Question: Because of the ambiguity of the term “security”, can any country ever be fully secure?
No, this is an impossible scenario. The simple fact of living on earth precludes the possibility of an entirely secure nation. Even when disregarding organized human security threats, there will always remain threats of disease, technological malfunction, acts of God, and innumerable other scenarios. That even assumes that a world without opposing human forces, such as countries or armed factions, is possible, which, given the needs and aspirations of a society, is about as unlikely as anything. Opposition will always manifest, because humans are inherently self-interested, not community-interested. It is in the nature of evolution that we continue to do battle.
In the past few classes, the notion of being fully secure has repeatedly been explored. It is a state that I term “perfect security” Perfect security implies a total lack of opposition, both military and ideological, as well as faultless deterrence techniques against unforeseen non-human dangers. It is implausible, if not impossible, to reach this state. As one prominent Eastern philosopher would put it, security is “not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.”
This builds upon our argument in class. The question we debated was whether or not “national security” could be realistically defined, and, by extension, whether or not it is a relevant term. The other group took note of the political use of the phrase “national security”, especially in campaigns, and concluded that its vague and open-ended definition could be used to promote essentially any policy, rendering it irrelevant.
I agree with their assertion that the political usage is entirely meaningless. It’s a utopian vision that can be tailored to promote any action or policy. However, looking at the concept of national security from a wider historical viewpoint, there exists one constant motivation in each argument: the desire for greater deterrence capability against specific threats. National security is not a state of being, nor is it a stand-alone political platform. Rather, it is a direction pointed towards an inevitably unattainable goal that may be reached any number of ways. It is, admittedly, a very wide definition, and in practice provides no solid path or endpoint. But it is a definition, and one that can provide at least a basic sense of intent. That common quality in all arguments for national security provides relevance for the term’s continued use, if only to frame an argument in the appropriate context.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Security: Everyone Wants It, Nobody Has It
Security is an elusive ideal that is unattainable. Threats, both real and imaginary, plague a nation’s psyche, and national governments move to safeguard against instability. Terrorism, pandemics, drought; just some of the factors that politicians and military officials consider when investing billions and billions of dollars devoted to keeping the state secure. The fact of the matter is, the next threat is often something that has never been seen before, something inconceivable that no government official can protect against. Security is impossible due to the fears of the citizenry and the spontaneous nature of global threats.
National security has long been that two-word buzzword that excites the American populace. The words are associated with freedom, the armed forces, and an us-against-them mentality that divides Republicans and Democrats ideologically. Regardless of party, many Americans view terrorism as the single greatest threat to this nation’s security. This is widely due to the events of September 11th and the dramatic images of the carnage in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American knee-jerk feeling is one that the world hates them and wishes for the downfall of the American state. Of course, this is not fact, but rather the perceived state of what is true. Since security is a personal feeling, (can my government protect my rights?), what is considered true by mainstream America must be considered true by government officials who strive to create a general feeling of stability. Is this security in the sense that the American people are immune to the next great epidemic or food shortage? No, it is simply a basic feeling that others will not harm you, and Americans continue to worry about every security threat, rational and irrational, that they feel threaten their way of life.
The truth about security is that it is impossible to be completely secure. No one could have predicted that hijacked planes would be used as missiles against American economic and defense establishments. It was impossible to imagine the SARS epidemic and its impact on Asia before the outbreak. More often than not, security is against an unknown entity, often inconceivable to most. Realists argue that military buildup and a strong police presence secure a state, but it is time for people to accept that the world is a chaotic, insecure place. I’m stop here; it transitions nicely into what I’ll tell you all in class Friday.
National security has long been that two-word buzzword that excites the American populace. The words are associated with freedom, the armed forces, and an us-against-them mentality that divides Republicans and Democrats ideologically. Regardless of party, many Americans view terrorism as the single greatest threat to this nation’s security. This is widely due to the events of September 11th and the dramatic images of the carnage in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American knee-jerk feeling is one that the world hates them and wishes for the downfall of the American state. Of course, this is not fact, but rather the perceived state of what is true. Since security is a personal feeling, (can my government protect my rights?), what is considered true by mainstream America must be considered true by government officials who strive to create a general feeling of stability. Is this security in the sense that the American people are immune to the next great epidemic or food shortage? No, it is simply a basic feeling that others will not harm you, and Americans continue to worry about every security threat, rational and irrational, that they feel threaten their way of life.
