Americans are literally and figuratively up in arms about Obama’s recent gun control proposals, but in reality, this should be the largest number of Americans pleased by a presidential package since JFK “allegedly” sexed his way around the White House.
Americans are literally and figuratively up in arms about Obama’s recent gun control proposals, but in reality, this should be the largest number of Americans pleased by a presidential package since JFK “allegedly” sexed his way around the White House.
That’s because it’s not just about gun control.
By calling it Obama’s “gun control package,” we’re unnecessarily drawing attention to its two most polarizing elements: its disruption of our love affair with guns and Obama’s endorsement.
However, by my tally, most of the executive orders and proposals made Jan. 16 deal with the dissemination of information. With that in mind, this package might as well be referred to as the Freedom of Information Act — except that already exists, and you probably like it.
In fact, only four of Obama’s 12 proposals and zero of the 23 executive orders actually limit the type of guns or ammo you can own.
More explicitly, the proposals seek to ban the possession of armor-piercing rounds by non-military or law enforcement personnel, limit magazine size to 10 rounds and remove a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives restriction that requires them to allow the import of weapons more than 50 years old.
Then there’s the contentious renewal of the 1994 “assault weapon” ban. The term itself is often loosely defined, determined by each state — as long as their definitions are not looser than the feds — and doesn’t matter.
Admittedly, I was at first hesitant to say it’s unimportant when, according to the Pew Research Center, 40 percent of Americans oppose a ban of said weapons. Furthermore, approximately one-third of the world’s guns reside in 32 to 47 percent of American homes, depending on the source.
Still, it’s all relative. The 40 percent who oppose an assault weapons ban is a minority, albeit a large one, and this minority is concerned with an issue that is — as I’ve already said — itself a minority among the proposals and orders.
I estimate, however, nearly every American home contains brains.
To spell it out, 100 percent of Americans will benefit from the eight executive orders strengthening law enforcement and gun sellers’ abilities to run background checks and trace guns that have been lost, stolen or previously used in a crime.
One hundred percent of Americans will see minimized casualties due to programs that fund and plan training for teachers, law enforcement and first responders in preparation for an armed attack.
One hundred percent of Americans will be safer as a result of research on gun violence, violent deaths and the development and successful use of new, safer gun technologies.
And finally, 100 percent of Americans will have a higher quality of life from improved mental health programs and a dialogue about the issues those with mental health problems, especially the young, often face.
By allowing a perceived violation of Second Amendment rights to steal newspaper headlines and plaster its gun-centric vocabulary over the proposals on Jan. 16, we’ve only succeeded in ignoring more important talking points.
As University students, we should be particularly appreciative of learning and understanding of how communication and research facilitates it. Obama proposed more than $200 million for research and training alone, some of which is expressly concerned with increasing safety at institutions of higher education.
Shootings are too common, with a college shooting as recent as Tuesday, but guns aren’t the only issue.
Thankfully, the executive orders and proposals place emphasis on improving emergency plans, awareness of gun safety, mediating conflicts and identifying and treating mental illness.
Do not mistake down playing the gun’s role in violence as a defense for assault weapons, though. This is not that argument, nor is it a call for gun enthusiasts and fetishists to shut up. Nothing should be removed from consideration, including the rights of minority groups.
Access to assault weapons and armor-piercing rounds, among other things, should not eclipse or prevent a national conversation that affects all of us, including those who oppose the few proposals that would limit gun ownership.
Aaron Friedman is a 22-year-old Spanish senior from Destrehan.
That’s because it’s not just about gun control.
By calling it Obama’s “gun control package,” we’re unnecessarily drawing attention to its two most polarizing elements: its disruption of our love affair with guns and Obama’s endorsement.
By my tally, however, most of last Wednesday’s executive orders and proposals deal with the dissemination of information. With that in mind, this package might as well be referred to as the Freedom of Information Act — except that already exists, and you probably like it.
In fact, only four of Obama’s 12 proposals and zero of the 23 executive orders actually limit the type of guns or ammo you can own.
More explicitly, the proposals seek to ban the possession of armor-piercing rounds by non-military or law enforcement personnel, limit magazine size to 10 rounds and remove a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives restriction that requires them to allow the import of weapons over 50 years old.
Then there’s the contentious renewal of the 1994 “assault weapon” ban. The term itself is often loosely defined, determined by each state — as long as their definitions are not looser than the feds — and doesn’t matter.
Admittedly, I was at first hesitant to say it’s unimportant when, according to the Pew Research Center, 40 percent of Americans oppose a ban of said weapons. Furthermore, approximately one-third of the world’s guns reside in 32 to 47 percent of American homes, depending on the source.
Still, it’s all relative. The 40 percent who oppose an assault weapons ban is a minority, albeit a large one, and this minority is concerned with an issue that is — as I’ve already said — itself a minority among the proposals and orders.
I estimate, however, that nearly every American home contains brains.
To spell it out, 100 percent of Americans will benefit from the eight executive orders strengthening law enforcement and gun sellers’ abilities to run background checks and trace guns that have been lost, stolen or previously used in a crime.
One hundred percent of Americans will see minimized casualties due to programs that fund and plan training for teachers, law enforcement and first responders in preparation for an armed attack.
One hundred percent of Americans will be safer as a result of research on gun violence, violent deaths and the development and successful use of new, safer gun technologies.
And finally, 100 percent of Americans will have a higher quality of life from improved mental health programs and a dialogue about the issues those with mental health problems, especially the young, often face.
By allowing a perceived violation of Second Amendment rights to steal newspaper headlines and plaster its gun-centric vocabulary over last Wednesday’s proposals, we’ve only succeeded in ignoring more important talking points.
As university students, we should be particularly appreciative of learning and understanding of how communication and research facilitates it. Obama proposed more than $200 million for research and training alone, some of which is expressly concerned with increasing safety at institutions of higher education.
Shootings are too common, with a college shooting as recent as Tuesday, but guns aren’t the only issue.
Thankfully, the executive orders and proposals place emphasis on improving emergency plans, awareness of gun safety, mediating conflicts and identifying and treating mental illness.
Do not mistake downplaying the gun’s role in violence as a defense of assault weapons, though. This is not that argument, nor is it a call for gun enthusiasts and fetishists to shut up. Nothing should be removed from consideration, including the rights of minority groups.
Access to assault weapons and armor-piercing rounds — among other things — should not, however, eclipse or prevent a national conversation that affects all of us — including those who oppose the few proposals that would limit gun ownership.
