http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/live-blog-latest-developments-on-arizona-shooting/
The attached is a blog on the daily developments of the recent Arizona shooting disaster. It is a live feed and is updated as new information is processed. We chose this blog because it is the most current disaster in the United States' media, and it gives a fresh new look on how the media reports events in these new times.
The question that arises is this: How will this current situation affect our current policy and procedures (gun control, political security procedures, and state and federal laws...)?
This Artical was reported on CNN at January 15, 2011 at 1946.
ReplyDeleteA man who was shot but survived last Saturday's massacre in Tucson, Arizona, was taken to a county mental services unit Saturday after making a threatening comment at a town hall event, also in Tucson, Pima County Sheriff's Department spokesman Jason Ogan said.
James Eric Fuller, 63, was involuntarily committed after he made threats against a Tea Party member at the event sponsored by ABC News, Ogan said.
Fuller photographed Trent Humphries and said "You are dead" when Humphries began speaking at the event, according to Ogan.
He was taken into custody after 12 p.m. (2 p.m. ET).
Fuiller has not been charged and Ogan said it is unclear whether Humphries will press charges.
What I find most interesting about this is, the media reported this on the front page of the CNN websight. Which draws me to ask 3 questions:
1. Would James Eric Fuller sistuation made the front page of the websight, if the Arizona shooting would not have taken place?
2. Since James Eric Fuller was involved in Arizona shooting, does the media portray him as a victum or a villen.
3. Does disasters, such as the Arizona shooting make us more concious to our surrounding, and why our why not?
Just pick one.
3. I believe we are conscious about our surroundings, but I also believe we are ignorant. We like to "forget" bad things happen in the world. Disasters represented by the media remind us a perfect world does not exist and that we need to take more action to protect what is important.
ReplyDelete2:01 P.M. Shooting Renews Debate Over Gun Control
ReplyDeleteThe shooting in Arizona has once again sparked debate over the issue of gun control and the availability of guns like the one that Jared Loughner allegedly used in the incident.
Representative Raul Grijalva of Arizona, a Democratic colleague of Ms. Giffords, said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that gun laws "have to be examined."
And in an online posting, Paul Helmke, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, wrote that "we can and should do more to address the easy access to high-powered guns that make it too easy for dangerous and irresponsible people to disrupt and destroy the lives of innocent Americans, and political leaders who are simply trying to serve their communities and our country."
Jim Brady, the former White House press secretary, and his wife, Sarah, issued their own statement, according to USA Today. The statement reads: "We know the deep pain and horror that all the family members and loved ones who have been made victims by this man and his gun are going through. We wish we didn't, but we know it too well."
Jim Brady was shot in the head during the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
But Republican lawmakers said Sunday morning that new gun laws are not the answer to stopping shootings like the one in Arizona.
"It's probably about a very sick individual and what should have been done for that person," said Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky on Fox News Sunday. "But the weapons don't kill people. It's the individual that killed these people."
Mr. Paul noted that Ms. Giffords, while a Democrat, is an avid supporter of gun rights in her state.
"Interestingly, Representative Giffords was a defender of the Second Amendment and is a defender of the Second Amendment," Mr. Paul noted. "So no, I don't think that plays into this at all. Really, I think they are unrelated."
This particular post on the Arizona shooting argues that access to highly powered guns should be better controlled. Republicans, however, disagree and believe making the gun laws more strict is not the answer. I would like to look back on Senator Rand Paul’s statement, “...weapons don’t kill people. It’s the individual that killed these people.” I disagree completely with this statement. Yes it was Jared Loughner who killed those people but because he had easy access to a gun and ammunition is the only reason this SHOOTING took place. Do you agree the shooting was a result of poor gun laws and that the access to ammunition/guns should be more strict? Or do you agree with Senator Rand Paul’s statement? Explain.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would gave to side in with Senator Rand Paul staement. Enforcing higher gun laws would long take away from the Consistution, Bill Of Rights second admendment right to bear arms. What I find most interesting is that majority of American citizans obey the law and register there fire arms, and do what is expective of them. I dont belive that the Arizona shooter Jared Loughner ability to obtain a weapon plays that much weight due to the fact Jared Loughner had no prior convictions to flag the background check process. Thus answering the question, no I dont belive that this disaster was a result of pour gun laws.
