Who's the Real Killer?

Our forefathers once established great articles that weren’t only created as documents, but what have now evolved into America’s backbone. As amendments like the right to bear arms, have withstood the test of time, it has also withstood great controversy. As you look through time you see different regions forfeiting this right, because only their freedom is swept out from under them but their dignity and pride. These are all qualities our country was established on. Today we observe countries experiencing predicaments and power struggles, as individuals are not able to maintain the same safety. The view on gun control and its effect on our world vary from person to person. One might conclude that rather than government control, it is ownership that is necessary and crucial when defending oneself, or others, and truncating the amount of murders.

George Washington once declared that the United States should never establish permanent allies or have a standing army. Now today more than ever each country has some form of an ally. Former President Eisenhower feared the U.S. Defense department was gaining too many powers, causing this department to become more concerned with the economic aspect then actually defending our country. And lastly authors of the Bill of Rights once said that each man should have the right to own a gun as seen in the second amendment. Each of these men listed have something in common, and that is, that they made those statements based on the knowledge from previous experiences. Our fore fathers realized the government should not be given more power than necessary which is why we have a democracy. Their requests and advice are continuously being ignored, and moved to the backburner, causing things to truly heat up. The amendments were created to give us permanent rights, and freedoms and now people want to take them away?                            

With all powerful tools, there is a risk factor that goes along with owning or using something that has the ability to kill. Some are pro gun control because they feel guns are very dangerous, which they are, and especially can be when put into the wrong hands. But didn’t back thousands of years ago Indians use a slice of flint and a stick to kill not only other rival tribes, but animals as big as the fierce and beast-like buffalo? And even in recent years you find people have used knifes, clubs, garage tools all for murder weapons. Some also say that guns can fire at the wrong time creating dangerous situations. However, you find that cars, boats, and planes, can all malfunction and cause massive perplexities. Another major topic that people use as an argument is that once guns are taken away the crime rate and murder rate will drop. But Australia and England have found the results to be the exact opposite of what was expected as the crime and murder rates actually stayed the same or grew because people didn’t have the proper self defense tools, and criminals knew that.                                                                           

Aspects of society will always change but the question is whether they’re for better or worse. In my opinion, gun control is not the answer to the problem because our government would be in control, which is not the kind of foundation our country was built on. The word “gun” shouldn’t automatically give people a negative connotation because it doesn’t only keep the crime rate down, it’s a way of protection, and there are few deaths that are actually caused from firearms. The punishment for misuse of these firearms needs to be more effective. People will always find a way to hurt each other if the punishments are not more of a deterrent. All individuals seeking ownership of a gun should have to take a mandatory gun safety class before they purchase one. Every owner of a gun should also own a lock and key to keep the guns away from children. Guns aren’t the killer; it’s the people that are in control of these tools that make them into lethal weapons.

Commentary on "My proposal for a new government"

In the commentary, "My proposal for a new government" Mrs. Dickerson offers her view on the United States Government and the "problems plaguing the nation." She outlines her main issues with the government that I suspect are similar to countless Americans, myself included. Some of these issues include how our economy is deplorable, our government is greed-driven and that we are dealing with matters that aren't necessarily important at this point in time. She does a great job embodying the frustrations of Americans and suggesting some solutions that she feels would help.

Some of Mrs. Dickerson's proposals to help fix the fradulent ways of our government I feel could be beneficial. For one, I agree with the notion that the amount of total terms someone is in office should be limited. This would guarantee that no one person would be in office for too long of time. It also allows for more people to have a chance to help lead our nation. On the otherhand, I feel it is an unrealistic expectation for us to "kick them all out" (them being Congress.) If we were to institute this we would be getting rid of all the experience and would still expect to get things accomplished. I also feel although it states an interesting point, it is not the most credible commentary because there are no outside sources for the factual type of writing.

There is no doubt in my mind that corruption is widely present in our government and money has a large part to do with that. The question is whether taking away the perks and lowering the income they recieve will positively affect it. I fear that once you take those (legal) perks away, few will want to take on those roles. And the salary that she suggests they receive ($100,000) is quite small leaving few factors that would incline people to run. Mrs. Dickerson makes many valid points about where our government is lacking and where we could improve. I enjoyed reading it and seeing her input on something so pertinent in our lives.