Recent orders
Gun control argument
Gun Ownership
Name:
Institution:
Gun Ownership
Gun control refers to efforts aimed at controlling and regulating the modification, manufacture, sale, and use of small firearms. Gun ownership refers to the possession of small firearms, which include assault rifles, pistols, hunting rifles, short guns, and revolvers among others, for self-defense. Gun control policies vary with countries with some having stricter laws than others. Poland and UK, for example, have stringent laws that govern the ownership of guns. The U.S. allows gun ownership to some extent while Mexico authorizes inhabitants to possess guns in their homes for self-defense. Debates on gun ownership have often invited mixed discussions with some stakeholders lobbying for stricter controls while others view gun control as a denial of citizen’s liberty. Those proposing stricter legislations usually argue that crime rates increase with widespread possession of guns. Those arguing against say that fewer guns on the streets do not necessarily contribute to reduced crime rates. Personally, I believe citizens should be allowed to possess guns for purposes of self-defense because the state-provided security will not always be available to protect citizens especially during emergencies. This paper shall argue why it is necessary to allow individuals to possess guns, look at a negative perspective regarding gun ownership, and provide a conclusive stance on my position. The debate still continues whether gun control should be imposed or not as opponents and proponents present reasons why they take their positions. However, the underlying fact is that gun control has the capability of reducing crime rate and ensuring safety of people. Moreover, it is important to look at the issue from a moral point of view, that is, what consequences does it present to humans, rather than from a violation of low.
Arguments for Gun Possession
Possession of guns can have both positive and negative repercussions on individuals’ well-being. The positive aspects of possessing a gun though, outweigh the harm that may result. Possession of small arms is not only for the purposes of protecting an individual’s home, but also to defend oneself from governments that can become tyrannical. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution had this argument as the original purpose. It stated that it was necessary to have a well-regulated militia to provide and ensure security of its citizens and that the right to bear arms should remain non-infringed (Winkler, 2007). It is important to realize that any government can become tyrannical. Only uninformed individuals think that the American government cannot become tyrannical. This is enough reason why citizens should be allowed to possess guns; to remind governments that citizens can as well protect themselves in times of extremities. Many governments, in the past, have turned tyrannical and America is no exclusion.
Most stakeholders and individuals who oppose the possession of guns certainly believe that a reduction in the number of guns owned by individuals will reduce the number of deaths, injuries, and gun-related crimes. In contrast, though, the more the number of people possessing guns in their homes, the fewer the crime rates would be. If a criminal is intending to commit a crime and knows that the individual possesses a gun too, it is likely that the felonious person will think twice because he also cares about his life. No one wants to die; everybody wants to live. In addition, however crazy and individual may be, he or she, is more likely to go on a shooting rampage in an area where people have no guns than in an area where citizens possess firearms. Besides, gun controls and stepped up checks will not stop individuals with crime intent from carrying out their activities (John, 2014). Evil will always exist because individuals have varied perceptions and stresses about life, politics, as well as the government. What the government should do, instead, is to carry out background checks on individuals regarding their past, criminal records, mental health, and other risk factors for crime. This will help to ensure that individuals who own guns are mentally upright and unlikely to engage in insane criminal activities irrationally. In addition, police officers are not likely to take care of all criminals out in the streets, hence the need for individual protection. For example, when a criminal breaks into ones house, it is unlikely that calling emergency will save your life because of the response time from the authorities. It is easier to defend oneself in this situation because a matter of seconds, in life and death scenarios, can make a great difference between living and dying. Gun control is morally justified because it prevents consequences posed by unrestricted possession of guns such as making it access easy for murderers. The obvious danger of guns is that it makes if quite easy to injure, or even kill a person. In addition, in assaults and robberies, when the perpetrator is armed with gun, the victim is far more likely to die than when he is having another weapon, or is unarmed. Increased access to guns following lack of gun control increases possibility of other crimes such as murder in self-defense, suicides and justifiable homicide.
Arguments against Gun Possession
Opponents of gun possession argue that presence of many guns in the streets is a recipe for disaster. This may be true to some extent, but only limited to the extent of gun possession. If many people possess guns it is likely that crime rates and gun-related violence would likely decline. However, when only a few people have guns, it is likely that they would terrorize, commit crime, and hurt individuals who do not own guns. This plainly means that these individuals will be likely to take advantage of those who do not own guns. For example, in 2007, a Seung-Hui Cho killed thirty-two people in the Virginia Tech Massacre, wounded twenty-five others, and killed himself after the incidence (Dean, 2012; Killias, 1993). This clearly shows that when fewer people have guns, because of gun control laws, criminals take advantage of the unarmed citizens. In another incidence, the Kent State Massacre, guardsmen shot and killed four unarmed students on May 4, 1970, and wounded nine others (Dean, 2012). This also shows what can transpire when only a few people possess guns. Therefore, possession of guns can also greatly contribute to gun-related violence, crime, and injuries, but only to the extent to which only a few people possess guns.
