines. But facts apparently aren’t important when you have emotion on your side. “We can start by educating ourselves. Know what these weapons of mass destruction do…” Now there’s a contradictory statement if I’ve ever heard one. And how, pray tell, do we teach people about these WMD’s Ms. Francis? “We have to organize and shape public opinion to make it easier for the president and Congress to do what they must.” Once again, you said it, I didn’t.

Fear-mongering: The use of fear to influence or shape the opinions and actions of others to a specific end.
Gun Control: It's on all of us