ReplyDeleteI would also have to side with Senator Paul. I don't think stricter gun laws would stop anyone from getting a gun if they really wanted one. There are plenty of ways to get around that, and I also do believe in the second ammendment's right to bear arms. The fact that this is the second ammendment made to the constitution is a testament to how important our founders thought this was. I also wonder if there would be as much discussion of gun control laws if a politition was not involved in this shooting.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the first comment Shuan posted on the 15th, I feel that disasters, such as the shooting in Arizona, which come as a surprise only effect our lives for a certain amout of time. There has been many events in the news that have effected other peoples' lives, but they never seem to effect ours for very long. As quick as they come, they are gone and something else has replaced them. If we let what we saw on the news effect our everyday lives we would all need to live in a bubble, becuase there is danger surrounding us everywhere. No one would be able to go to the grocery store, the park, or the mall with out looking over their shoulder or walking a little faster. I think that people are only more contious of their surroundings when some has happened to them specifically in a certain area or place.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though gun laws are often blamed for shootings such as this past Arizona disaster. I, too, find myself siding with Senator Paul. Restricting and tightening gun laws only makes it more difficult for law abiding gun wielders to possess their weapon. The problems such as this shooting were done by an individual who seemed unscrupulous to the consequences of breaking laws. The problems seems to lie both in proper education and appropriate treatment and attention being spent on individuals who exhibit higher risk behaviors. There will always be means for people to obtain guns without permit. Analogous to the prohibition, the strict laws just bred a new underground class of criminals trafficking illicit items in the lucrative black market. Unless the intention is to make it impossible for people to incur weapons without permit,which seems highly unachievable, a tighter gun control policy will just be disregarded by those committing these crimes. If they are okay with murdering people, why would they be afraid to dip into an unavoidable black market to acquire the means to do so.
ReplyDeleteAlso in response to the first posting by Shaun, I think that James Fuller would not have made the front page. This is because it is directly related to the actual Arizona shooting. It makes complete sense that the impact of the shooting cause Fuller to make such a statement to the pro-gun speaker. I believe that Fuller is portrayed as a victim in this situation. He of course is going to have harsh and bitter feelings about gun control after being shot. I understand why authorities arrested Fuller after his comment. However, I find it sad if anyone deems him to be a villain.
ReplyDeleteI also think that making it harder to obtain guns would be pointless because it is very easy to get things on the black market these days. I do not fully agree with allowing anyone who wants one to be able to buy a gun, but I think there should be people assigned to closely monitor who is buying guns and for what reasons. The case of the Arizona shooting was because the suspect was not right in the head and took his craziness out on other people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this comment "If they are okay with murdering people, why would they be afraid to dip into an unavoidable black market to acquire the means to do so." The killers already have a mindset that they want to destruct and destroy. Whether they have access to a gun or not, they still have these thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I still believe that there should be stricter policies on gun control. It is a vicious cycle: Society gets guns to protect themselves from the crazy people who have guns to kill society. If not everyone could get a gun then maybe society would feel a little safer. It is a difficult subject and I don't have one strict side that I agree with.
I agree with Leah about gun control laws. Guns are a very important topic in our generation, certainly because there is so much hate and discrimination out there leaving innocent people to be killed without any protection. I believe that there should definitely be stricter gun laws. For instance, the terrorist who attempted to kill the governor and innocent bystanders could have been prevented with stricter laws. The man who killed and injured these people is clearly a lunatic who has an unstable mind, and citizens like him should not be allowed to possess a gun.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think that President Obama handled the Tucson shootings extremely well. I agree that this fateful date should be acknowledged every year to memorialize the victims and honor their lives. This act will undoubtedly unite all Americans and, subsequently, reinforce the importance of remembering this tragic event each year.
I also agree with Senator Rand Paul. Stricter gun laws would not necessarily make it more difficult to obtain firearms. They would still exist and be available to whoever wanted or needed them. Just like all other illegal items, they are out there and can be obtained. Also, some people argue that stricter gun laws would violate the Second Amendment. Some people already say that the gun laws are too strict and already violate the Second Amendment. I agree that gun laws should not be stricter because they will not prevent crimes like these from occurring and will only raise a heated debate as to whether the Second Amendment has been violated.
ReplyDeleteWow everyone has argued the same point. You guys are killin me. One argument that I thought of that favor gun laws are that they are effective in preventing suburban gun violence. In the inner city, we all assume (hopefully nobody knows first hand) that it's easy to get a gun illegally. However, one would think that theres a much smaller market for unregistered firearms in the burb's, which would lead to the conclusion that stiffer gun regulations can be effective in upper middle class demographics.
ReplyDeleteAs a rule, I would probably be on the side of the fence that says any law that makes it tougher to get a gun is at least relatively reasonable. For instance, in the Virginia Tech shooting, the killer purchased guns legally, even though he had been diagnosed by multiple professionals as mentally insane. That, I find ridiculous. Legislators should spend their time finding the dumb loopholes like that in our laws.
I would agree with Senator Rand Paul’s Statement. It makes perfect sense to me. Guns are inanimate objects, they cannot function by themselves. Have you ever seen a gun pull its own trigger and kill someone all by itself? It definitely takes a person to pick it up and pull the trigger on the gun. If guns kill people, that would be the same as saying people do not speak, mouths do and then we can blame a car for causing deaths (not the driver)? This is ludicrous. Guns by themselves are not evil but anyone who misuses them to commit crimes should be punished. Therefore, it is the person who kills, not the gun itself.
ReplyDeleteArizona shooting had certainly sparked horror across this country and some issues had been raised in public such as: should we be more conscious about our surroundings? Could this tragedy have been prevented? I think we should be more conscious and alert to our surroundings. Although the reason of the shooting is still remains unclear, however, according to Jared Loughner’s classmates, he has been consuming drugs and behaving strangely lately. If Jared is suffering from mental problems, then they should have placed him in an asylum. If they would have done this, that could save the lives of innocent people who got killed and wounded. Certainly, we cannot stop insane people from doing unthinkable things. Still, we can watch out for them and if we cannot provide any help to them, at least, raise a red flag in order to prevent them from hurting people.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to what Kendall posted on the 15th. I do agreee with Senator Paul because every human has a conscience and if one wishes to kill or shoot at someone they are going to do it. Whether they can easily access a gun or not, if someone is willing to hurt someone they'll choose to harm someone regardless of gun laws. Tightening our gun laws will only take away from our constitutional rights and will not help in decreasing the crime rate. Crimes will continue whether someone can easily access a gun or not.
ReplyDeleteI feel that disasters such as the Arizona shooting definitely make people more conscious of their surroundings. I feel this way because large disasters such as the Arizona shooting stay with people forever. You may not always be thinking about it but you will always remember that it happened and how it made you feel. For instance, after 9/11 security got much tighter and getting on an airplane has never been more of a tedious task. Racial profiling has also become more of a prevalent problem throughout security checkpoints. I for one will never feel the same sense of safety when boarding a plane that I did prior to 9/11. This is why I feel that disasters make us more conscious of our surroundings.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to agree with what Jake said. Guns are fairly easy to buy (legally). They are very powerful weapons that can kill a lot of people placed in the wrong hands.
ReplyDeleteJessica, although it would be taking away some of our constitutional rights, making it harder to buy guns could save a lot of lives. Buying guns illegally would still, obviously, happen, but why not make it a little harder?
i dont feel that the shooting in arizona was a result of poor gun laws. if someone has a motive to kill they will find the means to do so. It is very easy to obtain a gun illegally and im sure that if the killer wanted to kill and was not able to buy a gun legally then he would have easily obtained a gun illegally. So i think that people need to think about this instead of just the laws that are in place. He broke the law by committing murder so im sure he wouldnt have minded breaking the law to get a gun.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mallory that making the gun laws more strict would not help there problem. the people that use guns for crimes usually have obtained there gun illegally. all changing the law would do is make it so all the people who use guns properly (that are not going to commit crimes with them) would not be allowed to have them. So going by this would make Senator Rand Paul’s Statement correct.
ReplyDelete