I’d like to talk about what Professor Jackson said about people who have had experience with firearms being more moderate about the issue. I learned to shoot a rifle when I was in middle school and have many friends and family members who own and shoot guns. In knowing these people, I’ve noticed a lot about the attitudes towards guns that surprised me. My dad, the most pacifistic, anti-violence, even anti-shooting-at-each-other-with-toy-guns person is actually the one to take my brother to the firing range and to Scheels to admire the guns. Probably because of being raised with this attitude, whenever I leave my airsoft gun lying around my brother takes it very seriously and is always the first one to remind me that the safety isn’t on or that you should always treat a gun like it is loaded.
On the other side of things, I’ve also met people who leave real and toy guns lying around in a house full of kids (I can’t tell the difference, can the elementary school kid tell?) Having these experiences haven’t exactly made me a moderate on the issue, but it has made me more moderate. I am at the point of being an extremist proponent for gun control. If you ask me, there is no good reason for a civilian to own a gun. Hunting? Use a bow, its better sport anyway. Protection? If no one had a gun we wouldn’t need such quick access to lethal force. What confuses me is that I’ve seen both responsible and irresponsible use of guns. Some people are responsible with guns, so how is it fair to tell them that they are not allowed to own one? And how is it fair to let put children in such an unsafe environment? Because of this I wouldn’t advocate for the banning of all firearms, even though that is my own personal view. Oh, and for any of the females who weren’t so into the ‘gun porn’ in class, how about this?
I also wanted to bring up something that a bunch of us were talking about after class on Friday. Somebody mentioned that the U.K. is one of the most watched countries with something like a surveillance camera for every six people. While things aren’t quite as extreme in the United States as they are in the U.K., the rise of technology makes it easier than ever to track individuals. I think we all recognize that some amount of surveillance is necessary for security, but there is also a definite line that can be crossed. The American people need to decide where that line is and the American government needs to respect it, otherwise there is nothing stopping us from another situation similar to the red scare of the 1950’s.
3 comments:
THOSE SHOES ARE FANTASTIC.
Who designed them?
Your personal insight was really interesting, and I agree in many ways (especially when it comes to responsibility). But you say "If no one had a gun we wouldn’t need such quick access to lethal force," This is quite a cliche, but if gun ownership becomes a crime only criminals will have guns.
Those are hot. Halloween costume?
On average, a resident of London is caught on surveillance almost 300 times per day. While I agree that Americans should have the right to privacy, it seems that surveillance could be useful in lessening the crime rate and finding criminals quicker. The question is whether or not American citizens would make such a sacrifice.
They are designed by Chanel, so maybe not so affordable for a Halloween costume. And 'if gun ownership becomes a crime only criminals will have guns'... I'm not sure what you mean by that. What our society considers criminal has nothing to do with the guns in relation to safety of our society.
Lucas- Like I said, surveillance can be useful. It just worries me that the government has access to such personal information like who we call and who we e-mail. I think that people would be more willing to give up some privacy if they knew that it wouldn't be abused, but we really don't know that and that is why I think privacy is such a big deal.
Post a Comment