I'm not so sure how to go about this because I don't know if I should be organized with it or actually do it like my thoughts are just coming out into the keys. Hopefully it will come across ambiguously.
The first article about the Virginia Tech shooting seems to have done the exact thing it was criticizing at first when it goes to talk about gun control. I like the passage about the backwards sensitivity logic that "the aftermath of a terrorist attack is the wrong time to talk about security, the aftermath of a death from lung cancer is the wrong time to talk about smoking and the tobacco industry, and the aftermath of a car crash is the wrong time to talk about seatbelts." Mr. Gopnik brings up an excellent point with this and then goes on to address the issue head first by talking about gun control shortly after a school shooting.
Gun control is a touchy issue and I think Mr. Gopnik takes an interesting view point on it. His suggestion that semi-automatic handguns should be restricted is nothing new, but it is a compromising solution rather than a win-lose one. Suggesting that only "guns that kill people" be banned seems like a nice solution. However, I find it a silly notion for anyone could think that would possibly work. There's always that old colloquialism that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," or any variation of such. For one things, people can kill by other means than semi-automatic handguns. Don't try to tell anyone that no one has ever been killed by a .22 rifle or a revolver or a knife for that matter. I don't have any bettter solutions, to be honest that direction is probably the one I would take in this matter, but it seems like a solution that won't do a lot.
Mr. Gopnik also brings up that in many other nations, gun laws have been tightened shortly following shooting sprees and that in most cases shootings have gone down significantly. This is wonderful news for those countries and maybe America could get the hint. There is something very different about America though and it's not to do with the machismo of owning one's own weapon. It has more to do with the system of laws and the U.S. way of government. The biggest hurdle, legally, is the Second Amendment. That is, the right of citizens to bear arms. It is probably an intentionally vague piece of legislation designed to create debate over who can own a gun as well as the when, why, how, and where of the same issue. Taken literally, there are to be virtually no restrictions on gun ownership. This law, of course, was written at a time when dueling was often considered as gentlemanly as a public debate, but sentiments towards firearms, as well as firearms themselves, have changed drastically. The second obstacle would be the issue of state's rights. The Second Amendment clearly makes itself a national issue, but prudence would leave the power to impose firearm regulations to the states. As someone that cannot even legally own a firearm and has grown-up in a very safe community I have no particular stance on firearms except that which I can derive from the Constitution.
The article by Ms. Sontag regarding 9/11 irked me a bit. Her writing seemed to drip with anti-Americanism, and that is something I usually can't stand. I think her feelings go a lot deeper than conveyed in this particular article because she wouldn't say everything she wanted to say less than two weeks after the attack in such a reputable magazine. Even publishing what she did seems risky.
I respect what she wrote but that doesn't mean I like it. Referring to the United States Air Force as "cowardly" is a low blow...very low. Everyone can have their own idea of what courage is, but I don't agree with Ms. Sontag's. I don't consider it honorable or in courage to kill yourself in the act of killing others. It's true that what those men did required a lot of balls, I might even call it bravery. It is also true that bombing from up high doesn't require a ton of courage necessarily, too. I think Ms. Sontag has some well-founded points about military intelligence and the view of the American public. However, her sarcastic tone is disrespectful. Given, she has every right towrite what she pleases. I am bothered by words that are unpatriotic when conveyed in such a condescending, sarcastic manner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Andrew:
ReplyDeleteI never thought about the Second Amendment being a part of the gun control debate, and now I feel like a fool, however, as you said, those were different times.
I do see the "people kill people" argument brought up in Mr. Gropnik's article, though. He brings up the point about how we shouldn't sell guns to people with 'unstable minds' per say, which is in my mind a way of stating the common colloquialism.
In reference to Ms. Sontag's article, I don't think that she meant to be anti-American or disrespectful when she wrote it, I believe that she was trying to point out that we as Americans were thinking in a very narrow-sighted way. We were not looking to what we have done to the people of the Middle East properly.
Just my opinion. Feel free to shoot me down if you wish
Kolin
I like the intensity of your response, Andrew. The goal of both these essays, I think, was to get the audience to reconsider their own thoughts. You seem to be doing that; agreeing with the authors' viewpoints is of secondary importance.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that Gopnik believes that the aftermath of a tragedy is the wrong time to discuss preventative measures? It seems like he's trying to open a dialogue when others are calling for generic healing.
Good post, Andrew-- keep it rolling. If you haven't already, check out the blogroll in the class resources. This will allow you to check out what other people in our class have been writing.
In my opinion, I think it's almost impossible to outlaw "guns that kill people." It will never happen and even if it did, it wouldn't stop people from obtaining them.
ReplyDeleteJustin