The truth about security is that it is impossible to be completely secure. No one could have predicted that hijacked planes would be used as missiles against American economic and defense establishments. It was impossible to imagine the SARS epidemic and its impact on Asia before the outbreak. More often than not, security is against an unknown entity, often inconceivable to most. Realists argue that military buildup and a strong police presence secure a state, but it is time for people to accept that the world is a chaotic, insecure place. I’m stop here; it transitions nicely into what I’ll tell you all in class Friday.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Personal and Mutual Security
Three links were shown in class that I'd like to address. The East Coast Firearms website merits recognition simply because the issue it presents has been flogged to death by my classmates, so I’ll bridge the gap by attempting to connect it to World Politics.
The reaction provoked by the website among the class demonstrated the reaction of outsiders, including governments, to violent conflicts, or military buildup in anticipation of one. Despite that the website did not advocate violent acts, the images of weapons nevertheless conjured up images of their use, and many people reacted with shock and disapproval (though a few of us males reacted with excitement, because we’ve freely surrendered ourselves to gun culture). A similar type of negative reaction can also be observed frequently among outsiders appraising an armed conflict that they have no stake in. Nonpartisan nations, most frequently European and Asian states, as well as non-government organizations, supranational organizations, and individuals tend to issue a blanket condemnation of violence, stating that they regret the loss of innocent life and hope that peace and negotiations can prevail. They take no sides, even in some instances where one party has the moral highground. They state only that they abhor violence, a position than anyone, even a baby, can take.
And so it progressed in our class. The initial reaction by nearly everyone was a rejection of such weapons, regardless of their intent. The only reason it progressed to a debate about gun control was due to differing interpretations of what it meant to repel violence; while some were so disgusted by automatic weapons that they advocated a near-complete ban on their sale, others defended their necessity, though not necessarily the caliber of guns that were being advertised. It’s important to note, though, that no one advocated an upgrade of existing domestic weapons, and I would attribute this to expectations of what self-defense would actually look like in our own context. Surely, it was agreed, no one would need a fully-automatic weapon to protect their homes.
This summarizes a fundamental difference between ourselves and independent states: a difference of scale. While we may not need such weapons, national armies do, simply because military technology has progressed to that point. Unlike nations, we do not exist under constant threat, and our technological and tactical capacities have not increased by necessity to the levels advocated by East Coast Firearms. Thus, the sudden submersion into that mindset was alarming for many.
I will not state my political views on gun control. My personal view is “Guns for me, no guns for anyone else”, but I realize the impracticality of that policy. Ultimately, though, I see little link at present between that issue and world politics, so to keep with my running tactic of deliberate ambiguity on my political views, I will abstain from commenting on the pros and cons of gun control.
The next important link was the trailer for “The World Without US”, a documentary on possible U.S. isolationism. I was surprised to hear many in our class take an uncompromisingly negative view of it, deriding its “scare tactics” to promote “more U.S. influence” in world affairs. While there was an obviously propagandistic tone to it, I felt that the main point was missed. As I see it, it didn’t so much promote a course of action as defend the current one. It was making the case that the United States cannot be blamed for inciting so much violence around the world, and it opposed the widely-held view that if America were to stop intervention in conflicts, the world would be a safer place. Simply put, war existed long before the U.S. entered the scene, and it will exist long after it leaves it. There are an innumerable amount of interests competing with each other, and there is no shortage of people who will take up arms to further their ideologies. The United States can hardly be blamed for fighting “better” than everyone else. Viewing American withdrawal as a solution to world suffering is taking a dangerously two-dimensional, not to mention skewed, vision of world affairs. Going down such a path would be a strategic fiasco for everyone.
