In response to gun control

In Elizabeth Linton’s blog, she addresses gun laws and brings up the latest Colorado shooting. She points out that the shooter made several large purchases of weapons and did not raise any suspicion. This fact is alarming and dangerous as many people are now even more aware of the ease in which a person can attain weapons and walk into anywhere they please. The two are probably unrelated, but there is a possibility that the recent Sikh shooting may have been inspired by the Colorado shooting as it was made public how little effort a person has to exert in order to carry out a small whim that otherwise may have turned into brain-crack.

Linton questions whether or not it violates our 2^nd amendment right to bear arms if we limit the amount of weapons people can purchase, and also monitor purchases to pick up and investigate potential crimes or suspects. While doing both of these would decrease the amount of shooting deaths each year, I think that monitoring the purchasing activity of people would be a violation of privacy and infringe upon the 2^nd amendment. Instead, I think it should be limited.

Limiting the amount of bullets people can purchase would decrease the number of deaths because typically, these deaths are an impulse by the shooter. By limiting the amount of ammunition or weapons the shooter can purchase, we force the shooter to take more time to compose, second-guess, or decide not to go through with his/her plan of attack. This would ultimately lead to fewer shootings as people begin to come to their senses. We would have fewer impulsive killings, which make up a large percentage of the gun related killings. One way of limiting weapon purchases is through the Rational Gun Policy, which would ban firearms and ammunition clips that hold more than 10 rounds. On the night of the Colorado movie shooting, Holmes shot 70 people within minutes with a gun that contained 100 rounds. While this policy may not bode well with gun enthusiasts, it could greatly decrease the number of deaths involved in mass shootings.

For those who want to stockpile weapons for their protection, they will still be able to do so, but at a steadier, slower rate. People will still be able to hold the same amount of weapons but will not be able to buy them all at once. Of course, this approach to the problem still leaves room for mass shootings, but I think it will significantly decrease the number. It was reported in Linton’s blog that Holmes bought an alarming amount of weapons which he got quickly delivered to him on the same day of the shooting. If we were to limit the amount people can purchase, perhaps there would be fewer victims or none at all. 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinion/webster-aurora-shooter/index.html

http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/myth-guns1.html

The DNA Collection Act

Maryland’s DNA Collection Act allows police to take genetic material from people who have been arrested but not yet convicted. The law has caused much controversy as people argue for the leads that could be obtained by the collection of DNA, as well as the privacy of a person’s genetic material. The law is currently in effect though it is facing contemplation through the Maryland v. King (12A48) case where justices are deciding whether or not to extend the law after its expiration which will be at the end of next year.

The law was enacted with the motives of identifying dead bodies in a way that other methods failed, and preventing more crimes such as terrorist attacks, murders, and rapes. The Act includes that officers submit the DNA collected from suspicious people into a national or international databank which would be available to healthcare providers.

DNA has proven to have great evidential power in the solving of specific crimes. The collection law would ease the jobs of investigators and provide what could be a definitive answer to some cases. While it doesn’t solve all crimes, it can offer clues that may lead people to other crimes as well as reduce the number of wrongful convictions.

The law faces opposition from people who believe that the DNA databases have limitations that trump its positive aspects. Those who argue against the act reason that advancing crime-fighting strategies would take care of the job better than DNA collection. A recent Department of Criminal Justice Services document even shows that a broad expansion of DNA collection would offer diminishing returns. People argue that the law doesn’t have enough of an effect to remain in action.

Others are worried about the accessibility that people would have to their activity in DNA databases. The database could be available to health insurers that could use it to deny coverage or claims. Humiliation is also a factor as medical records would be on the database.

Despite all of the concerns against the law, I think that the DNA Collection Act should stay. Though it is nearing the line on privacy and civil rights, the law could enforce the rights of people in situations with higher stakes. The database could provide answers in trials, and tip the scale on a person’s verdict. An FBI study even indicated that DNA evidence has excluded the primary candidate in roughly 25% of sexual assault cases since 1989. The law could dramatically change the lives of people who need evidence, and it could help put away criminals who would likely do harm in the future.

This system is current in Britain, which was the first nation to legalize DNA collection. It’s been reported that the database exposes approximately 2,000 crimes a week. By keeping the law, we could save a great amount of people from future crimes as well as help those wrongly convicted.

http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/65420.aspx

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E7D8163FF935A25757C0A9609C8B63

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090104/119294260.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/us/scotus-dna-law/index.html?hpt=us_c2

In response to the immigration law

In Bianca Tamez's political blog, she addresses Arizona's new immigration law, SB 1070. According to this law, police officials can stop people on the streets and ask for identification if they have reason to believe that the person may be in the states illegally. This law has caused many debates as people question exactly what factors trigger officials to suspect certain people.

People have considered this law a step backwards into history, where racial profiling was more of a problem than it is today. Police officials have commented on these accusations by saying that they will not tolerate racial profiling or discrimination; they'll focus on resources on violent criminals and property crimes. While I'd like to believe this, I just don't have enough faith in the reflexive thoughts that people express in the presence of other races. I don't think we're at a point yet where we see everyone as equal and won't jump to conclusions.


