"Ken Anderson"American Governments Gun control has been a very topical political issue discussed in the recent elections both at the presidential and midterm elections. Donald Trump who was the Republican nominee was a very pro-gun rights advocate who thoroughly believes in the citizens rights to bear arms according to the second amendment of the constitution. Hillary Clinton who was the Democratic party nominee was a very pro-gun control advocate who believed that much more regulation and banning of weapons was need here in the United States. There have been seven mass shootings since 2016 that had more than 10 unfortunate victims’ lives taken from them. Some of these reach numbers upward of fifty-eight people killed. Some of these shootings include the Las Vegas shooting at the Jason Aldean concert as well as the Sandy Hook school shooting and the Orlando night club shooting. There have also been smaller attacks on other schools and churches across the United states. The difficult question that many argue is whether heavy regulation of legal U.S guns as well as banning of certain legal U.S guns will solve the problem or increase the amount of violence committed on innocent victims? Gun control and the second amendment were believed to be some of the major deciding factors in the Presidential election of President Donald Trump. There is no database that accurately depicts the amount of people who own guns in America but from surveys done around the country it is predicted that about 42-46% of citizens in America live in a household where there are guns. That is almost half of the United States citizens who own guns. Many of those who are very protective of their rights to own guns and defend their property, family and property from those who try to steal or harm.
In a somewhat recent study done by epidemiologist Anthony Fabio of Pittsburgh’s Graduate school of public health in 2016 found that lawful gun owners commit less than a fifth of all the gun crimes. Fabio teamed up with the Pittsburgh police to trace the origins of all the 893 firearms that police had seized at crime scenes in 2008. What he found out was that 79% of those guns seized at a crime scene, the perpetrator was carrying a firearm owned by someone else. Meaning that they were stolen and illegally sold on either the black market or on the streets. An article by The New York Times talks about the amount of people who died at the hand of a gun in 2018. The number was 40,000 which was up 1,000 from the previous year in 2017. These numbers included the mass shootings such as the one in Las Vegas and all the other ones across the United states, this number also includes single fatality shootings as well. As you read in depth of the article however you will read that more than two-thirds of those deaths were suicides by gun. So, while the numbers seem to have increased a little bit, it seems as though guns weren’t the major issue in shootings of innocent people. The big problem seems to be people’s mental health state. Republicans have been stressing this as being the source of the violence that has taken place in the United states in the past couple years and seems to be their focus. Democrats, however, feel that the main issue is that states aren’t doing enough background checks and that guns are the issue not the people who are behind them necessarily. They want to regulate the sales of guns and ammunition. Regulating means that there would be background checks on the sale of ammunition, which has happened in California at all retails shops that sell ammo and guns, as well as stiffer restrictions on certain parts that are made for certain weapons. The parts include the magazines being able to drop out with just pushing the magazine release button, certain types of pistol grips aren’t allowed on certain weapons. These are just some of the proposed regulations that the Democratic party is proposing nationwide. As previously mentioned, some states have already put in to action some of these regulations. Some states however, such as Missouri have changed their laws to make any attempt to change their second amendment right with regulation from the federal level to be illegal in its state. They have essentially banned any federal regulation in their state and its citizens follow exactly what the constitution says. We are beginning to see other states slowly follow in their footsteps as well. As mentioned, some states have already put in to action some of these regulations. Democrats have also been in a long fight with the NRA and views about guns and what they believe to constitutionally correct. Democrats haven’t seemed to be very successful with their proposed gun regulation and control agenda nation wide especially with the election of Donald Trump as well as the Republican election of Senate and House of Representative leaders. President Trump said in a statement his feelings about gun control as being that he doesn’t want to limit citizens right to bear arms but to fix defection gun legislation and spend more time and money on our mental health treatments.
0 Comments
ReaganAmerican Governments Over the past several years, there has been countless mass shootings specifically here in the United States. The mass shootings that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas, andmany more has sparked awareness and has brought the issue of gun control to light. In the wrong hands such as a trouble young adult or an individual with charges such as domestic violence may not be in the right mind to properly handle/own a gun. In the sense of gun control, there must be ways to control who is allowed to purchase a firearm.
