Upload
jessica-badia
View
98
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Revised Persuasive Essay
Citation preview
Jessica BadiaProfessor Anne Kretsinger-HarriesCAS 138T1 April 2013
Small Sacrifices Can Lead to Big Changes
Recent occurrences of mass shootings and the increase in gun violence in the U.S. have
brought the issue of gun control to the attention of the public and government. Gun control is
now a hot topic that is currently being debated across the country. The shooting that pushed the
issue towards the top of the government’s list of priorities occurred in Connecticut. This shooting
took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School and resulted in the deaths of twenty children, ages
six and seven, and six adults ("Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting: What Happened?"). Now the
issue is more than just how guns can be controlled in order to prevent any more events like this
one to happen again. It is also about giving people a greater peace of mind in their everyday lives
and making this country a safer place for everyone, especially children. If we cannot protect our
children we are failing in one of our duties as citizens of this country. In response to these recent
mass shootings, the government should pass President Obama’s four legislative proposals and
23-step plan for gun control immediately. The government needs to be strict and stern in its
decisions on gun control, and this plan will ensure that this happens through banning military
style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, expanding background checks, and
toughening gun trafficking laws.
The urgent need for stricter gun laws has been proven through the tragedies that I
explained, but those are not the only reasons for which these laws are needed. The U.S. is ranked
number one in gun ownership, meaning that our citizens have the most guns in the world. While
places like the Netherlands have very low amounts of gun violence every year, we have some of
the highest amounts of gun violence. The difference between the countries is that one does not
allow its’ citizens to own guns, while the other does. Clearly, not all guns can be taken away
from U.S. citizens, because we do have the right to bear arms, but that does not meant that we
should easily be able to obtain guns that were meant for war. People can easily go to a gun show
and buy military weapons without any kind of background check. There are too many loopholes
in how people can obtain guns without these checks. The checks aren’t even that effiecient when
they are actually done, because they are not as in depth as they should be. It is time that we work
towards keeping guns out of the wrong hands in order to prevent anymore tragedies from
happening. Also, these mass shootings are not our only problem, because the FBI’s crime clock
estimates that gun violence occurs about every 25 seconds, so as you were reading this, how
many crimes with guns occurred according to this stat? Do you feel the need for this to change
yet?
Each one of President Obama’s legislative proposals has been proposed in order to
reduce gun violence. Anything that needs to be done in order to prevent another shooting like the
event in Connecticut is 100% worth it, because saving lives is much more important than being
able to own guns. In his speech delivered on January 16, 2013, President Obama made a hard-
hitting statement that summarized this idea and showed people that the pros of gun control will
completely outweigh the cons. The president stated, “While no law or set of laws will end gun
violence, it is clear that the American people want action. If even one child’s life can be saved,
then we need to act. Now is the time to do the right thing for our children, our communities, and
the country we love” ("The White House - President Barack Obama."). In other words, if making
gun laws stricter will help save lives, it is in the best interest of the country and should selflessly
be supported. Obama also makes it clear that mass shootings are not the only problem with gun
violence and that all shootings need to be addressed. There will need to be some trade-offs and
compromising on both sides of these gun control policies, but some change is better than staying
at the current terrible state that we are currently in.
In order to reduce the problem of gun violence in America, I advocate that the federal
government should pass and implement President Obama’s four legislative proposals and
twenty-three step plan. The twenty-three steps includes the requirement of federal agents to make
all information relevant to background checks available, the breakdown of legal barriers that
make background checks less in depth, giving incentives for states with better background check
systems, reviewing information to keep those prohibited from having guns away from these
weapons, making new rules for background checks so that they are done more often, showing
sellers how to do background checks correctly, launching a responsible gun ownership
campaign, reviewing safety standards, requiring the tracing of guns in investigations, releasing
information on lost and stolen guns, nominating an ATF director, giving proper training on how
to react to shooting situations, maximizing enforcement, researching causes of gun violence,
making new gun safety technology, letting doctors ask patients about guns in their homes,
allowing health care providers to report threats of violence, giving incentives to schools with
officers, developing emergency response plans, providing mental health services through
Medicaid, making requirements within ACA exchanges, finalizing mental health regulations, and
launching a national dialogue on mental health. The proposals overview the specific plans and
need to be advocated before moving into these actual steps. President Obama stated very clearly
in his proposals that he intends to “ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity
magazines, expand background checks, and toughen gun-trafficking laws” (Baker). President
Obama’s plan will also make schools safer and will increase access to mental health services
("The White House - President Barack Obama.").