The final link I wanted to bring up was the cartoon on Social Security. It portrayed an elderly woman in a hospital attached to an IV tube, labeled “Social Security". In front of her, a politician preaches to his followers that Social Security must be converted to private accounts, because personal responsibility is an American value. His followers cheer, since they, as taxpayers, are no longer burdened by her healthcare costs. I see the relation of this message to world politics in modern economic cooperatives, particularly the European Union. The bare premise of the cartoon was the idea that those with more generally do not want to bend for those with less. This continues to be demonstrated by the EU in their induction process, their membership, and the promotion of their common currency. Upon the breakup of various ex-communist states in the early-nineties, there was a multitude of potential new members. However, their economies were not nearly as advanced as those of Western Europe, and had much difficulty adjusting to the capitalist system. Their GDPs were far below the common European standard, crime was on the rise, and all of it bred corruption and demagoguery in politics. Membership was stalled for each nation until they could kowtow to the rest of Europe, and even then the existing economic order would have to take a hit for the new fledgling economies. Now, this didn’t sit well with the most financially robust of states, including France and Belgium, and for a time they attempted to block membership even further. However, once they acceded, they assisted in defraying costs accrued while they were building their infrastructures.
This unfortunate fact has been the reason some Western European states still hold out on the EU and its common market. Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have rejected calls for them to join, not wanting to pursue common interests with states that may not share their values. The United Kingdom and Sweden have not adopted the Euro as their currency, in part because they fear the effects of inflation once Eastern European states are inducted. They, like the voters depicted in the cartoon, prefer to keep their private economies, mainly because they’re better off by themselves. It becomes a question of security when these states have to decide whether to forsake their own security apparatus to defend another, which becomes an issue whenever states are included in the EU or NATO.
To close this, I wanted to post the finale of Scarface, as promised. Unfortunately, it seems to have been deleted from YouTube. Cursed copyright laws! For all you bloodthirsty folks out there, here’s the next best thing.
The reaction provoked by the website among the class demonstrated the reaction of outsiders, including governments, to violent conflicts, or military buildup in anticipation of one. Despite that the website did not advocate violent acts, the images of weapons nevertheless conjured up images of their use, and many people reacted with shock and disapproval (though a few of us males reacted with excitement, because we’ve freely surrendered ourselves to gun culture). A similar type of negative reaction can also be observed frequently among outsiders appraising an armed conflict that they have no stake in. Nonpartisan nations, most frequently European and Asian states, as well as non-government organizations, supranational organizations, and individuals tend to issue a blanket condemnation of violence, stating that they regret the loss of innocent life and hope that peace and negotiations can prevail. They take no sides, even in some instances where one party has the moral highground. They state only that they abhor violence, a position than anyone, even a baby, can take.
And so it progressed in our class. The initial reaction by nearly everyone was a rejection of such weapons, regardless of their intent. The only reason it progressed to a debate about gun control was due to differing interpretations of what it meant to repel violence; while some were so disgusted by automatic weapons that they advocated a near-complete ban on their sale, others defended their necessity, though not necessarily the caliber of guns that were being advertised. It’s important to note, though, that no one advocated an upgrade of existing domestic weapons, and I would attribute this to expectations of what self-defense would actually look like in our own context. Surely, it was agreed, no one would need a fully-automatic weapon to protect their homes.
This summarizes a fundamental difference between ourselves and independent states: a difference of scale. While we may not need such weapons, national armies do, simply because military technology has progressed to that point. Unlike nations, we do not exist under constant threat, and our technological and tactical capacities have not increased by necessity to the levels advocated by East Coast Firearms. Thus, the sudden submersion into that mindset was alarming for many.
I will not state my political views on gun control. My personal view is “Guns for me, no guns for anyone else”, but I realize the impracticality of that policy. Ultimately, though, I see little link at present between that issue and world politics, so to keep with my running tactic of deliberate ambiguity on my political views, I will abstain from commenting on the pros and cons of gun control.
The next important link was the trailer for “The World Without US”, a documentary on possible U.S. isolationism. I was surprised to hear many in our class take an uncompromisingly negative view of it, deriding its “scare tactics” to promote “more U.S. influence” in world affairs. While there was an obviously propagandistic tone to it, I felt that the main point was missed. As I see it, it didn’t so much promote a course of action as defend the current one. It was making the case that the United States cannot be blamed for inciting so much violence around the world, and it opposed the widely-held view that if America were to stop intervention in conflicts, the world would be a safer place. Simply put, war existed long before the U.S. entered the scene, and it will exist long after it leaves it. There are an innumerable amount of interests competing with each other, and there is no shortage of people who will take up arms to further their ideologies. The United States can hardly be blamed for fighting “better” than everyone else. Viewing American withdrawal as a solution to world suffering is taking a dangerously two-dimensional, not to mention skewed, vision of world affairs. Going down such a path would be a strategic fiasco for everyone.
