As with last week, today I've decided to talk about gun violence. However unlike last week where I touched on gun ownership this article, I feel, had more to do with the mental aspect of the current gun law debate. The mental aspect being a man going on a shooting spree primarily because he was fired. While there are most likely other things that provoked him, it makes me wonder how seemingly insignificant of an action can set a person of a path of destruction. All of us have a few things that tick us off and it makes us angry and frustrated. Since almost all people In the world have these thing that make us tick, we as a nation and as a world need to find a way to address these problems in people so that we can help people cope with their anger. Any ideas on how to do this?
Sunday, February 10, 2013
One Million Dollars for Christopher Dorner
If you've paid attention to the news at all this week, you should have heard of Christopher Jordan Dorner. Dorner was a Navy veteran and an ex-LAPD member. Dorner is said to have been upset over his firing from the force in 2009. This rage has caused him to go on a deadly shooting spree that has so far killed three people and injured two others. The LAPD is currently sweeping the Big Bear mountains in pursuit of Dorner. As aforementioned the current reward for information that leads to the arrest and capture of Dorner is set at one million dollars.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Teen Who Preformed at the Inaguration Shot
With Sandy Hook still fresh in Americans' minds and gun laws as the hot topic, we witness another tragic event as a result of gun violence. Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old girl from Chicago, went to school on Tuesday January 29 to take final exams; after school she in her friends sought refuge from the heavy rain in a nearby park. One of Hadiya's friends noticed a man scale the park fence, gun in hand. By the time her friend started giving out a warning, the gunman oped fire. Hadiya was hit in the back, a 17-year-old Eagle Scout was shot in the calf, and another teen's ankle was grazed by a bullet. A nurse who lived nearby went over to help but she wasn't able to save Hadiya. The motives for this attack are unclear but police think that the gunman may have mistaken the teens for rival gang members. The current reward for the arrest and conviction of the shooter is set at $24,000; money raised by clergy and other community leaders. The main reason as to why this story has received much attention is because Hadiya, an honor student and majorette for her dance team, had days before preformed at Pres. Obama's second inauguration.
This shooting really makes me question the need to have guns on the streets. Why does any American, not in the military, need a firearm? The NRA loves to point to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Does that mean that we should be allowed guns? I think not, this amendment says guns shall be allowed for the purposes of a well regulated militia. United States Army and its branches are the only well organized militia that I know of that exists in the US, so there is no reason citizens not in the military should have guns. The US military is more than capable of protecting us; take a look at this chart and tell me I'm wrong: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgu34Tg7YSVjTlvGmD5SLkIJP5PoE8OiUZNfEKh_jpHN-VwD-7kvH6bCGdgrZJSgXZuOdC_LjZLsxx1wZjV4P8uUIJwkAy8toIiRQMQGDuW7cK0LsIOs-a9Pm6E6nn6uvf6VefQK5JR7X6/s1600/country-distribution-2008.png. The only purpose for the Second Amendment is for citizens to protect America from foreign attack and as I said the military has got that covered.
Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-hadiya-pendleton-0201-20130201,0,4698937.story
This shooting really makes me question the need to have guns on the streets. Why does any American, not in the military, need a firearm? The NRA loves to point to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Does that mean that we should be allowed guns? I think not, this amendment says guns shall be allowed for the purposes of a well regulated militia. United States Army and its branches are the only well organized militia that I know of that exists in the US, so there is no reason citizens not in the military should have guns. The US military is more than capable of protecting us; take a look at this chart and tell me I'm wrong: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgu34Tg7YSVjTlvGmD5SLkIJP5PoE8OiUZNfEKh_jpHN-VwD-7kvH6bCGdgrZJSgXZuOdC_LjZLsxx1wZjV4P8uUIJwkAy8toIiRQMQGDuW7cK0LsIOs-a9Pm6E6nn6uvf6VefQK5JR7X6/s1600/country-distribution-2008.png. The only purpose for the Second Amendment is for citizens to protect America from foreign attack and as I said the military has got that covered.
Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-hadiya-pendleton-0201-20130201,0,4698937.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)