There must be ways to control the accessibility of guns to prevent further harm to the innocent people. There are many ideas of preventing further gun violence that are proposed by many different people. One of the many ideas is to allow teachers to arm themselves. According to Kaitlyn Schallhorn’s article “Gun control measures proposed by Trump, lawmakers after Florida school shooting” found on Fox News, stated that “A school safety bill that, among other things, would allow up to 10 school personnel to be armed, narrowly passed the Florida state House in March, and Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, signed it into law”. This means that the bill will require a three-day waiting period for rifle purchases, raise the age for buying rifles, and the ban of bump stocks. In addition, this will allow some teachers to arm themselves. In addition, this bill will allow law enforcements to take away guns from anyone who is considered as a danger to themselves or other people. Another popular proposal is the idea of strengthening background checks. Gun control advocates are worried that there are certain loopholes in the current system that people who shouldn’t be able to purchase guns may be able to obtain weapons through these loopholes. In Jason Pramuk’s article on CNBC News “House passes another bill to strengthen gun background checks as Trump pledges to veto”, discusses that President Donald Trump plans to veto the proposal of strengthening gun background checks. President Trump have previously stated that he would be open to strengthening background checks but now it seems the other way around. The White House also disagree with the bill because it goes against the Second Amendment advocates. The issue of gun control has been very inactive on the Federal level. As a result, gun control advocates are now moving towards state legislatures to make a change on the issue of gun violence. Based on an article on PBS News, “Why states, not Congress, are passing more gun laws”, written by Gretchen Frazee stated that “between 1991 and 2016, the number of gun laws in the U.S. increased by 57 percent, the State Firearm Law project group found." Most of these states were in favored of the Democratic side. There are some Republican-leaning states that are against any gun-related laws and perhaps this is the reason why there’s inaction at the Federal level. In the 2018 midterm elections, a state ballot initiative that strengthened Washington state’s gun laws by reducing the accessibility to assault rifles. Jason Crow is one of the victorious Democrats that represents Colorado’s 6th district is a gun control advocate and understand that gun reforms are needed. Another impact is that after the Parkland shooting, Governor Phil Scott, who is a Republican signed a gun control package that improved background checks and allowed officials to take guns from people who are at risk of violence. Florida’s Governor Rick Scott was previously an ally of the NRA (National Rifle Association) and signed a law regarding new gun regulations. By signing this bill, this will allow law enforcement officials to remove guns from dangerous people, to arm school personnel, and to improve school security and mental health treatment. During the midterms, Lucy McBath, representing Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, won against Republican Karen Handel. Lucy McBath’s son, Jordan Davis, was shot and kill in 2012 and as a member of congress, she states that she will push for gun safety such as background checks, raising the age to purchase a gun, and to keep guns away from dangerous individuals. JBAmerican Governments Just like how that cliché saying goes: “With great power, comes great responsibility” the modern era finds that many people with great power are fatally lacking that vital requisite of responsibility. Over the past few decades, there has been many issues with gun control in the United States. Numerous recent incidents has brought up the topic of gun laws and why we should or should not have them. As known to a large percentage of the public, the misuse of guns can directly be connected to the formation of viral organizations such as Black Lives Matter and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America: coalitions with goals to limit who should have access to firearms as well as the maximization of accountability. Many people believe that there should be a restriction to who can use a firearm, for example, to just that of police and soldiers in times of emergencies. Others on the opposite side of the spectrum believe that people should have the right to own a gun for their own protection, without exception as protected by the Second Amendment. But with numerous acts of terrorism such as school shootings, police brutality, attacks on large groups of innocent people, and a 31 percent increase in firearm related homicides from 2014 to 2016 according to NBC, debates on both sides of the discussion are battling to find a form of resolution.