The final link I wanted to bring up was the cartoon on Social Security. It portrayed an elderly woman in a hospital attached to an IV tube, labeled “Social Security". In front of her, a politician preaches to his followers that Social Security must be converted to private accounts, because personal responsibility is an American value. His followers cheer, since they, as taxpayers, are no longer burdened by her healthcare costs. I see the relation of this message to world politics in modern economic cooperatives, particularly the European Union. The bare premise of the cartoon was the idea that those with more generally do not want to bend for those with less. This continues to be demonstrated by the EU in their induction process, their membership, and the promotion of their common currency. Upon the breakup of various ex-communist states in the early-nineties, there was a multitude of potential new members. However, their economies were not nearly as advanced as those of Western Europe, and had much difficulty adjusting to the capitalist system. Their GDPs were far below the common European standard, crime was on the rise, and all of it bred corruption and demagoguery in politics. Membership was stalled for each nation until they could kowtow to the rest of Europe, and even then the existing economic order would have to take a hit for the new fledgling economies. Now, this didn’t sit well with the most financially robust of states, including France and Belgium, and for a time they attempted to block membership even further. However, once they acceded, they assisted in defraying costs accrued while they were building their infrastructures.
This unfortunate fact has been the reason some Western European states still hold out on the EU and its common market. Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have rejected calls for them to join, not wanting to pursue common interests with states that may not share their values. The United Kingdom and Sweden have not adopted the Euro as their currency, in part because they fear the effects of inflation once Eastern European states are inducted. They, like the voters depicted in the cartoon, prefer to keep their private economies, mainly because they’re better off by themselves. It becomes a question of security when these states have to decide whether to forsake their own security apparatus to defend another, which becomes an issue whenever states are included in the EU or NATO.
To close this, I wanted to post the finale of Scarface, as promised. Unfortunately, it seems to have been deleted from YouTube. Cursed copyright laws! For all you bloodthirsty folks out there, here’s the next best thing.
Limited Gun Control
I too was horrified by the website seen in class on Friday. The website proves to me that gun regulation is an issue in this country. The selling of the weapons on that website should not be legal. I agree with the pro-gun control group that no one needs an AK-47 for their own personal security. However, I do think that citizens should continue to have the right to possess and carry a gun. I strongly supported Michelle’s statement in Friday’s class on how she would feel insecure if she couldn’t have the right to own a gun, because that ban would not stop criminals from using guns. I don’t like the idea of a country where only the police and the criminals have guns. That leaves the individual citizen in a weaker position, I don’t care how you try and argue it. The police and by extension the government, are not infallible. The primary interest of the police and the government is for the security of the whole of society, not for the security of every individual.
PTJ made a point about asking who in the class had shot a gun before. For me, I think it was telling how the people who had not shot a gun were so avidly anti-gun and fearful of guns in general (just an impression, correct me if I’m wrong). I have grown up in a house with guns and shot both rifles and handguns before. My dad likes to hunt and fish, so consequently my freezer at home always some fish and venison it and my family eats both on a regular basis. I don’t think of hunting as some archaic masculine pastime. The deer and javilena (wild pig) populations in some areas of Texas have caused extreme damage to property. Areas with such problems like to bring in hunters in order to control the population.
The kind of gun regulation that I would advocate for would treat guns like cars and be a national system overall. You need a license to operate a car and you should need a license to operate a gun. Obtaining this license would require a wait period, official identification shown and recorded in a local state office and a class taught on gun law, safety and use. Assault weapons should be illegal across the board, but the ban needs to end there.
PTJ made a point about asking who in the class had shot a gun before. For me, I think it was telling how the people who had not shot a gun were so avidly anti-gun and fearful of guns in general (just an impression, correct me if I’m wrong). I have grown up in a house with guns and shot both rifles and handguns before. My dad likes to hunt and fish, so consequently my freezer at home always some fish and venison it and my family eats both on a regular basis. I don’t think of hunting as some archaic masculine pastime. The deer and javilena (wild pig) populations in some areas of Texas have caused extreme damage to property. Areas with such problems like to bring in hunters in order to control the population.