It is also difficult to control gun use when many people possess them. The argument is that the police can secure the citizens. As such, there is no need in allowing members of the public to carry arms around because people in the country are already well secured. The security people get from security agencies is good enough to stop any violence on people. Additionally, if a child unintentionally found his dad’s concealed gun, anything can happen. The child might unintentionally pull the trigger and injure somebody in the process. This can also cause panic and discomfort to the neighbors. It would be a great challenge for the government and federal agencies to monitor the activities of individuals who possess guns, thereby exposing individuals to a new form of security threat. For example, even –if measures would be out in place to carry out background checks on individuals before authorizing them to possess guns, there is a great likelihood of them gaining access to guns from their friends and relatives. This becomes difficult to ensure enough control and monitoring for the safety of individuals. Many suicides have also been linked to increased gun ownership, making it a great argument towards illegalizing gun possession (Miller et al., 2002; Killias, 1993).
Another consequence for unrestricted possession and use of guns is that most people who own guns are unstable (Miller et al., 2002; Killias, 1993). Recently, we have witnessed a number of incidences where a gunman walks to a school and starts shooting innocent children, students, teachers and other personnel at learning institutions. A good example is the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 among other recent cases such as the Connecticut tragedy. In most cases, the perpetrators use privately owned guns from their families or their own. They even shoot to death their family members before embarking on a shoot to kill rampage to a nearby school. The bottom line is a completely sane person would not wake up and start shooting loved ones and proceed to proceed to murder innocent children in a learning institution. Studies reveal that most of the perpetrators of such crimes have been found to be psychically unstable, for instance, the guy who committed Virginia tech massacre, Seung-Hui got diagnosed during childhood with severe anxiety disorder, and even placed under treatment (Coulter para.1). No doubt if gun control restrictions were in proper place, such cases would be avoided and people would be safe from bizarre behaviors of psychically unstable individuals.
My Opinion
Nothing can stand in the way of criminals if they want to commit gun-related crimes. Therefore, it is important to allow individuals to take the matters of personal security in their own hands, and not blame the government when police response delays at the time of critical need. In addition, the Second Amendment authorizes citizens to possess firearms for self-defense (Winkler, 2007). Therefore, denial of this liberty is as much a denial of other liberties, such as right to live, freedom of expression, equal opportunity, and freedom to participate in a lawful economic activity. Besides, the world would be much safer with individuals possessing guns because everyone fears to die. For this reason, everyone will want to be safe fearing for of his or her life because everyone possesses a gun and is able to inflict equal harm when provoked. Without guns, individuals would have no better means of self-defense.
References
Dean, S. (2012). The Times: The worst killers and student massacres in US history. Retrieved from: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3632107.ece
John, R. (2014). Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries. Retrieved from: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/
Killias, M. (1993). International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 148(10): 1721–1725.
Miller, M, Azrael, D., & Hemenway, D. (2002). Household Firearm Ownership and Suicide Rates in the United States, Epidemiology, 13(5), 517-524Winkler, A. (2007). Scrutinizing the Second Amendment. Michigan Law Review, 105 (4)
Al Qaeda Threats to USA
Al Qaeda Threats to USA
Name
Course
Lecturer
Date
Al Qaeda Threats to USA
The largely hunted Osama Bin Laden was killed on 2nd, May, 2011, it is widely held that the remnants of his terrorist network, Al Qaeda leader still remains a serious threat to the United States of America’s security department. According to the intelligence reports, there are possible vengeful plans of launching a massive terrorist attack on the US soil. The Department of Homeland Security and the Counter Terrorism Department have discovered that there may be aircraft or suicide bomb attacks at any time. More speculations suggest that this may happen in either in Washington D.C. or New York a few weeks before the 04/11/2012 presidential elections.
Based on the above report, I would like to assert that the success of this group will entirely depend on the efforts of the Federal government of USA. Even if, Al Qaeda has been substantially weakened by the capture of its top leadership, it is widely accepted that the group still exists with networks spread in all corners of the world. However, in my pinion, this can be stopped if stern measures are taken. First, the Federal Bureau of Investigators (FBI) should carry out an extensive investigation to reveal all the information regarding the operations of Al Qaeda and its sympathizers both within and out of USA. It is true that such sensitive information can only be got from those believed to be directly linked to such groups.
Meanwhile, security should be beefed up at the key entry points: air ports and sea ports. More importantly, surveillance, wire taps and cargo jet areas to be tightly guarded. Hence, the movement of any suspect can be monitored because it is now known that the success of such a catastrophe significantly depends on the foreign terrorists coming to the country. Most of their coordination is done at these points where they can even acquire the weapons and other missiles they intend to use.
Otherwise, America may expose to a unusually catastrophic tragedy comparable the infamous September 11 attack that caused the death of 3,000 innocent Americans. Al Qaeda should not be taken for granted because it still has a network covering the Middle East, Africa and other continents. Even if the US National Counterterrorism Centre reports of a significant decline in their activities, Al Qaeda is still strong in counties like Yemen where it has successfully executed a series of invasions throughout the year. At the same time, its operations get a lot of financial support from its sympathizers all of whom should be investigated and prosecuted.
In conclusion, I would agree with this revelation because it has been a long term plan for this dreaded group to inflict pain to the unsuspecting US government. While it is it is true that the federal government and its agencies are capable of preventing such ordeals, nothing should be left for chance. Despite the sharp decline in the number of group’s casualties to 31% over the last one year, it should be noted that it has executed 81 successful attacks in Pakistan. Meaning, the death of Osama was not its ultimate end.
Al jazeera channel one of the strong factors and causes of the Arab spring
Al jazeera channel one of the strong factors and causes of the Arab spring
Al Jazeera is a television channel owned and funded by the government of Qatar and is currently in various regions in the World. Initially launched as an Arabic news channel, Al Jazeera has been an important source of information for most Arab nations in the Persian Gulf since its establishment in 1996 (Hroub, 2011). This channel has grown to become very influential in the Arab World and in fact, it has been a major force in the recent revolutionary wave of protests and demonstrations occurring in Arab countries.
The wave of Arab revolutions (also known as Arab spring) started in December 17, 2010, in Tunisia after a street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself on fire near a government building protesting against confiscation of his wares by the police. This sparked a wave of protests which intensified in January 24, 2011 after the vendor succumbed to fire injuries. Ten days later, Tunisia’s president, Zine ElAbidine Ben Ali, stepped down stepped down and fled out of the country.
According to Hijjawi (2012, p. 2), Al Jazeera had not been allowed in Tunisia for around two years. Though the channel had no established network in Tunisia, it was the first international media to note the protests in streets in the country (Fromherz, 2011, p. 8). During the initial stages of the protests, Al Jazeera relied on bloggers from Tunisia to gather information, which was then compiled to provide accurate and credible news. As the protests intensified, Aljazeera adopted an open cycle in which it broadcasted live news from Tunisia as they streamed online through blog sites.
The local media had also been transmitting news both locally and internationally about unrest in Tunisia. However, according to Hijjawi (2012, p. 2), its popularity had declined among civilians in Tunisia due to lack of adequate coverage of their concerns. As a result, Tunisians citizens increasingly followed their revolution on Aljazeera which was then hosted by friendly local TV stations. During the protests, Tunisians lifted placards praising Aljazeera. With time, Aljazeera became close to the hearts of Tunisians and as they saw it as mirror in which they were being represented. In fact, as (Fromherz, 2011, p. 8) explains, Aljazeera became the closest channel to the hearts and minds of Tunisians. Generally, the channel helped them to believe in the revolution they had embarked on, which they succeeded. One remarkable thing Al Jazeera during the Tunisian case was that it did not create deep awareness or solid political culture in the country. Rather, it allowed Tunisians to have faith in their own thoughts, similar to Egyptian case.
According to Hijjawi (2012, p. 3), prior to the Egyptian unrest, Aljazeera was unpopular among Egyptian households and in fact, it was practically absent in Egyptian screens. This was largely caused by presence of numerous local TV channels which broadcasted local news with great degree of professionalism. TV stations thrived under a high degree of freedom of information that used to exist in the country for a long time. However, the freedom suffered a strong and painful blow from Egyptian government’s security apparatus a few days before parliamentary elections, two months prior to the boycott which began on 25 January, 2010. Local television stations were given strict restrictions regarding the channels to host and information to broadcast. During the period, Aljazeera started gaining some ground in Egypt.