With such a controversial and complex subject, several questions begins to arise with three vital questions being worthy of more attentive consideration for discussion: What should we consider to be the cause? What should we do to limit misuse? As well as what has the government already achieved in regards to this matter. The first is what should we consider to be the cause of gun misuse? Should we consider the reason being the lack of restrictive laws for these potentially dangerous tools? Is it more so, not the laws but more the few people managing that firearm? Many researchers are in heated debate over this topic due to the curious statistic that 80 percent of gun related deaths in the world is accounted for in the US as stated by Amnesty International. Mental illness is often the first subject to be brought up when this discussion is brought to the table. However, in the majority of cases in which homicides occur, well over 90 percent of them do not pass as a case related to insanity. Only around 1 percent are reportedly found to be of that nature. However insanity is not the only mental illness. As one could guess, depression and anxiety are typically major reasons for the occurrence of misuse. The issue is how to regulate the law so that those who are suffering from such ailments do not seek such irreversible measures as a solace to their pain. A plausible thought process would be to attack the mental attitudes of our population versus gun reform for after all, it is discovered that over 44 percent of our population is found to be stressed in accordance with the article stressed in America by the American Psychological Association. Perhaps the issue lies in the mentality Americans in contrast to other countries and not the gun access. The next line of thinking branches off from the question of what should we do in order to restrict such violence? Again, is more laws the answer or fewer laws? Should gun use and misuse be more forgiving or more strict? Should guns be reserved for soldiers and officers only? While observing statistics according to U.S.News.com, one can find that guns can be as much as a blessing as it is danger. In 2015, there was a count of 268 “justifiable homicides” in which carriers were saved from violent attacks by retaliating with a firearm in self-defense. As much of the Second Amendment community is endorsing for guns are first and foremost a tool for one’s protection. As the most effective method of combating home invasions, robberies, and other threatening situations guns are essential for many of those who take their and their loved one’s safety. Due to the fact that emergency response teams are not always able to arrive at the scene of the call quickly enough, it is more than understandable when considering how restrictive gun laws can be more of a hassle than it is a solution. Just as guns can take a life, guns are also many times the reason a life is saved. It becomes a slippery slope when the removal of guns violates the Second Amendment and prevents a person from doing what is necessary to protect themselves and their loved ones. And finally what actions has the federal government already committed to addressing these concerns? According to the article “The 2018 midterm elections may have exposed a shift on gun control” by Vox.com, advocates for stricter gun control has achieved some important victories. Washington’s statewide ballot encouraging the limitation of rifle access passed. Vermont’s governor, Phil Scott advocating for the strengthening of restrictions after the Parkland school shooting, even going as far as passing a law that allows officials to confiscate guns from people who are likely prone to committing violence. Where gun advocates saw a major victory was in Florida’s elections in which they successfully achieved a governor vying for gun access. Parties on both sides are battling to find the best solution to this messy problem and the discussion and debates continue on in hopes of making this country a safer place. @mareenaalexusCA Politics California’s long-standing felony murder rule has imprisoned hundreds of individuals throughout the state for a murder they essentially did not commit. The rule states that those of whom had participated in any part of the crime even if they played a small part such as the driver or lookout and had no intention or knowledge that a murder was even being committed will be treated as if they were the person directly responsible for that person’s death. Which begs the question of, why should we care? The simple fact of the matter comes down to the issue at hand which is that the felony murder rule is known as archaic as it was presented in an era of over-justice, and will only bring tax payers to house inmates who really shouldn’t be serving life sentences.