Military-style assault weapons are not necessary for anyone to own, and banning these as
well as high-capacity magazines is considered a common sense step in President Obama’s plan
to reduce gun violence. There is no doubt in my mind that citizens should be able to have guns,
because that is their right, but there is no need for them to have weapons that are used in war.
Guns should be used in a smart manner, and only allowing smaller and less powerful guns to be
owned will help that happen. The ban proposed by Obama’s plan will make weapons of mass
violence less accessible, and will therefore cause a decrease in mass gun violence. In 2010, the
Police Executive Research Forum conducted a survey that found that “more than one-third of
police departments reported an increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons and high-capacity
magazines” ("The White House - President Barack Obama."). This seems to be a result of the
expiration of the prohibition on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons that occurred in
2004. It was never reinstated after it expired because it was thought to have done what it needed
to already. If this prohibition were in practice at the time of the Aurora and Newtown shootings,
the guns used would have been prohibited. This means that these shootings could have possibly
been avoided or at least done on a much smaller scale. Imagine that, all the pain that was caused
in the past year might have been prevented just by keeping the laws that were in place.
The prohibition of military-style assault weapons needs to not only be reinstated, but it
also needs to be strengthened by closing gun show loopholes, which is something that President
Obama is strongly advocating. These loopholes include making cosmetic modifications to
weapons so that they can sell more powerful weapons without them being classified as
dangerous weapons. The government needs to be thorough enough with its laws in order to avoid
people going around them. The banning of high-capacity magazines will help to also reduce the
risk of mass shootings. The law being proposed by Obama will limit magazines to 10 rounds.
People should only be able to own an amount of bullets that makes sense for what they need it
for in order to ensure that they are using them for the correct reasons. Many of the shooters in
recent mass shootings have used magazines holding more than 10 rounds, including the shooters
at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown. These magazines were also
prohibited under the old law. These facts seem to be ignored quite a bit, but the reality is that
prohibition may be the best solution to mass gun violence. As for the ammunition itself, armor-
piercing bullets need to be made illegal to possess and transfer, unless for the purpose of law
enforcement or military. These bullets are too powerful for recreational use and should not be
offered to anyone outside of the forces I previously mentioned. These banning policies alone will
greatly decrease the possibility that anyone could go out and buy a large amount of ammo and
extremely dangerous guns, and therefore they will decrease the possibility that anyone could
conduct a mass shooting ("The White House - President Barack Obama.").
I believe that most people would agree that guns are very dangerous weapons; they
should not just be handed out to anyone. Would it not make sense to verify that people who want
to own guns be thoroughly checked for their background and any criminal records? President
Obama’s plan would make these background checks required. Most people who own guns
would prefer not to extend the background check process, because that would cause them to have
to wait longer to be able to buy guns. However, this trade-off seems like a fair one if it would
ensure that less unreliable people would be in possession of guns. It has become too easy for
dangerous people to get firearms, which is why background checks need to be required for all
gun sales, which Obama laid out in his plan. The National Instant Criminal Background Check
System has helped keep more than 1.5 million guns out of the hands of criminals. The problem is
that too many guns are sold without a background check, and it is estimated that private sellers
who are not required to run background checks sell about 40% of all guns. A survey of inmates
showed that 12% of them should have had background checks when buying their guns but didn’t.