The kind of gun regulation that I would advocate for would treat guns like cars and be a national system overall. You need a license to operate a car and you should need a license to operate a gun. Obtaining this license would require a wait period, official identification shown and recorded in a local state office and a class taught on gun law, safety and use. Assault weapons should be illegal across the board, but the ban needs to end there.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Cuz all i wanna do is BANG BANG BANG and KA CHING and take your money
Guns fah-reak me the heck out. I think they are horrible in every way. I don’t even think recreational hunting is something “recreational” or morally okay. I love animals… I know, I know… but I do. Why would you want to kill bambi? Because the deer population is out of control and humans are the only predator capable of seriously thinning the overpopulated species? Yeah, well the human population is pretty out of control, too. Don’t laugh at me. I actually understand, and can admit, that my stance on this issue is fueled more by my emotion and fuzzy love for fuzzy creatures rather than being based on the cold hard facts of reality. You probably think that I think guns are the absolute evil. And you’re right – I absolutely do! However, although I strongly abhor the use of guns and do not think that US citizens should be able to easily purchase an MP-5 or a TEC-9, I just don’t really agree with the disillusioned concept of what others believe to be gun control. Many of those who support gun control believe that they are supporting a proposal to completely ban the use of gun sale and ownership. This is not the case. Gun control is a proposal to regulate the sale of guns, not even to license the guns that have already been sold and dispersed out, it’s only to make sure stricter measures are taken for the sale and transfer of gun ownership. Gun control, although a step in the right direction, is not the answer. Handguns are the primary killer and, gun control, the way it is presently, does little to stop that because of it’s complete lack of background checks in secondary gun sales. There needs to be far more focus on this sector of sales. No one needs to be buying 20 handguns, and if someone does, this information should be shown to the appropriate authorities – which does not occur in secondary gun sales. Secondary gun sales need to be illegal, need to be regulated, and need to be stopped. Furthermore, can we please put a stop to such sites as the one that was showed in class and maybe prevent little parties known as firearm conventions (pictured below) from occurring? Thank you!
And as promised... Here is the link to the GAME on airport security! Enjoy!Class Reflection
I felt very bittersweet about class. It's amazing to think I knew so much about my other classmates (politically speaking), and then bring up such a hot-button issue like gun-control and realize how wrong my perceptions were. I don't understand even the smallest bit why anyone thinks they need an automatic weapon in order to be secure. I'm not sure they have a constitutional right to that weapon, but until the second amendment is clarified in the supreme court, people are free to legally acquire firearms like that I suppose. What I thought at first to be a gender bias, was quickly rejected. I have a feeling in our class, our views on gun control might correlate with the size of what we consider our 'hometowns'. I'm not even sure there is a correlation. It's very interesting to me. There are so many trends in politics, and our class does a fair good job fitting in those trends, except for the gun control issue.
I believe the constitution grants you the right to bear arms, for the purpose of forming a militia. You do not have the right bear arms if you do not plan on participating in the militia. There should be a limit on the number of fire arms you can possess. There should be tighter crack downs on arms trading. People should not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, unless they work in law enforcement. There is nothing natural about firearms. I'm somewhat repulsed by it's sheer ability to destroy life. A firearm has never produced something positive without a tragedy happening somewhere else. I'm just very anti-gun apparently, but then again I've never shot a gun, my mom does not own one, so I may be the least qualified to judge on the topic. As far as the comment that can be construed as racist, that is for that person to clarify.
I believe the constitution grants you the right to bear arms, for the purpose of forming a militia. You do not have the right bear arms if you do not plan on participating in the militia. There should be a limit on the number of fire arms you can possess. There should be tighter crack downs on arms trading. People should not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, unless they work in law enforcement. There is nothing natural about firearms. I'm somewhat repulsed by it's sheer ability to destroy life. A firearm has never produced something positive without a tragedy happening somewhere else. I'm just very anti-gun apparently, but then again I've never shot a gun, my mom does not own one, so I may be the least qualified to judge on the topic. As far as the comment that can be construed as racist, that is for that person to clarify.
