Monday Matters - Final

For most mondays of recent memory, I have been undertaking research on the highly debated topic of gun control. I think now I have gathered enough information regarding the subject to be able to insert my own commentary into the dispute.

In my opinion, gun control should be implemented in the United States. I say the United States, for obviously that is where the issue of guns is most relevant, for the country currently grants citizens the 'right to bear arms'. By gun control I do not to intend to stand for the complete eradication of guns for the people, only simply, a more reasonable, limit on gun ownership. The idea of gun control, is only a means to lower the horrific gun violence in the country; guns should be regulated for the sake of the people.

They are many arguments against gun control. This is rather peculiar in my opinion. For the counter arguments are often quite remarkable. The opposition to gun control have a wide vary of arguments, almost all of which happen to be quite so ever wrong. A common argument, is that the right to gun ownership, is detailed in the constitution and therefore can not be questioned. As I explained in my post last monday with the help of a witty cartoon, the constitution was written decades ago, and the current state of the nation is not what the founding fathers envisioned. Furthermore, the constitution originally entailed slavery. So, how is it exactly that the constitution can't be altered? Guns were originally intended as a checks and balance measure on the government, to assert that the people remain on an equal playing field. Also in my post monday, a cartoon from an artist known as Toles, wisely depicts a scoreboard of the number of tyrants overthrown to the number of killings of innocents; naturally it's a blowout. One point of view, detailed in my "anti-gun control" blog post, is a more sophisticated take on the most common counter argument: guns don't kill people, people kill people. Granderson, the man who wrote the article, says that all gun-massacres are lumped together, in an attempt to play "on the nation's emotions." While it may be true that pro gun-regulation arguments appeal to pathos, the truth is the reason they appeal to pathos, is because they should. I mean people wouldn't be feeling so emotional, if it wasn't for all these massacres. One last argument is that, "what stops a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun." Now that's all great and all, until you consider when was the last time a shooting incident was avoided because there was "a good guy with a gun"? Nada. Unless you consider the movies I guess, which is where the anti-gun control proponents seem to reside actually.

Gun control should be implemented as a measure to contain violence, it's as simple as that. Gun massacres happen all too often, in schools to military bases, they are rampant. There are no powerful counter arguments, but how could you counter mass murders anyways.

Monday Matters - Gun Control Political Cartoons

This a political cartoon, related to my chosen issue of gun control, that I quite like because I think it does a pretty good job of refuting a common counter-argument. The stated counter argument will often be as follows: The 2nd amendment states the 'right to bear arms', therefore any gun control measures are unconstitutional. Of course. Except that the constitution was written century's ago. What's more is the constitutional was originally down with slaverly. So it's hardly like the constitution is this supreme text that is so holy it can't be altered. Unless of course, the ones who think it's unconstitutional to change it now, would have thought the same back then.

This is another political cartoon which I also think is very effective. This too is another refutation of the arguments proposed by anti-gun law proponents. It deals with a similar issue raised as the piece above: that gun control is unconstitutional. This piece attacks the idea that guns are a measure against tyrannical governments. This piece wisely points out, the clear discrepancy of guns' apparent purpose, and their actual effects.

This third piece is pretty self-explanatory. Some say violence stemming from modern video games is the reason behind all the killing. Although video games probably don't help, they are not the end all, and guns are just the medium.

All these sources come from: http://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/refuting-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/

Monday Matters - Anti Gun Control

The following is another opinion piece on Gun control, but this time with an alternate view point.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/

Another mass murder. The shooter ( Note: who of course there is tons of info about now) was apparently a shy man who even practiced Buddhism and meditated at times. Gun control advocates attempt to connect this story with the sandy-hook mass shooting along with most gun-violence victims. They attempt to categorize all these incidents together and make the common enemy the lack of gun regulation. Gun Control is harsh in Chicago, gun shops are even illegal, but there is gun violence the plenty. Not all gun violence deaths are the same. The reason gun violence happens, is not because it's guns, but various factors such as poverty, mental health and failing education. So combat those issues, don't combat guns.

This is part of the argument: "Last month the nation breathed a sigh of relief after Antoinette Tuff, a bookkeeper in an elementary school in suburban Atlanta, prevented a man with an AK-47-type weapon and nearly 500 rounds of ammunition from hurting anyone."

(^^Why do you need 500 rounds and an AK? What, are you preparing for the zombie apocalypse? Or maybe the so much more viable governmental takeover that's just bound to happen.)