This shows that the current laws are clearly not strict enough and are not working properly,
because those who should have been checked weren’t, and those who didn’t need to be checked
should be required to get checked anywhere. President Obama’s plan tries to be fair with regards
to requiring background checks in stating that there are common-sense exceptions to these
checks, such as transferring a gun to a family member or temporarily transferring a gun for
hunting and sporting purposes. He is also giving the states funding incentives for complying with
these background checks, which proves that he is willing to give a little if the public lets him
take a little. Federal agencies will also need to help the states with these checks as much as they
possibly can. These checks will help prevent any size shooting, which also makes it an important
part of this plan. As you can see, this step to expand background checks requires a lot of help
from different sources, but by working together, these sources can make the system more
efficient and reliable ("The White House - President Barack Obama.").
As for gun trafficking, it is illegal and should have no one - besides criminals who do it -
objecting to making the laws against it tougher, as Obama’s plan would require. That is pretty
simple, but in order to help law enforcement crack down on gun trafficking, more tools need to
be given to law enforcement in order to help them prevent and prosecute gun violence. Gun
trafficking penalties need to be made harsher in order to deter people from doing it and to make a
statement to the public. This part of Obama’s plan only punishes those breaking the law, and
therefore should not be a huge problem to advocate with those who like using guns legally.
President Obama’s proposal calls for the use of 15,000 cops on the streets across the country to
make them safer. The President also wants all law enforcement agencies to trace firearms in
order to find traffickers and punish them. Every agency will therefore be provided with the
equipment and information needed to do so.
Something that may seem shocking in this entire situation is that the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives – also known as ATF – has not had a director for six years.
This needs to be fixed immediately, because this agency is extremely important in the
enforcement of gun laws and needs to have a good leader if it wants to control the firearms in
this country. The ATF will also be expected to release the data it collects on lost and stolen guns
in order to keep everyone informed. It is also important to make sure that law enforcement
officers, first responders, and school officials know how to react to shooting situations correctly.
These past shootings have shown that many people react on their instincts, but that is not enough
and needs to be enhanced. Also, the freeze on gun violence research needs to be ended, health
care providers need to be informed that they can report credible threats of violence as well as talk
to their patients about gun safety, and most importantly, responsible gun ownership needs to be
made a top priority. Informing those who are using guns of how to use them properly and lock
them up the right way will help minimize reckless use of guns and will help us progress to solely
using guns when necessary ("The White House - President Barack Obama.").
As I stated in the very beginning of this paper, the children of this country need to be
protected, especially in the place that they consider their second home – school. In order to do
this, Obama believes that 1,000 more school resource officers and counselors need to be put in
schools in order to teach students and faculty how to respond to emergency situations and also to
have more protection for the students and faculty. Schools can be given incentives in order to
make them more determined to make their schools safer for the children and faculty ("The White
House - President Barack Obama."). We all know what emergency plans are like: hide in the
corner for a lock-down drill or walk outside in an orderly fashion when there is a fire drill. These
emergency plans help people learn how to react to certain situations and to know what would be
expected if the situation was real. According to Obama’s plan, schools need to work hard to help
implement these plans and to make their environments safer and more nurturing for the sake of
the students. This will help give the faculty, students, and their parents some peace of mind given
the recent occurrences of shootings at schools.
The final part of Obama’s plan involves improving mental health services around the
country. “Less than half of children and adults with mental health problems receive the treatment
they need,” and just keeping guns out of their hands is not enough ("The White House -
President Barack Obama."). These people with mental health problems need to be treated and
helped to the best of our ability, especially when the illness is caught at a young age. One great
solution is to provide “Mental Health First Aid” training for teachers in order for them to be able
to point out problems with students that may need professional help. Schools will also be helped
in addressing violence and its connection to mental health. To make it easier for those with
mental health illnesses, coverage of treatment need to be insured ("The White House - President
Barack Obama."). This combination of help from those surrounding you and help from the
government will make it easier for those with mental illnesses to get treated.
Overall, Obama has a very reasonable and progressive goal to reduce gun violence, and
he seems to be set on the right endpoint to save as many lives as possible through his plan. It is
not perfect in everyone’s eyes, because while some people would prefer for all guns to be
banned, others would say that Obama shouldn’t take away their rights to those guns. The truth of
the matter is that every citizen will still have the right to bear arms, but they will be restricted as
to what guns they can own and how many bullets they can have. This is not an infringement on
anyone’s rights; it is just a stricter policy on rights that were more open in the past. For example,
the freedom of speech belongs to all Americans, but that does not mean that they can go into a
movie theater and yell “fire!” There will always be a limit on how far a right can be taken, and if
the limit protects people from being killed, isn’t it at least a little bit reasonable?
