February 20, 2018 at 2:36 am #10738
As a way of provoking curiosity and pushing participants to evaluate their position on particular topics, all forum discussions are designed with a “provocative statement” as the basis for the discussion.
Participants should respond to the forum statement with “strongly agree,“ “somewhat agree,“ “unsure,“ “somewhat disagree,“ or “strongly disagree“ and then in their comments explain why.
March 1, 2018 at 4:23 pm #10762
Thomas C. JohnsonParticipant
I strongly agree with this statement. Do we repeal the 2nd amendment? Likely not. But, we must use common sense in thinking about who should have access to particular types of guns. As one example, does any human being (beyond military personnel, sadly) need an assault rifle? What is a legitimate purpose for owning one?
March 2, 2018 at 8:47 am #10765
As part of an overall strategy I totally agree. The devil of course is in the details. There are obvious choices that currently enjoy wide support in the wake of the Parkland shooting, like universal background checks and raising the age to acquire (at least some) guns. We should strike while the iron is hot and it’s encouraging that corporate America is voluntarily making changes such as no long selling AR15s (Dicks) or raising the age to acquire a gun (Walmart, Dicks, Kroger). At the same time we cannot loose sight of addressing equally important factors such as mental heath challenges, threat assessment (we knew about his threats to kill students) and how we handle attacks. There was no reason for example, post Columbine, for law enforcement to delay entry into the active shooter situation at Parkland. We should analyze how it is possible that despite knowing about this specific threat well in advance, we failed to prevent it. In short, we need an all of the above approach.
March 15, 2018 at 8:57 am #10828
Agreed with R.J. As part of an overall strategy, but as he stated, there are different angles from which we can attack this particular issue such as addressing mental health challenges and threat assessment as in the Florida shooting, which could have been prevented by authorities. More education is also needed in schools to combat the rampant onslaught of bullying which creates a breeding ground for trauma, which can lead to mental illness. There are simple preventative measures that can be taken. Currently, only nine states require universal background checks at the point of sale and transfer of firearms whether from a licensed or unlicensed seller. This also opens up avenues to discussing online sales and whether or not they can be tracked. Other related discussion topics include the potential for more armed security in schools, but before this extreme maneuver is even put on the table, we need to address the first challenges of mental health and threat assessment.
May 22, 2018 at 6:29 pm #11078
I somewhat disagree. The statement is biased and implies a solution. A problem, I agree, is “gun violence in America”. The statement implies that the solution is some kind of “Common Sense Gun Policies”.
The statement also focused on Guns, which really biases where you look for the problem. We also have problems with home made bombs and people ramming their car into crowds for example.
I’m an engineer by nature. We look for the root problem, because we know that if we cover up the symptom, the root problem will crop up again in another way. So, if we want to address gun violence, we should be open to finding the root problem, rather than just focusing on the immediate symptom. It’s uncomfortable to say this. I know there is strong public opinion, and lost of media attention, but I’m taking a risk and trying it out here. But if there is anyone technical, who can get passed the emotion in the situation, I am sure the will agree. To truly fix something, you need to understand the root problem.
Also, if you want to find solutions that everyone will support (and not just the liberal side of the population) then we should choose a more generally inclusive question. I’m not exactly sure – how about “Violence and Mass Murder – do we do anything about it?”
I don’t know what the root problem is, and I ‘feel’ it is a deeper problem that we need to address. And finding and fixing that might fix a lot of other things too. (Like whether or not one feels safe/comfortable expressing their thoughts in a public form like this).
Lastly – I am not speaking against common sense gun policies – I just want to fix the real problem.
November 25, 2018 at 1:44 pm #11226
I agree with the statement. As a person who grew up surrounded by people who hunt and support the second amendment, I understand to some extent that side of the argument. However, I think that common sense laws have the power to reduce gun violence in the US. I write this carefully, as I know that common sense laws cannot eradicate gun violence, but I think a reduction is better than no change. Using the metaphor that David employs, considering gun violence as a symptom of an underlying issue, I agree that we need to treat the underlying issue. However, I think that we need to treat the symptoms as well. Until we can treat the underlying issue, I believe that we need to treat the symptoms as best we can, through common sense gun control policies. Perhaps I am being naive as a college student, but I do not think that increased gun control could do more good than harm.
November 30, 2018 at 12:04 pm #11238
I strongly agree with the statement, “common sense gun control policies are necessary for reducing gun violence in America.” I understand why altering the gun control policies now would upset some individuals because I would believe that loose gun control policies would make hunting season easier from them. Now with that in mind, if hunting, or whatever people want to use guns for, is really a passion for an individual, they will have no problem taking a few extra steps to obtain a gun. I believe that setting more “common sense gun control policies” will reduce the amount of violence by gun because it will be more difficult for young people to obtain. Throughout the readings there was also a lot brought up about mental illness. I am strong believer that if one is not fully stable in the mind then they do not have full control over what is happening to them or their actions. With that said, I also believe it is important for parents to be more involved in their children’s lives. It is important that parents recognize, or at least try to, the signs of depression, nothingness or any sort of mental illness. Even though this may be a difficult task, it is a small step towards the change that everyone wishes to see in this country.