In an era of over-justice, “get tough on crime” is often viewed as one that has left Americans and Californians alike to flood our prison systems with prisoners serving punitive sentences for low level offenses and in this case, murders they didn’t commit. According to Los Angeles Times author Jazmine Ulloa, local California man, Bobby Garcia served 21 years in prison for the murder of a man whose life he didn’t personally take. When Garcia was in ninth grade he and four teenage friends robbed a man for gas money on their way to a party and not long after the incident Garcia learned that the man was also stabbed and inevitably died from his wounds. Garcia believed the incident occurred while he was in the car waiting for his friends and insisted that he never planned to murder someone and that it was only his intent to rob the man (Ulloa, 2018). He later took a plea deal and served 25 years in prison rather than withholding his innocence and face the possibility of lifetime incarceration by jury. Years after his release Garcia lobbied aside Democratic State Senator Nancy Skinner as they awaited Senate Bill 1437’s approval. The new bill would prevent prosecutors from utilizing the felony murder rule so hastily in order to get longer and harsher sentences put forth on an individual who wasn’t directly responsible for the death of another. The bill didn’t pass through the initiative but instead landed on former California Governor, Jerry Brown’s desk through a proposal that would limit prosecutors from its usage and allow those currently serving time under the rule to be eligible for resentencing. Although that’s not to say that voters never played a big part in its creation. It seems as though the era of “get tough on crime” remains in the rear-view mirror of Californians and Americans alike. According to the Northern California ACLU (2017) 71 percent of people say it’s important to reduce the prison population in America, 72 percent of Americans would be more likely to vote for an elected official who supports eliminating mandatory minimum laws, and 71 percent of Americans agree that incarceration is often counterproductive to public safety due to its lack of rehabilitating programs that often end in prisoners recidivating. In the previous 2016 presidential election, then candidate Trump was a strong advocate on his platform of the nation’s failed “get tough on crime” policy that has led Americans in a shamble of prisoner debt. According to Udi Ofer (2017), a political director for the ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justice, “Americans reject President Trump’s 1990s-era tough-on-crime approach and overwhelmingly believe in a different and smarter approach.” Although California has come a long way prior to the passage of bill 1437, it doesn’t guarantee the inmates currently serving these harsh sentences full clemency or a one-way ticket out of prison. These inmates have been sentenced to lengthy sentences due to the language in which they were sentenced, felony murder rule. Leading inmates serving prison terms of 25 years to life and even life without possibility of parole for a murder they themselves did not commit. Of the worst of the worst criminals here in California, the sexual abusers, rapists, murderers, mutilators, etc. are those serving time for the felony murder rule, those who weren’t responsible for anyones death. California tops the charts at being the leader of housing life and virtual life (those ineligible for parole until serving 50 years of their sentence of longer) prisoners at a whooping 40,691 inmates making one inmate serving a life sentence for every three incarcerated inmates in prison. Additionally, among those 40,691 inmates currently 34, 607 are serving life sentences and of those, are inmates more than likely those sentenced under California’s felony murder rule (Sentencing Project, 2017). Not only should it be concerning that Californians sent those of whom weren’t directly responsible for the murder to life imprisonment, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (2019), we’re cashing out $81,203 per inmate as 2018-2019 statistics indicate. Over three-quarters of these costs are for security and inmate health care which shouldn’t be surprising considering the fact that California incarcerated these felony murder inmates back in the 90’s and many of whom are now considered geriatric or elderly inmates (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2019). According to Joan Petersilia (2017), co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, “We released all the low-risk, low-need and we kept in the high-risk, high-need.” By keeping those sentenced under the felony murder rule for a murder they didn’t commit, California is spending essentially billions of dollars for prisoners whose time has most likely already been spent. "Erinna"American Governments. To tackle the issue of conversion therapy and its effects on its victims, one must first understand what exactly conversion therapy is and what its aims are. Conversion therapy is the supposedly corrective therapy that aims to change a person's sexual orientation. According to the LGBT Movement Advancement project, “Conversion therapy, also referred to as “Reparative Therapy” or “Ex-Gay Therapy,” is a widely discredited practice that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Practices to “cure” individuals of their same-sex sexual orientations and transgender identities include a number of techniques ranging from shaming to hypnosis to inducing vomiting to electric shocks.” Simply because it's widely discredited doesn't mean its not still practiced. People still firmly believe in it. Patients will willingly sign up for it, but almost more concerning is that parents will force their children, minors that have no say in it to be participants. Conversion therapy exists as a hope to parents and patients alike to forcibly turn the LGBT person away from their attraction and towards what they would consider normal. It exists because to these parents the idea of their child; or in the case of willing patients, themselves, as gay is worse than the thought of the great psychological damages the treatment does.