By passing this law, Arizona takes away some of the freedom of its citizens. People are now bound by law to show their identification to the police if asked. I find that I agree with Bianca's take on the situation, that this law further limits the freedoms that American citizens are entitled to. Those who worked hard to get into this country and earn citizenship should be given equal treatment despite their skin color or ethnicity. It would be a shame to find that America and the liberty that it promises is an exaggeration.


For now, I think that we should tighten the border security even more. This option many even work more effectively than SB 1070, as law-enforcement agencies across Arizona unanimously viewed that the law would do little to change their daily duties.

This law, if even effective, falsely represents America and the rights of its citizens.Those who live here or worked hard to get here legally should be free to live without the invasion of police who didn't do their job at the border.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/06/10/20120610law-enforcement-ready-move-forward-senate-bill.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/sb1070-ruling-supreme-court_n_1614119.html

My take on abortion

About 3,700 people get abortions every day in the United States. Whether we are pro-life or pro-choice, I think we can all agree that this number is too high. Some of us believe that this number shouldn’t exist; that the choice for abortions should be illegal. Those pro-life argue that abortion is unethical and murderous. However, these 3,700 abortions are not murders if done safe. In the first few weeks of pregnancy, there is no brain in the fetus. A person needs a brain to be a person. Our brains are the headquarters of our entire beings. Without a brain, we are not people. Therefore, a fetus, in the period where abortion is an option, is not a person yet. It’s the truth. Scientifically speaking, early abortion is not murder.

We should not argue on whether or not abortion should be legal. It is a right. We should all have the freedom to do whatever we want with our bodies. With the fact that a pregnant woman does not harbor a home for a person but rather a not-quite-human embryo during her first seven weeks of pregnancy, we can safely say that what we do to our bodies, within the first seven weeks of pregnancy, is our right.

Still, we could do without it. We could do without the statistic that approximately one-third of women will have at least one abortion before age 45. It’s unsettling that so many people choose abortion. That 18 percent of all abortions are from teenage pregnancies and that 42 percent of abortions are accounted for by women who have incomes below the national poverty level.

We can’t get rid of abortion. That would be taking away a huge freedom for women. What we can do is lessen the number of abortions people get. Women who get abortions do not do it coldheartedly. It is a big decision that impacts their life. Most women who get abortions do so because they feel that they cannot care for their child and are unaware, untrusting, or absent of childcare resources. This can be changed through an increase in government funding of child care services, child support, and easier adoption processes.

Whatever we choose in the end, women will still do what they think is right. Making abortion illegal will not stop women from making the choice—they will still get abortions, and those abortions will be less sanitary and more unsafe. We will see an increase in the numbers of self-executed abortions and back-alley abortion clinics. We’ll see the death toll rise from illegal abortions, bringing us back to the 1980s, when the number of deaths due to abortion was at its highest. If we make abortion illegal, we will find that the progress we’ve made will be erased and history will repeat itself.

The numbers are too high. But what kind of America would we be if there were no numbers at all? We would be deprived of a right that we are entitled to. The most we can do is lower the numbers by making resources seem more available. Rates wouldn’t be so high if women didn’t feel like abortion was their only option.

Guttmacher.org

Abortoinno.org

Why do we fight for marriage?

This specific post caught my eye because I’m particularly interested in the social direction that Americans are taking. I find cultural changes to be fascinating, particularly those that have to do with living standards. Marriage and divorce have always been an interest of mine, probably because I’m young and curious about what will be acceptable and unacceptable when I grow up. As our society changes and begins to accept homosexuality as well as divorce, I’ve begun to ponder the same question proposed by Michael Cobb in his book, Single: Arguments for the Uncoupled. I find that I have a similar stance on the issue as Andrew Sullivan, who expressed his opinion here, in his political blog.

Cobb, an esteemed writer who has written the book mentioned above as well as God Hates Fags: The Rhetoric of Religious Violence, has received great reviews from his pieces and expresses a respected opinion on well researched political topics. In his newest book, Single: Arguments for the Uncoupled, Cobb celebrates the trek that marriage equality has conquered so far, but follows up by posing a commonly unthought of question: “Why is the couple and very official couple-making the goal we’re all driving toward?”

In his political blog, Andrew Sullivan answers this question. Sullivan is a respected writer for The Daily Beast, a popular news magazine. He comments on various political issues and holds a confident opinion that is valued by The Daily Beast readers. 

Sullivan addresses this particular post to adults and young adults who can understand Cobb’s thinking as well as his own. The subject of the post is primarily relevant to those who are considering marriage or are interested in its place in our society. In this particular blog post, Sullivan provides several links to various sources to inform the readers of the status of marriage in our society today. 

In his answer to Cobb’s question, Sullivan stresses the benefits of marriage, the general fact that it leads to “better life-outcomes.” He then gives that marriage isn’t for everyone and that some people are more apt for the single life. However, he holds his ground by stating that nonetheless, the choice for marriage is still to be fought for. Sullivan states that the ongoing debate over the gay marriage issue is fought for equal rights. He delves deeper into the subject by saying that whether or not you want to get married, you should still have the choice to, whether you are heterosexual or not.