The strategy of combating the relevance of the second amendment and "playing on the nation's emotions" hasn't worked. So combat the issues that make gun violence happen, not the actual guns. 

Because guns don't kill people, people kill people. 

Monday Matters: NEW - Guns

The controversial topic I have chosen to follow is Gun Laws in the United States of America.

Push harder for gun-law changes

- Scot Lehigh

- Boston Globe

The shooting at the Washington military base was surprising, yet foreseeable. Mass shootings have became a staple in America, and the question now is simply where will the next one be, and how bad will it be?

More than 600,000 Americans have died since 1995 from gun violence. It should be noted however that half the annual gun deaths are suicidal, but still the numbers are quite remarkable.

The answer of course should start with the implementation of new laws. Background checks of the recipient for the sale of guns through all forms of distribution. Bills like the Manchin-Toomey bill detail this. "Expanded background checks" already have a majority support in the Senate, (as they should) the problem is  though "that such a bill doesn’t yet have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster".

One gun-law advocate states in reference to the needed laws: “We can’t confidently predict the date, but it will happen when the American public brings its voice to bear,”

The law does however need to be expanded, so it can reject men likely to commit atrocities like the Washington shooting, by denying them purchase on the means of some check on mental stability. This check could be done my requiring the customer to have ability insurance.

Gun Laws have to continued to be pushed, it is imperative.

Monday Matters: Synthesize

By following the columnist Ross Douthat from the N.Y. times and summarising his posts for some weeks, I think I am now in a position to be able to synthesize his posts into a statement on how he views society.

I would say Douthat has a right-wing perspective on society. Although, it is not particularly strong right. He appears to be Conservative, which is alluded to in his article "Obamacare, Failing Ahead of Schedule" where in reference to the conservatives not wanting a total Obamacare meltdown, he states, "They’re hoping, as I’m hoping..." and then goes to state what they are hoping for. He essentially group himself with conservatives here, showing his alignment to the right. But yet, he is not deep right. In that same article he states that while "Republican politicians may be salivating over a potential Obamacare crisis", conservatives and himself are not. So he is right-wing, but a more sane, collected right-wing than most republicans.

I would say Douthat has a decently positive outlook on society. I say decently only because their is no evidence to warrant a either positive or negative outlook verdict. 


Image that contradicts his view: 

Monday Matters: Analysis

In all four of the columns from Ross Douthat that I have followed, he has addressed the Obamacare debate.

Douthat takes a opinion that is both subjective and objective,  sometimes he barely interjects his own opinion, other times it is very present. In one article, my second one following Douthat titled "Obamacare, Failing Ahead of Schedule", he opts to simply report for the majority of the piece and rarely gives his own insight. His only real opinion first comes in doing some speculating about what could happen in the future, but by the end he does arrive at a thesis of sorts. In another of the articles that I followed from him, alternately, his opinion is front and center. In the article Douthat is more forthcoming with his opinion. The aritcle is titled "But What if Obamacare Works?", and through evidence in the titles of the pieces, it can be seen the variance in opinion injection in the pieces. In this second post Douthat has a strong opinion.

Links:

Obamacare, Failing Ahead of Schedule
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/opinion/sunday/douthat-obamacare-failing-ahead-of-schedule.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
But What if Obamacare Works?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/douthat-but-what-if-obamacare-works.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Monady Matters: Columnist.4

But What if Obamacare Works?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/douthat-but-what-if-obamacare-works.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

It is likely that the issue with Obamacare's website, healthcare.gov, will be resolved by around thanksgiving, and Obamacare will actually be able to be put into full-on action. Obamacare insurance will be seen in terms of three "mores": it will be more expensive, more subsidized and more comprehensive. Obamacare is more expensive apparently: Comparing some prices, it can be seen that before two specific deals cost 100 and 300 dollars respectively. But now, with Obamacare, they cost 224 and 537 dollars. And that's only the starter prices. Outrage. However, these prices are not telling the whole story. Subsidies are part of the plan, and they seriously lower the prices. For perspective, with a salary of $30,000 for the two deals, the cost would fall to $115, and well, zero. However the problem does exist, the more subsidies factor out. If Obamacare's website is fixed, it will  be interesting to see how the people react for who life pre-obamacare was better.

Now, after studying Obamacare through Douthat's column, it has become clear that all of this is ridiculously complex and it is challenging to be completely informed on the whole deal, but my question would still be is Obamacare really that bad?