While leading experts know that even if that were so and the benefits outweigh the consequences, conversion therapy is largely ineffective. Its largely ineffective at actually “curing” gayness but it's highly effective in causing self hate. Conversion therapy most profoundly impacts the patients. The national center for lesbian Rights is a movement centered on advancing gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights through litigation and legislation. They compiled a document about the myths and corresponding truths of the horrors of Gay transitional therapy, in which they state: “All of the nation’s leading professional medical and mental health associations have rejected conversion therapy as unnecessary, ineffective, and dangerous. These groups have cautioned that the practices do not work and have warned patients that they may be harmful. For example, the American Psychological Association “advises parents, guardians, young people, and their families to avoid sexual orientation change efforts that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and to seek psychotherapy, social support, and educational services that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support, and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth.”” (nlcrights.org). The damage done by conversion therapy on a person, especially a child’s sense of self is incredibly dangerous. “Conversion therapy can be extremely dangerous and, in some cases, fatal. In 2009, the APA issued a report concluding that the reported risks of the practices include: depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social withdrawal, suicidality, substance abuse, stress, disappointment, self-blame, decreased self-esteem and authenticity to others, increased self-hatred, hostility and blame toward parents, feelings of anger and betrayal, loss of friends and potential romantic partners, problems in sexual and emotional intimacy, sexual dysfunction, high-risk sexual behaviors, a feeling of being dehumanized and untrue to self, a loss of faith, and a sense of having wasted time and resources.” (nlcrights.org) The question then becomes, if leading experts agree that conversion therapy is not only damaging but also that doesn't work, and that the practice covers anything up to “electrotherapy”, then how is signing a child up for it any different than child abuse? And why is it still allowed? Conversion therapy is only outlawed for minors in 15 states and DC, leaving 35 states with no law banning the harmful practice, and an estimate of 60 percent of the LGBT population in states where it is still legal. The majority of LGBT youth are not protected from this so called treatment by law. The issue of gay rights was discussed and given a spotlight as a whole during the campaigns; however, very few people mention gay conversion laws specifically. And the fact that minors, who do not have a choice in the matter of their treatment are allowed under law to be sent to these facilities. During the presidential election more spotlight fell of gay conversion therapy due to the claim that Vice president Mike Pence supported gay conversion therapy due to the statement, “Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.” Pence’s team stated that this was taken out of context, but LGBT Rights leaders still believe the claim. To begin any improvement on these conditions for our children, we must first ask ourselves why being unable to condemn the torture of children for simply being born who they are is not enough to discount a man from the second highest office in our county. And when we’ve answered that question we will know how far we have left to go before all children can be safe. The fact that this wasn’t more of an issue is an insight to how little regard or understanding a vast majority of people have towards this issue. In addition to the implications of what his election meant, his office and the powers there in are an obstacle to any law banning conversion therapy at the federal level. Gay rights remains a divisive issue, and with any divisive issue you must look to who has the power of a swing vote in the event of a tie: The Vice President, Mike Pence. Not only is he a major influencer, he also has the swing vote power which means that his opinions and ties to programs that support conversion therapy are a major issue. However, while the presidential election called into question the gains we had made in the years prior, so too did the midterms reignite hope. Due to the midterm election results, and the subsequent introduction of more representatives supportive of gay rights, activists are hopeful that with enough hard work, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts and New York will join the ranks of those that have banned therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation of a minor through any means. But even more that that public opinion and attention is shifting to this issue thanks to movies highlighting its struggle in ways representatives are simply not, and that they are seeing an increase in volunteers since movies such as “Boy Erased” came out. There’s still much to do but activist such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ legal director Shannon Miller, are hopeful. “We’d be disappointed if we don’t get those this year — they’re overdue,” she states about the four states on the cusp of enacting bans statewide. |
AuthorUndergraduate student generated content. Blog posting and updating done by Kristina Flores Victor, Assistant Professor of Political Science at CSUS Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|