According to Schattle, (2012), p. 53), though Al Jazeera had been absent in Egyptian screens it had had been airing Egyptian features for five years prior to the revolution. The government of Mubarak regularly criticized the channel for airing documentaries of torture acts in Egyptian police departments. It also arranged talk shows regularly attacking Al Jazeera, with intention to discredit it. To be precise, Al Jazeera gave Egypt greatest coverage compared to all other nations in the Arab League. However, given that it was absent in Egyptian screens, it played little role in mobilizing people to the streets. The move to the streets was galvanized by young men and women of Egypt’s middle class who had set January 25 as a date of protest on internet social sites (On Facebook and YouTube).
As protests intensified, the government of Mubarak ordered local television stations to obscure the events of the protests. Aljazeera started broadcasting on NileSat satellite, the only way that the channel was viewed in Egypt. This satellite was interrupted the Egyptian government making it difficult for Al Jazeera to broadcast news in Tunisia. Nevertheless, Al Jazeera managed to resume its broadcast through friendly local stations. As the protests continued, the channel increased its broadcast in country and managed to touch the hearts of many Egyptians. The channel managed to imprint one idea in the minds of Egyptians; that they lived in a shadow of regime which defied time (Hijjawi 2012, p. 3).
According to Sidlow & Henschen, (2012, p. 272), Aljazeera displayed the image of Mubarak’s after his speech on February 1, 2010 “as an old president telling his people that he wants to die on Egyptian soil.” The channel kept reassuring the protesting Egyptians that it believed in them and in their struggle. Over time, Aljazeera gained much popularity among Egyptians and they started giving much praise to the channel, as Tunisians did. Generally, the channel was very clear in its support for the revolutionaries as opposed to other international and local stations that visibly wavered.
After some time, Al Jazeera’s reporters based in Egypt were arrested and its offices networks closed. Al Jazeera sent people secretly from Qatar to Egypt to work as reporters. For several days, it was unable to display images from the scenes and when it did, it relied on the work of amateur reporters (Hijjawi 2012, p. 3). It sent reporters in all cities in Egypt, which helped to increase coverage. The channel’s reporters relayed information to Egyptians and to the world in any way they could. It invited studio guests from Egypt whose contributions further inflamed the street protests. The station worked hard to commit to the demands of protesters until the fall of Mubarak on February 12, 2011. The successful revolution was also success to Al Jazeera. Similar to the case of Tunisia, this TV broadcaster did not promote any particular ideology or party but kept broadcasting the events as if it represented the revolutionaries.
Three days after the fall of Mubarak, Libya’s opposition party, National Transitional Council (NTC), led civilians to protest against dictatorial regime of Colonel Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi. The opposition also called for Al-Jazeera, which responded immediately and took a stance for the people against Gaddafi. The channel started airing news and events from the country and hosted television channels from Egypt which covered the trends of the unrest. The channel managed to mobilize public opinion just as in the case of Tunisia and Egypt. In coalition with other major forces, Al Jazeera led to successful revolution in Libya, which ended in the death of Muammar Gaddafi.
In more recent cases of Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, the trend has been the same for Al Jazeera. In these countries, Al Jazeera has made full use of social media by gathering feeds from protesters who take footage on their mobile phones, Face book postings and Twitter feeds (Hamiyyeh, 2012). In all these cases, Al Jazeera has managed to mobilize crowds, given them confidence to rise against oppressive rules.
References
Fromherz, A., (2011), Qatar: A Modern History, I.B. Tauris, New York
Hijjawi, A., (2012), ‘The Role of Al-Jazeera (Arabic) in the Arab Revolts of 2011,’ Accessed 27
March 2012 from, http://www.ps.boell.org/downloads/Perspectives_02-10_Aref_Hijjawi1.pdfHroub, K., (2011), ‘How Al-Jazeera’s Arab spring advanced Qatar’s foreign policies’ Autumn
2011, Accessed 27 March 2012 from, http://www.europesworld.org/NewEnglish/Home_old/Article/tabid/191/ArticleType/ArticleView/ArticleID/21877/HowAlJazeerasArabspringadvancedQatarsforeignpolicies.aspxSchattle, H., (2012), Globalization and Citizenship, Rowman & Littlefield, London
Sidlow, E. I. & Henschen, B., (2012), Govt (with Political Science Coursemate with EBook
Printed Access Card), Cengage Learning, Washington DC
Hamiyyeh, H., “Aljazeera” Channel Merchandises the “Arabic Spring”: From Bahrain to Syrias,
Accessed 27 March 2012 from, http://www.english.moqawama.org/essaydetails.php?eid=13982&cid=269