The main opposition to the President’s plan comes from the National Rifle Association,
or the NRA. The NRA has argued that President Obama’s plan is focused on the wrong goals.
The main goal, according to the NRA, is to keep the children of this country safe, which they
believe can be done by increasing security at schools and allowing faculty to carry guns (NRA).
The problem with their claim is that protecting the children, though it is what lit the fire under
this issue, it is not the only important aspect of enforcing stricter gun laws. The children cannot
be forgotten, but neither can the adults who have been killed in these tragedies, because their
lives are also very much worth fighting for. Providing more security only for children in schools
will only attack part of the problem, and is leaving out adults and the times in which children are
not in school. Also, handing out more guns seems counterproductive and more dangerous.
Would you really want your kids surrounded by guns? How would you know whether or not you
could trust every faculty member in the school? Instead of just attempting to protect children, it
would be better to implement Obama’s plan. In particular, the prohibition that I described before
lasted from 1994 to 2004, and it was “a ban on the sale and production of assault weapons”
(Baker). During that time there was a great decrease in deaths by guns ("Editorial: Gun Reform
for a Generation."). This shows that implementing a policy like that again would have the
possibility of improving our current situation and would help everyone, not just the kids. It is
also a more efficient alternative to giving everyone a gun.
Another claim that the opposition to the plan makes is that the mass shootings that have
occurred have taken place within states that already had strict gun laws (NRA). Interestingly
enough, the only reason people think this is because the media shapes the minds of the public in
that way. They focus on the shootings in places where guns are not common, but you don’t hear
much about the other shootings, unless the media leaves the place where it occurred out of the
story. For example, not many people know about the shooting in Alabama in 2009 that killed 10
and injured 6, the shooting in Texas in 2009 that killed 13 and injured 30, and the shooting in
Wisconsin in 2012 that killed 6 and injured 3. These states do not have strict gun laws, but they
still have high rates in gun violence. They allow, and even encourage people to own guns, but
that does not seem to reduce gun violence at all (Morrissey).
The US is clearly having trouble with gun violence, which is why it is such a hot topic
right now, but some people beg to differ with that. People who are opposed to the new proposals
are trying to convince everyone that everything is alright and that things will get better without
the implementation of stricter gun laws, but I—and many others—do not believe this at all. The
only way for things to change is for someone to change them, and in this case, it is up to our
government to do that. President Obama has set up a great plan for the government to implement,
but now it is up to the public and its’ representatives to decide what everyone prefers. What do
you think is in the best interest of the country? Is it better to stick to the old ways of the country
that have gotten so many people killed, or to try out a new alternative that has a great possibility
of saving lives? The President stated, “… if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any
of these events, we have a deep obligation, all of us, to try” ("The White House - President
Barack Obama."). How will you fulfill your obligation?
Works Cited
Baker, Peter, and Michael D. Shear. "Obama to ‘Put Everything I’ve Got’ Into Gun Control."
The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Jan. 2013. 01 Apr. 2013. <
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/politics/obama-to-ask-congress-to-toughen-gun-
laws.html?pagewanted=all>
"Editorial: Gun Reform for a Generation." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Jan.
2013. 01 Apr. 2013. < http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/gun-reform-for-a-
generation.html?pagewanted=all>
Morrissey, Ed. "Charts of the Day: Gun Violence in America Declining over Last 20 Years."
HotAir.com. 01 Apr. 2013. < http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/26/charts-of-the-day-
gun-violence-in-america-declining-over-last-20-years/>
"NRA." NRA. 01 Apr. 2013. <http://home.nra.org/>
"Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting: What Happened?" CNN. Cable News Network. 01 Apr.
2013. <http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-timeline/index.html>
"The White House - President Barack Obama." Now Is the Time. 01 Apr. 2013.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf>