At the beginning of the semester, I chose the Right to Bear Arms as my social movement. Then and now I am still in favor of gun rights for the American individual. I was not always in support of gun rights though. Up until I started my current job working in the inner-city high crime areas, I was a proponent for heavy gun control. I did not see a point for someone to carry a gun when there was the police. I think it also had something to do with the fact that I grew up in an area where one did not have to worry about crime on a daily basis. Now I have seen countless acts of violent crime and have dealt with many victims of crime who could have prevented the action if they had been carrying a gun. I have now seen that police response is usually no less than 2-5 minutes for an emergency situation, long after the actual crime has usually taken place, and that is if one was able to even call the police during the situation. One of the main reasons I am against most gun control laws is the fact that it makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. There are over 200 million guns in the U.S., and many of those are stolen by criminals every day. These criminals will then use them to commit robberies and other violent crimes, and no law would have stopped them. In many states though, a law-abiding citizen has to go through so many channels in order to legally obtain a gun that many just do not do it. I do agree with most of the gun laws here in Arizona though. An FBI background check is required for purchase, there is no waiting period, I can legally openly carry a gun with no permit or license, and an 8-hour class with shooting qualification is required for a concealed carry permit. Why should law-abiding citizens have to suffer under laws that criminals have no problem breaking? There is also no plausible way for a ban on guns altogether; there is no way that every person will turn in their guns, especially criminals, leaving normal citizens defenseless against armed crime.
I feel that the wording of the Second Amendment is clearly worded in that it gives the right to a militia and an individual person the right to own a gun. This thought of mine was reaffirmed in 2008 when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision decided that the Second Amendment did, in fact, protect the individual's right to have a gun. There is an excellent article by Brian Doherty from Reason magazine in 2008 that chronicles the case and the results of D.C. Vs Heller. (Doherty 2008) Another interesting article I found was by Gary Kleck from the American Behavioral Scientist in 2009. In this article, he discusses the fact that despite the many gun laws already on the books, none of them stopped the Columbine shooters or any other school shooters. Kleck also discussed why proposed gun control laws would have had no effect on the shootings either. Kleck brings up good points about the fact that no assault or fully automatic weapons were ever used during the shootings. Also, most guns used in school shootings, and normal street crime, are obtained through theft, not legal purchase. There are good sections that discuss why locking up of guns does not work and why an assault weapons ban is meaningless. He does concede, as do I, that some gun controls are all right, but most would have no effect if put into place. (Kleck 2009) For the most part, health institutions, both private and government affiliated, have labeled gun violence as a health crisis since the 1980’s. That is why it was a pleasant surprise to read the article by Jacob Deakins written in 2008. In this article, he discusses why labeling the gun issue in America as a health crisis is fear mongering, and nothing else. He calls the fact that for decades the medical community has blindly been following this line of thought as “medical inertia.” After explaining why the medical community is spitting out nothing but fear, he goes on to discuss the many positive aspects of guns in society, listing numerous studies and statistics showing that it is not a health crisis. (Deakins 2008) In an article by several authors written in 1997, they ran a study on whether gun control laws actually had any effect. They found that gun laws had a mild effect on crime, while socioeconomic factors played a larger role. (Bae .et al 1997) In an article written by Jeffrey Miron in 2001, he discusses how it is not gun availability which causes the violence in America, but drug prohibition and how heavily it is enforced. He found that the black market for drugs creates much of the gun violence, and gun prohibition tactics can also lead to more violence. This creates a new aspect to the case for gun control, as it shows how the illegal drug trade may be causing most of the violent criminal elements. (Miron 2001)
In conclusion, I see the right to bear arms as a legal and important factor of living in America. I also have found that the gun control movement is based highly on emotional arguments and not facts. Sure, there are accidents, suicides, and homicides, but there are many other things out in the world that will kill you long before you die of any of those things. I will concede that some control is needed, but the constant threat of gun banning, assault weapon banning, mandatory gunlocks, waiting periods, gun and ammo registration, permits, licenses, etc. are irrelevant and hurt the law-abiding American citizen. Gun control advocates need to look at other factors besides ways in which to limit gun availability and freedom. It appears from my personal experience and readings that it is usually the illegal drug trade that brings the violence. Even if guns are banned, you would still see on the news every night gun homicides from illegal weapons used in the illegal drug trade. I am still, and forever will be, for the right to bear arms.
Bae M, Kwon G, Safranski R, Scott B. The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws: Multivariate Statistical Analysis. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc [Serial online]. Jan 1997;56(1):41-50. Available from JSTOR. Accessed July 2, 2009
Deakins J. Guns, Truth, Medicine, and the Constitution. Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons [serial online]. Summer2008 2008;13(2):58-60. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 2, 2009.
Doherty B. How the Second Amendment Was Restored. Reason [serial online]. December 2008;40(7):52-60. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 2, 2009.
Kleck G. Mass Shootings in Schools: The Worst Possible Case for Gun Control. American Behavioral Scientist [serial online]. June 2009;52(10):1447-1464. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 2, 2009.
Miron J. Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis. Journal of Law and Economics [serial online]. Oct 2001;44(2):615-633. Available from: JSTOR. Accessed July 2, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Wed Assignment 4
Almost every day we see in the news that some sort of suicide attack or IED attack has happened in one of several Middle Eastern Countries. On the American news stations, oftentimes these attacks are portrayed as random acts of violence against innocent women and children. The news paints a picture for us that these suicide bombers are religious wackos who kill themselves and others because of their religious faith. This could not be further from the truth according to researchers of suicide bombings. In Robert Pape’s 2005 article, “Blowing Up an Assumption,” Pape argues that the number one strategic goal of suicide bombers is “to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.” Religion is often secondary, mainly used for recruitment and funding purposes. Pape brings up a good and valid point about the suicide missions in Iraq since the U.S. has been there, with the fact that there were no suicide missions before America entered the country as an occupying force. In the 2002 article, “Violence, Terror, and Politics as Usual,” by Charles Tilly, he argues that terror is used most often for political bargaining and profit-taking. Terror is a political strategy to increase power and gain resources for the particular movement.
Terror, such as suicide bombings, is actually used by both secular and religious groups, and in most continents. We have seen it used repeatedly in the Israel-Palestine conflict, in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and even here in the United States. Robert J. Brym in his chapter in Goodwin and Jasper states that the more a particular group is repressed, the more they may use harsher and possibly more lethal methods of protest. According to Brym, suicide bombers are not crazy and not religious nuts. It is mainly political reasons why a person will become a suicide attacker. There are also strategic reasons why a group might use suicide bombings such as opposing occupation of land by a much stronger nation. Last Brym states that another main reason why groups use suicide bombers is for retaliation. This is seen in the Israel-Palestine situation. Israel is constantly bombing and assassinating Palestinians in response to the Palestinian suicide bombers.
In my opinion, suicide bombing cannot be seen as just random, senseless violence like most Americans are led to believe. According to the authors of this week's articles and chapters, these suicide bombers use this method as a means to an end. Political and strategic reasoning are the main ideas behind suicide bombing. In a way, these groups that use suicide bombing are for the most part protesting, rather violently, occupations of territory. I do agree with Pape, Tilly, and Brym that this method, along with other terrorist methods such as kidnapping, and property bombings, are politically and strategically motivated. In a 2007 journal article by Lahiri, the author explains the use of suicide bombing by the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam against the Sri Lankan government. The suicide bombings demonstrated how far the group was willing to go for their cause, and how they created a strong sense of group cohesion. The author argues that the group’s use of suicide bombings helped mobilize internal group support. The use of suicide bombings actually helped lead to peaceful negotiations between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan government. (Lahiri 2007) In a 2006 journal article by Helmer, he discusses the tactic of suicide bombing used by Hezbollah. Before any attack, Hezbollah would identify their political goals. Each attack was meant to deal a huge blow politically and militarily to their enemies. One of the earliest goals was to kick out any foreign government, especially superpowers such as the U.S., that Hezbollah saw as enemies. The only reason Hezbollah used suicide bombers is because after careful consideration they viewed it as a practical and viable option that would work against the enemy. Most groups that initiate suicide attacks or unconventional warfare such as IED attacks are unable to face a superpower in conventional military tactics, so the tactic of suicide bombings is used. Hezbollah also used suicide bombers as a tactic to gain legitimacy, which worked. The people of Lebanon saw Hezbollah as the only group that would fight off the foreign occupiers. The suicide bombings also helped recruit members to the cause. (Helmer 2006) A 2006 article by Araj and Brym discusses how not all suicide bombings are due to political or strategic reasons. According to their study of the second Intifada in Israel, they found that 82 percent of the bombings were in reaction to something Israel did, and not to be proactive. These reactive reasons ranged from the killing of Palestinian leadership to killing of Palestinian civilians, significant Israeli political events, and significant Israeli religious events. (Araj, Brym 2006)
From the research gathered by Pape, Tilly, and the others, I think that terrorism can be seen as a form of protest. I may not agree with it, and many others may not agree with it, but I think it is clear that for the most part suicide bombings are trying to make gains politically, strategically, or as a type of protest in response to actions taken by an occupying superpower. The groups that use suicide bombings, along with other forms of terror, most often are using these methods because they feel it is the best method to gain the results they want. This is the same for any form of protest. Rallies, marches, riots, etc. are all used to get results from the powers in charge.
References
-Lahiri S. Why Suicide Bombing?: The Motives for Suicide Protest in Sri Lanka. Conference Papers -- Western Political Science Association [serial online]. 2007 Annual Meeting 2007:1-22. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 1, 2009.
-Brym R, Araj B. Suicide Bombing as Strategy and Interaction: The Case of the Second Intifada. Social Forces [serial online]. June 2006;84(4):1969-1986. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 1, 2009.
-Helmer D. Hezbollah's Employment of Suicide Bombing During the 1980s: The Theological, Political, and Operational Development of a New Tactic. Military Review [serial online]. July 2006;86(4):71-82. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 1, 2009.
Terror, such as suicide bombings, is actually used by both secular and religious groups, and in most continents. We have seen it used repeatedly in the Israel-Palestine conflict, in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and even here in the United States. Robert J. Brym in his chapter in Goodwin and Jasper states that the more a particular group is repressed, the more they may use harsher and possibly more lethal methods of protest. According to Brym, suicide bombers are not crazy and not religious nuts. It is mainly political reasons why a person will become a suicide attacker. There are also strategic reasons why a group might use suicide bombings such as opposing occupation of land by a much stronger nation. Last Brym states that another main reason why groups use suicide bombers is for retaliation. This is seen in the Israel-Palestine situation. Israel is constantly bombing and assassinating Palestinians in response to the Palestinian suicide bombers.
In my opinion, suicide bombing cannot be seen as just random, senseless violence like most Americans are led to believe. According to the authors of this week's articles and chapters, these suicide bombers use this method as a means to an end. Political and strategic reasoning are the main ideas behind suicide bombing. In a way, these groups that use suicide bombing are for the most part protesting, rather violently, occupations of territory. I do agree with Pape, Tilly, and Brym that this method, along with other terrorist methods such as kidnapping, and property bombings, are politically and strategically motivated. In a 2007 journal article by Lahiri, the author explains the use of suicide bombing by the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam against the Sri Lankan government. The suicide bombings demonstrated how far the group was willing to go for their cause, and how they created a strong sense of group cohesion. The author argues that the group’s use of suicide bombings helped mobilize internal group support. The use of suicide bombings actually helped lead to peaceful negotiations between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan government. (Lahiri 2007) In a 2006 journal article by Helmer, he discusses the tactic of suicide bombing used by Hezbollah. Before any attack, Hezbollah would identify their political goals. Each attack was meant to deal a huge blow politically and militarily to their enemies. One of the earliest goals was to kick out any foreign government, especially superpowers such as the U.S., that Hezbollah saw as enemies. The only reason Hezbollah used suicide bombers is because after careful consideration they viewed it as a practical and viable option that would work against the enemy. Most groups that initiate suicide attacks or unconventional warfare such as IED attacks are unable to face a superpower in conventional military tactics, so the tactic of suicide bombings is used. Hezbollah also used suicide bombers as a tactic to gain legitimacy, which worked. The people of Lebanon saw Hezbollah as the only group that would fight off the foreign occupiers. The suicide bombings also helped recruit members to the cause. (Helmer 2006) A 2006 article by Araj and Brym discusses how not all suicide bombings are due to political or strategic reasons. According to their study of the second Intifada in Israel, they found that 82 percent of the bombings were in reaction to something Israel did, and not to be proactive. These reactive reasons ranged from the killing of Palestinian leadership to killing of Palestinian civilians, significant Israeli political events, and significant Israeli religious events. (Araj, Brym 2006)
From the research gathered by Pape, Tilly, and the others, I think that terrorism can be seen as a form of protest. I may not agree with it, and many others may not agree with it, but I think it is clear that for the most part suicide bombings are trying to make gains politically, strategically, or as a type of protest in response to actions taken by an occupying superpower. The groups that use suicide bombings, along with other forms of terror, most often are using these methods because they feel it is the best method to gain the results they want. This is the same for any form of protest. Rallies, marches, riots, etc. are all used to get results from the powers in charge.
References
-Lahiri S. Why Suicide Bombing?: The Motives for Suicide Protest in Sri Lanka. Conference Papers -- Western Political Science Association [serial online]. 2007 Annual Meeting 2007:1-22. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 1, 2009.
-Brym R, Araj B. Suicide Bombing as Strategy and Interaction: The Case of the Second Intifada. Social Forces [serial online]. June 2006;84(4):1969-1986. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 1, 2009.
-Helmer D. Hezbollah's Employment of Suicide Bombing During the 1980s: The Theological, Political, and Operational Development of a New Tactic. Military Review [serial online]. July 2006;86(4):71-82. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 1, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)