If you never read another Seamus McGregor post, read this
I found the East Coast Firearms site to be eye-opening as well as extremely distressing. As you all are now aware, I am pro gun control, and I feel very strongly on the matter. The second amendment is dated and I feel misinterpreted. The second amendment was enacted as a means of preventing tyrannical governments from gaining power, and serves as an extension of John Locke’s social contract. This contract is for the government to serve the people, and for the people to overthrow the government if the government violates the contract of mutual trust. Today, militias are not a major force in America (although the Michigan militia wields significant firepower), and there is not an effective way of people to mobilize against the government. The government possesses Abrams tanks, Stryker fighting vehicles, and F-22 Raptor aircraft that cannot be combated effectively by any massing of ordinary citizens. Realistically, if a tyrannical regime was to assume power in the United States, it probably could only be overthrown by a military coup. Forgive me, but I’m not buying into this whole “an individual qualifies as a militia” business. This sort of Rambo mentality is not subscribed to by mainstream Americans, and I find the notion that an assault weapon is sufficient to defend yourself against the world unrealistic.
Others claim that a gun is vital to their personal protection. Many individuals have firearms in their homes and have concealed carry licenses. Although pro gun control, I realize that things must be taken in gradual steps; so I shall address assault weapons as the first things that should be taken off the streets and out of the hands of citizens. Assault weapons are manufactured to kill people; and lots of them at a time. A gun that is designed for military action is certainly not a necessity if a person wishes to defend themselves against a home invasion. I believe that firearms can be gradually phased out and that the United States can follow along the lines of Great Britain’s rules regarding gun ownership.
I will briefly address the people who enjoy hunting. I have yet to meet a serious hunter who uses an assault rifle or automatic weapon. Putting that many bullets into a deer for example takes away the skill of hunting and makes cleaning the carcass difficult. I cannot think of a hunter who would argue for hunting with a MP-5 or a TEC-9.
I would also like to point out the negative effects on households that own guns. Study after study has proven that households with guns in them have higher rates of suicide and homicide than houses where no gun is present. Most concerning to me is how often it is the children of the household who accidently kill themselves or others playing with guns. Harvard research has proven that child firearm deaths are directly tied to gun availability http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/March8_2002/injury_control.html. If for no other reason, we owe it to the youth to limit gun ownership in the United States.
While I realize Andrew’s argument that there will always be a market for these high-powered weapons, we can make it much more difficult for criminals to get their hands on these weapons. The recent trend of “community guns”, a practice where a gun is used for a crime and left in a park or an alleyway for other gang members to use, is very disturbing http://ncpc.typepad.com/prevention_works_blog/2008/06/community-guns.html. Renewing the Federal Assault Weapons ban would be a good first step. As for the next steps, I will talk a little about how Chicago has been gradually cutting homicide rates the past decade.
First, there has been a series of firearm buy-back programs through the mayor’s office that have been very successful. The no-questions-asked policy encourages people to turn in their guns for a monetary reward (less than market value for gun to prevent re-purchasing) that can be used to buy food or pay the bills instead of arming themselves.
Second, community groups, such as Ceasefire, have built a grassroots of concerned citizens to stop gang shootings http://www.ceasefirechicago.org/mission_history.shtml. These community members know who the gang members are, and with the community behind them, these organizations have been very effective in dissuading criminal activity and through a wide array of conflict management and peace counseling strategies, have greatly decreased gang violence in many neighborhoods in Chicago. Ceasefire began in 2000 in the West Garfield Park neighborhood, police beat 1115. In a neighborhood notorious for gang violence http://www.chicagogangs.org/index.php?pr=GANG_MAPS (north side map), shootings dropped 67% within in the first year of Ceasefire’s existence.
Last, police need to step up their presence and violent criminals need to be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. A large police presence in Chicago coupled with massive operations against gangs and the drug trade has cut significantly into the structure and business of organized crime and street gangs alike. By weakening these groups, it makes it easier to seize their weapons and make them more compliant to the law.
