This entry was an inspiration for my ISP presentation. In reality, my ISP has been an analysis of a controversial topic (pro con handguns). Debaters argue such controversial topics on a regular basis and try to find a resolution based on research. I sat in on a few debates to see how they are structured and how timing works. This will be used for my "mini-debates" that will be held during my ISP to show how hard it is to come to a resolution over such controversial issues/topics.
I learnt about rebuttal speeches and how one side will prepare a speech that will be countered with another. The judge will base victory of of whoever seems to have control over the situation and has better arguments to support their side of the case. At any point, a debater can ask the other side for proof of the evidence presented to ensure that there isn't any fake data presented.
0 Comments
I organized a standard game we have all played as kids. You throw your hands back to reload, put your hands forward for shoot, and cross your hands for a shield. It was meant to be a play-on-words since we are using our hands for guns (I know very clever). While we all had fun playing the game it is still important that we understand how dangerous these weapons can be and how much harm they can cause. Whenever handling such weapons we must be careful, maybe not even handle such weapons!
Me and my patrol at a campout In New Mexico. We got to shoot black powder rifles and handguns. Apart from the safety lectures, it was a fun experience for all of us, we learnt a lot about the guns themselves and how to shoot them.
I researched two different kinds of handguns - pistol and double action revolver - and drew a concept of the guns that could make them more safe for consumer use, even though I wish we could just ban the gun altogether. I labeled the various parts and safety features that may help people that want to keep handguns in the world to cope.
An oral interview was done with a student at Westwood High School to see the viewpoints of fellow students. An edited transcription was made below. "Q" is me, the questionarre and "A" is Jacob Stubbs in one being interviewed.
Q: Hi Jacob, let’s start off by asking what your viewpoint is on this very controversial topic: Should handguns be banned or not? A: I feel like they should be banned due to the amount of deaths we have seen. Q: Do you feel like these deaths may have just coincidentally been because the owner had a handgun? Let me rephrase that... let’s say the user had a knife instead; do you think he would just kill the person with that instead of the handgun, thus eliminating the law to ban handguns? A: Okay that was a long question let me see if I got it down. So, you want to know if there will be any changes in murder even after the elimination of handguns due to the presence of other virulent weapons? (yes) Okay well in response to that I feel that the size, portability, and availability of handguns presently lead to this increased output of deaths. Since it’s so easy to own this item I feel like people are misusing it. If we are able to ban this weapon people will have a hard time finding another comparable weapon with its form factor, thus eliminating the deaths we see today. Q: Alright final question, how do you think the backlash would be if we got this law passed? A: I feel like it will be very bad for the first month as there are strong supporters in keeping handguns. Although after time people will learn to live life without it and we will all feel much safer Q: Okay thank you for your time Mr. Stubbs, have a nice day! A: Bye Now we must look at the other side of this debate as there are always two valid sides to ever argument. If we are able to successfully remove the usage of handguns from the ecosystem we live in today what will the effects be. How will we be able to cope with the change and what will the reaction be of the general population? These are all valid questions that must be answered before any preventive measures to handguns are taken into place.
Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University argues that selective bans on less lethal varieties of guns encourage the substitution of more lethal types of guns. Since handguns are very cheap and inexpensive they are ideal for lethal crimes (as stated in entry #1 - Homocide) but if they were to be removed the general population would adapt a new form of gun. This may work in a similar way of natural selection where if one item is taken away from a population, another item will replace it to fill the "niche" that was lost. In this case the "niche" that will be lost is a small, cheap, and easy to use firearm that is perfect for committing a lethal crime. The real scare here is that criminals will NOT switch to a firearm that is similar in lethality to a handgun, but instead purchase a much more fatal gun like a sawed-off shotgun or other long guns. This means they are likely to produce an increase in the fraction of gun assaults resulting in greater number of deaths. On top of all this a sawed-off would be perfectly concealable and almost takes the place of a handgun. Thus, we can conclude that a institution of a law to permanently ban the usage of handguns would have little or even increased damaging effects on the general population if implemented. Looking at the article this way is very confounding to me. On one side I want handguns to be banished after the discussion had in entry #1 - Homicides, but after looking at the causation it would have on the population I can not see what a reasonable solution to the issue is. Further entries will need to be made to test this issue and maybe try to find a creative way to find a way to destroy the usage of handguns while keeping criminals from purchasing other types of weaponry. Sources: http://www15.uta.fi/arkisto/aktk/projects/sta/Kleck_2009_Mass_Shootings_in_Schools.pdf Entry #1 - Homicides The deaths due to handguns pertains to each and every person. Measures must be taken to reduce the homicide rates. This is in efforts to raise national security and increase awareness of such a dangerous weapon. According to a study from Alma College the United States takes the lead for handgun ownership and handgun homicide rates per 100,000 people in comparison to Australia, Canada, Israel, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, because of the cheapness, conceivability , ease of use, and lethality, handguns are ideally suited to commit deadly crimes in comparison to alternative weapons like a full rifle. This is crazy! Why does the United States need such a high percent of the population to carry a such a deadly weapon that is ideally suited for killing? Does Martin Killias' study which found a 74.6% correlation that prevalence of firearms is strongly correlated with the firearms homicide rate not deter the United States government from enacting any laws to stop this madness?
After researching and finding such astonishing numbers it became interesting to see why the United States government would not crack down on this maddening issue. Study after study showed a strong trend towards the increase of handgun related crimes. I personally cannot make any claims to how it feels to own a handgun and if it gives any sense of security because I have never actually owned such a weapon and do not plan to in the future. After looking into this ongoing dilemma it became clear to me that the amount of crimes committed due to handguns far outweighs the need of self security. The United States must introduce a law to help alleviate this issue promptly for the security of every person in this nation. Sources: http://philpapers.org/rec/DIXHPA https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2017
Categories |