November 30, 2018 at 9:54 pm #11240
I strongly agree with this statement. Although I do not think that we should completely change or get rid of the second amendment, I do believe that gun control needs to greatly increase within our country. I am terrified every time the news tells of another mass shooting or any reporting of this concern. What is just as terrifying, is that any person, even a young individual, can walk into a Walmart store and purchase an incredibly dangerous and potentially deadly weapon. The sad thing is, we as a society have learned to brush this off. Many of us, upon receiving a notification of a mass shooting, might think, “Oh, that’s terrible”, but then move on with our normal routine of the day. Although not all of us can do something to directly make a difference, we can start small. I also believe that there are many reasons that underly this terrible problem. One being mental illness. This is something that may be very hard to tackle in terms of when it mixes with gun control, yet it could be very simple in our every day lives. If we notice signs of depression, loneliness, anxiety, or even small acts of violence in a person, do something about it. Tell someone else, even. You may never know what that person is going through, and we need to reach out and help in whatever way we can. This may not solve the entire problem of gun control, but I think that common sense gun control policies and awareness of mental illness may be a good start.
December 3, 2018 at 4:43 pm #11246
I strongly agree with this statement. This statement flat out says COMMON SENSE in it. That makes me very passionate and, to be honest, a little upset. This should have happened along time ago. I agree with Morgan, that people may be passionate about hunting or owning a gun for protection but if they are that passionate about it then they won’t have an issue taking a few more safety steps to getting a gun but to me I feel that they should be more passionate about the fact that if these COMMON SENSE gun control policies happen then less mass shootings will happen. I am sorry if your hunting season is ruined but to me that is way less important than people’s lives being endangered and taken away everyday because someone who shouldn’t have a gun has one.
A common argument I hear about gun control is people who are mentally unstable will end up getting a gun anyway if they try hard enough but the majority mass shootings that I have read about, the gun that was used belonged and was registered to the shooter. That just proves that it is not hard for anyone to register a gun under there name. Like Morgan said, mental illness is a very important aspect when it comes to selling and registering guns to people. If gun control policies were to take a few extra steps, they would be able to tell is someone is trustworthy of having a gun registered to their name. I am very passionate about this question because I am sick and tired of being afraid everyday that someone I love or even myself is going to have my life taken because someone had a gun who shouldn’t have. No one should have to live with that fear that they might die today. Speaking up about this topic needs to happen more often because if it isn’t discussed in a civil manor, than there will be no change. There will be no less mass shootings.
December 5, 2018 at 2:36 pm #11253
I strongly agree with this statement as it clearly states, “common sense gun control policies.” Like Eliza mentioned in her post, I also grew up in a small town where everybody loved to hunt and fiercely protected the 2nd Amendment. Even after all of the mass school shootings that happened and continue to happen, people at my high school continued to argue that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” While I disagree with that statement because people are killing people, with guns! While I do support the 2nd Amendment, I am a firm believer that there needs to be policies on guns so that they do not get in the hands of the wrong person who decides to take human lives. Like Shianne and Morgan stated, there needs to be extra policies so that people who are mentally ill do not get a gun registered to their name. I think that there also needs to be a more civil dialogue about this topic as some people believe that those who want safety policies on guns are just trying to “take away their rights” when in actuality it is about promoting safety.
December 5, 2018 at 9:24 pm #11256
Strongly agree. Professor Nave’s article featured a piece of information that really stood out to me. Although this fact is not surprising, it is nonetheless a sickening thought: “We as a nation have more policies controlling voting access…than we have controlling gun access.” Through these policies, America sends the clear message that access to guns is more important, and thus should be easier, than voting. The right to vote is the crown jewel of democracy, and we tarnish that jewel through over-restriction. In theory, voters have the power to impact policies, like common sense gun control, by choosing and voting for the candidate that shares their views and will thus aim to implement change aligned with these views. However, due to practices that suppress votes (like Voter ID laws) it becomes harder and harder to vote for the change people want and that the country needs. Common sense gun laws seem to be popular with people across the nation, affiliated with both political parties. Yet, we have not seen the desired change. Perhaps decreasing voter suppression would increase gun restriction, or maybe not. Regardless, it is important to prioritize people over weapons. It is just common sense.