On a slightly different note, I was most disturbed by the statement by one of my classmates that people need high-powered weapons because African-Americans and Hispanics often perpetrate crimes against white people. Outside the obvious question of why race is relevant in that discussion at all when criminal activity correlates to socio-economic conditions, I also would like to ask that classmate to state why he fears African Americans and Hispanics and believes they wish to harm him. If we are to make race relevant, you shall see studies have proven that a vast majority of crime perpetrated against a person of one race was committed by someone of the same race http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm. While it’s easy to look at the news and pass judgment on people, remember that journalism is sensationalist and that everything must be viewed carefully and impartially. I do not want to brand what I heard as racism, so I call on that classmate to clarify his statement.
Others claim that a gun is vital to their personal protection. Many individuals have firearms in their homes and have concealed carry licenses. Although pro gun control, I realize that things must be taken in gradual steps; so I shall address assault weapons as the first things that should be taken off the streets and out of the hands of citizens. Assault weapons are manufactured to kill people; and lots of them at a time. A gun that is designed for military action is certainly not a necessity if a person wishes to defend themselves against a home invasion. I believe that firearms can be gradually phased out and that the United States can follow along the lines of Great Britain’s rules regarding gun ownership.
I will briefly address the people who enjoy hunting. I have yet to meet a serious hunter who uses an assault rifle or automatic weapon. Putting that many bullets into a deer for example takes away the skill of hunting and makes cleaning the carcass difficult. I cannot think of a hunter who would argue for hunting with a MP-5 or a TEC-9.
I would also like to point out the negative effects on households that own guns. Study after study has proven that households with guns in them have higher rates of suicide and homicide than houses where no gun is present. Most concerning to me is how often it is the children of the household who accidently kill themselves or others playing with guns. Harvard research has proven that child firearm deaths are directly tied to gun availability http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/March8_2002/injury_control.html. If for no other reason, we owe it to the youth to limit gun ownership in the United States.
While I realize Andrew’s argument that there will always be a market for these high-powered weapons, we can make it much more difficult for criminals to get their hands on these weapons. The recent trend of “community guns”, a practice where a gun is used for a crime and left in a park or an alleyway for other gang members to use, is very disturbing http://ncpc.typepad.com/prevention_works_blog/2008/06/community-guns.html. Renewing the Federal Assault Weapons ban would be a good first step. As for the next steps, I will talk a little about how Chicago has been gradually cutting homicide rates the past decade.
First, there has been a series of firearm buy-back programs through the mayor’s office that have been very successful. The no-questions-asked policy encourages people to turn in their guns for a monetary reward (less than market value for gun to prevent re-purchasing) that can be used to buy food or pay the bills instead of arming themselves.
Second, community groups, such as Ceasefire, have built a grassroots of concerned citizens to stop gang shootings http://www.ceasefirechicago.org/mission_history.shtml. These community members know who the gang members are, and with the community behind them, these organizations have been very effective in dissuading criminal activity and through a wide array of conflict management and peace counseling strategies, have greatly decreased gang violence in many neighborhoods in Chicago. Ceasefire began in 2000 in the West Garfield Park neighborhood, police beat 1115. In a neighborhood notorious for gang violence http://www.chicagogangs.org/index.php?pr=GANG_MAPS (north side map), shootings dropped 67% within in the first year of Ceasefire’s existence.
Last, police need to step up their presence and violent criminals need to be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. A large police presence in Chicago coupled with massive operations against gangs and the drug trade has cut significantly into the structure and business of organized crime and street gangs alike. By weakening these groups, it makes it easier to seize their weapons and make them more compliant to the law.
On a slightly different note, I was most disturbed by the statement by one of my classmates that people need high-powered weapons because African-Americans and Hispanics often perpetrate crimes against white people. Outside the obvious question of why race is relevant in that discussion at all when criminal activity correlates to socio-economic conditions, I also would like to ask that classmate to state why he fears African Americans and Hispanics and believes they wish to harm him. If we are to make race relevant, you shall see studies have proven that a vast majority of crime perpetrated against a person of one race was committed by someone of the same race http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm. While it’s easy to look at the news and pass judgment on people, remember that journalism is sensationalist and that everything must be viewed carefully and impartially. I do not want to brand what I heard as racism, so I call on that classmate to clarify his statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)