I completely agree with Sullivan on this issue. While Cobb poses an interesting question that has a lot of different answers, the point in our constant rallying to equalize marriage rights for all citizens is simply for equality. Everyone should have the choice to get married whether they want to or not. The reasons for marriage may be unapparent to some or completely clear to others, but the fight for marriage, while it may be driven by individualistic reasons, is for equal rights for everyone. 

The problem with food stamps

In an opinion article written in the Wall Street Journal, new decisions on food stamps are announced along with statistics to reason why the recent decisions made were not wise. The article doesn't list the writer or writers of the piece, but the Wall Street Journal itself is a trustworthy, professional source of news. The Journal has delivered reliable news to citizens since 1889 and is the largest newspaper in the United States today. 


The writer addresses the issue of food stamps and how the difficulties in attaining them have changed throughout the decades. It was recently decided by the Senate that they would not cut 20 billion dollars from the projected 770 billion dollars that will be spent on food stamps for the next decade. This article is written in a simplistic manner that can address audiences from teenagers to adults though the impact of the decision made clear in the article may not mean as much to younger readers. The availability and price food stamps affects all citizens and the decisions recently made are strongly urged against by many readers as well as the writer of the piece.

A point is made clear through the logos technique in this article. The writer uses statistics to show how attaining food stamps has changed. In the '70s, when the food stamps were first introduced, they were given to one in fifty Americans. Today, the ratio has risen to one in seven. This increase has doubled the cost of the stamps, leading us to the huge, 770 billion dollars that we will spend on the stamps in the next ten years. The changes through the years have resulted in increased ease for food stamp applicants. An example in the article was that unemployed members of wealthy families qualify for food stamps.

The writer makes his point clear towards the end of the article when he admits that food stamps are needed for come citizens, especially in the current economic state we face. However, the amount of money that was decided on spending on the food stamps is a lot. The writer strongly suggests that this number is much too high, and that some of the money allocated to the food stamps would be of better use on other issues.

I agree with the writer in that 770 billion dollars is a very large amount for food stamps. While a a lot of people do indeed need this help, I think we can save a lot of money by tightening the process in which people qualify for food stamps. We seem to have gotten lazy in this very important aspect of the food stamps, and it may be that a lot of people who are using the money allocated do not need food stamps with their specific situations. An interesting fact in the article was that food stamps are actually advertised and encouraged for the average citizen. In one specific case, food stamps were advertised as a means of dieting. This is not what food stamps were meant for and I don't support the decision to allocate 770 billion dollars to people who don't need help providing for themselves or their families. Unfortunately, with the loose way in which we provide these food stamps and the large sums of money we allocate to them, our hard-earned money is often going to people who don't really need it. 


The article itself was written very well and I appreciated its clarity. The writer makes a lot of good points and supports them with reliable facts and statistics. He provides many interesting facts that draws in readers and forces them to think about the issue at hand. 

To read the article about food stamps, click here.

Campaigning through Pinterest

The rapid growth of technology, namely smart phones and tablets, has given a lot of people constant internet access to their fingertips. People find themselves resorting to their trusty smart phones when approached with boredom or awkward situations. These distractions or saviors usually embody simple games or intensified Facebook stalking. However, a new time-taker has appeared out of the past year and its popularity has been noticed by politicians and their publicists as they campaign.

 

Pinterest is a website and app where you select certain interests, and then browse away. The site is popular among females as it provides a great variety of do-it-yourself projects, unique recipes, and cute clothes that are personalized to specific interests. It also works as a social networking site. Friends can "re-pin" certain articles or crafts to share with their friends. The site had 18.7 million users in March and that number is steadily climbing. Recently, politicians have begun campaigning on Pinterest to call the attention of female citizens. 

Campaign managers have inserted the names of candidates in recipes and crafts so that certain users will happen to scroll through a political campaign whilst looking at pie recipes or do-it-yourself curtains. Campaigners are positive that campaigning on the social networking site will attract a lot of voters because of the site's popularity and the data about how much time the vast majority spends on the site. The pictures of the candidates that Pinterest users increasingly scroll past are to serve as simple reminders for women as they go through their daily musings. 

The fact that politicians are trying to reach supporters through social networking sites and up and coming trends is a very good idea. It's important that candidates not only appeal in traditional ways such as through television or radio commercials, but that they also approach the new age of technology. If they didn't think of this approach or put any effort into advertising on new websites or apps, they would find themselves only appealing to older crowds as younger people are shying away from television, resorting to on-demand video websites and have been increasingly listening to portable mp3 players rather than listening to the radio. By campaigning on sites like Pinterest, candidates make themselves known to the younger audience as well. 

I'm a Pinterest user myself and I found myself dangerously addicted to it when I discovered it. I've noticed some of the advertisements through my scrollings and I think it's a good way to interest the younger masses or at least force politics to cross their minds.  

To read more about this campaigning trend, click here.