Gun crises have occurred all over the world within the last three decades. The difference between the rest of the world and the United States is that everyone else took action, while our government very little. Countries like Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Australia implemented common sense gun control policies as a reaction to horrible and senseless mass shooting or in attempts to lower the number of gun homicides per year. All four countries saw significant declines in gun homicides and mass shootings. Although these countries do not have a firearm culture like America’s, we should still be taking notes. Promoting gun safety, reducing access superfluous gun accessories, and background checks should not scare those who are in favor of keeping people alive. These practices should and do scare those who prioritize guns over human beings. This problematic prioritization is why we need common sense gun control.
December 7, 2018 at 12:01 am #11261
I somewhat agree with this statement. I definitely see the importance to create more strict gun laws and I think that common sense gun control policies are important for reducing gun violence in America. I, along with others who responded to this post, have grown up in a very rural area surrounded by many people who were (and still are) very passionate about the protection of the 2nd amendment. I do not think that the 2nd amendment should be repealed but I think that we should control the consumer end of the 2nd amendment (who is purchasing the guns). I totally agree with David about finding the root problem but I also totally agree with Liza about treating the symptoms as well; “Until we can treat the underlying issue, I believe that we need to treat the symptoms as best we can, through common sense gun control policies.”-Eliza. I am a nursing major and we are taught to treat the patient’s symptoms until we find the root issue and are able to treat that. A nursing example: if someone has a bacterial infection like strep throat, the provider will prescribe the patient a general antibiotic to start to treat the symptoms and try to kill the bacteria. Once they find out what the exact bacteria is, they will change the prescription to a specific antibiotic for that specific bacteria.
As I mentioned above, I grew up in a very rural area. Specifically, rural Illinois. I have been hunting with my father multiple times and still support recreation firearm usage (which sounds bad but I am referring to target practice for hunting and sport shooting). In Illinois, residents who wish to purchase guns and ammunition for those guns are required to get a Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card and background check. Also, if a person wants to hunt, they are required to go through a hunter’s safety course. Illinois is the only state that requires residents to have a FOID card to purchase guns and ammo. This, I feel, is a great first step to better gun control. As a person who fully supports recreation firearm usage and hunting, I am perfectly fine with there being more steps to owning a gun because, like others have suggested above, if I am planning on hunting in the upcoming season, I already own a gun that I can use or if I need a gun, I can plan ahead to go trough those extra steps.
December 9, 2018 at 11:50 am #11269
I agree with this statement. I do not think that we should take away the second amendment, but I think that there needs to be some form of background check on individuals searching to purchase a gun. I think that it should be required to have a psych evaluation or some form of personal reference of emotional stability before obtaining a firearm. This would help minimize the chances that people will use guns to harm other humans. To me, this sounds like common sense. I was frustrated when reading Eddy’s response that there are more regulations on voting than to purchase a gun. Our government depends on voting, yet it is easier to obtain a weapon than to do so. If we want to see a change from the frequent mass shootings in our country, something needs to be done about it. Common sense gun control policies are a small step that can save a lot of people from harm. I think that taking the extra step is well worth it in the long run.
December 9, 2018 at 12:40 pm #11272
I agree. What really stood out to me from Guy Nave’s article was the comment that 3% of the American population owns 50% of the guns in the nation. Why is there any need for someone to own that many weapons? I understand the that hunting does require multiple weapons as you would not use the same gun to hunt deer and duck, but where is the reasoning to own more than 5 or 6 guns? On top of that, what is the merit to using military style rifles for hunting? There is no valid use for these style of weapons when hunting for game, so why should they be legal to be purchased? This is not to say that we need to stop all gun purchases in the US, but we do need to take steps to at least complicate the process of purchasing guns to help reduce the number of guns in the country. If we can start to reduce the number of weapons in the country then perhaps we can start to limit the violent crimes that are perpetrated by people using these weapons.
July 20, 2019 at 9:06 pm #16042
I disagree, because the term “common-sense gun control policies” means everything and nothing at all. Moreover, if the problem that you seek to address is gun violence, removing guns doesn’t remove violence. Even if you could remove every gun, you would not be able to remove either the technology that creates the gun or the sinfulness that begets the violence.
What “gun” did Cain use to murder Abel? Fast forward to the present: what is the actual percentage of mass shootings, or any other shootings for that matter, involve so-called “assault rifles?” even if you used the most generous of estimates, as given in a 2018 article in the Huffington Post (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/assault-rifle-deaths-ar-15_n_5a96de5ae4b0e6a52304248a), you might reduce gun deaths by 40%-50%. Unfortunately, that statistic assumes that every gun death that is not known to be from a handgun is from an assault rifle, which means that none of them came from a shotgun, bolt-action rifle (such as the one that was used in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy or the one that was used to kill the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.).
Your argument was emotional, not logical and based upon data. While it might convince those who already side with you, it fails with anyone who isn’t already biased in your favor. Keep working on it. Maybe you’ll get better with effort.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.