Gun Violence

In wake of the December 13th tragedy at Sandy Hook High School, the issues of mental health and gun violence are being brought into question. Many are asking, "Is the country responsible for the mentally ill?" However, the real issue is within the accessibility and unnecessary gun access that every citizen has. To take a "what if" scenario, if Adam Lanza, the shooter at Sandy Hook, did not have access to guns, he would not be able to attempt such a tragic shooting.

Some people are pinning the blame on the violence in video games. However, it is a simulation, and although it does seem to have a violent impact upon the children, it is not the biggest factor contributing to the death of many elementary school kids. Video games can be harmful in mental health but is only able to be a killing factor when combined with the real life materials. Gun rights advocates seem to be bringing up the 2nd amendment in every scenario possible to limit gun rights, but they fail to see that the situation has changed. When the second amendment was written by our forefathers, they did not anticipate that they could walk into a store and pick up a piece of metal that can kill hundreds of people in seconds to be part of the future. As the times have changed, so to must our laws. Guns should not be available to the public, because they simply are not necessary for anything. If you wanted a gun in 2012, what would you want it for? The police and army are protecting you both locally and globally, and the chances of a zombie apocalypse are close to 0%, we simply don't have the technology to reanimate dead tissue. Our chances of dying from a vending machine is higher than that.

The only reason that people want a gun in the 21st century is because they have the intention to kill. Even hunters don't use fully automatic guns as they are unwieldy and uncontrollable. The weapons used in Sandy Hook were designed for killing humans. Is that fully necessary to be releasing to the public? In fact, it is easier to obtain a gun license and buy those guns for yourself than to get a drivers license. The background checks and safety checks for buying a gun are very limited and not very effective, as proven multiple times. We are in an epidemic of shooting, with Sandy Hook and the theater in Colorado happening within a very short time span. These once-in-a-lifetime tragedies are happening every day.

Works Cited

Boehlert, Eric. "Why Won't Press Put U.S. Gun Violence In Context?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21 Dec. 2012. Web. 21 Dec. 2012.

"Preventing the next Adam Lanza Requires Action Today." Fox News. FOX News Network, 18 Dec. 2012. Web. 21 Dec. 2012.

"TRENDING: Obama Responds to Petitions against Gun Violence." CNN Political Ticker RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2012.

Zakaria, Fareed. "The Solution to Gun Violence Is Clear." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 20 Dec. 2012. Web. 21 Dec. 2012. 

The Economy

In an effort to avoid the fiscal cliff, Republicans introduced their budget plan in order to save the economy. However, democrats quickly rebuffed it saying that it does not "meet the test of balance". The balance trying to be achieved is finding the right amount of cuts and tax increases and still getting the maximum amount of savings possible. Although the Republicans have a plan that slightly increases savings, it is not entirely realistic because it dampers the middle class even more than it is now and in some scenarios help the wealthy top percentage, our biggest taxpayers.

I believe that the Republican plan to avoid the fiscal cliff is not entirely appropriate at this situation. The wealthiest in our nation have indeed sometimes earned their way to the top, but once you get there, you sometimes forget your humble roots. They should be giving the most simply because they have the most, which is accountable for much more than the middle class. The republicans did give a proposal that would create an outrage from the public. One of their saving ideas includes $200 billion over 10 years by changing the way the government calculates inflation, which would negatively impact benefit increases in government programs such as Medicare or Social Security. It would also raise taxes by slowing the yearly rise in tax brackets. Republicans realized that this approach could be unpopular, but it was the "right response" to the deficits over $1 trillion.

The plan in theory does seem to aid the economy, but in reality it would create an outrage and the wealthiest in our nation would be getting away with minimal to no change in their tax programs. The people in the middle class should constitute to a large sum of the money being paid in taxes, but the upper class should be somewhere close, because although they lack numbers they have the money to fill the gap. The Republican plan also may increase taxes in some situations for the middle class and hurt programs that the middle class needs to live on, like Medicare. If this plan was to be enacted into play, we would see a huge amount of middle class Americans suffering while the upper class (top 2%) get away without much of an impact.





Works Cited

Killough, Ashley, Adam Levy, Deirdre Walsh, and Greg Botelho. "House GOP Offers Plan to Avoid Fiscal Cliff, but White House Says No." CNN. Cable News Network, 04 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html>.

Parkinson, John. "Boehner Counters Obama Deficit-Cutting Deal With ‘Credible Plan’." ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/boehner-counters-obama-deficit-cutting-deal-with-credible-plan/>.

Weisman, Johnathan. "Republicans Make Counteroffer in Fiscal Talks." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 3 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/us/politics/boehner-counters-obamas-proposal-on-deficit-cuts.html?_r=0>.