Before I begin this article, I'd like to say that regulating something means you create rules for it.
In the article, "Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" Nicholas D. Kristof brings to light the idea of regulating guns. He gives a statistic that children from age 5 to 14 are 13 times more likely to be murdered with guns. Kristof also said that we know that the U.S. won't ban guns, but can at least create rules to reduce the murders.
He said that children in American schools have safety in school with codes and what not. Also, that the buses are double-checked for saftey and that even the food from the cafeteria is checked for saftey. However, Kristof feels as though we don't care much for the things that are more likely to kill us.
Kristof states that The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a five page book on regualtions of ladders, but shrugs at the thought of regulating firearms. Ladders kill about 300 Americans a year, whereas guns, 30,000. I think you can see where he was going.
Kristof compares regukating guns to the way cars are regulated. "I understand: shooting is fun! But so is driving, and we accept that we must wear seqat belts, use headlights at night, and fill out forms to buy a car. Why can't we be equally adult about regulating guns?" Kristoff said. Basically, he's saying that if we can buy cars, and accept the rules that go along with that, why can't we buy a gun with the same type system.
Later in the article, Kristof says that people often say that it's not the gun that kills people, but it's the crazy or psycho who does it. However, he said that when someone get's in a car accident, we don't shrug and say "Cars don't kill people, drunks do."
I agree that we should regulate guns. Like Kristof said, the U.S. won't ban guns, so why can't we just have a few rules to make the possess of guns safer. I liked the way he compared the regulations of cars to regulating guns. It showed how simple it would be to regulate guns. However, not all people follow the rules of driving (which is why we have drunk drivers.) With that being said, if people don't always follow the rules of driving, why would they follow the rules of possessing a gun.
With all of that being said, I guess I'm in the middle of the idea of regulating guns. If we do, people might feel safer, but in all reality, not all people will follow the rules. So it's like, we regulate them, but what's the point?
In the article, "Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" Nicholas D. Kristof brings to light the idea of regulating guns. He gives a statistic that children from age 5 to 14 are 13 times more likely to be murdered with guns. Kristof also said that we know that the U.S. won't ban guns, but can at least create rules to reduce the murders.
He said that children in American schools have safety in school with codes and what not. Also, that the buses are double-checked for saftey and that even the food from the cafeteria is checked for saftey. However, Kristof feels as though we don't care much for the things that are more likely to kill us.
Kristof states that The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a five page book on regualtions of ladders, but shrugs at the thought of regulating firearms. Ladders kill about 300 Americans a year, whereas guns, 30,000. I think you can see where he was going.
Kristof compares regukating guns to the way cars are regulated. "I understand: shooting is fun! But so is driving, and we accept that we must wear seqat belts, use headlights at night, and fill out forms to buy a car. Why can't we be equally adult about regulating guns?" Kristoff said. Basically, he's saying that if we can buy cars, and accept the rules that go along with that, why can't we buy a gun with the same type system.
Later in the article, Kristof says that people often say that it's not the gun that kills people, but it's the crazy or psycho who does it. However, he said that when someone get's in a car accident, we don't shrug and say "Cars don't kill people, drunks do."
I agree that we should regulate guns. Like Kristof said, the U.S. won't ban guns, so why can't we just have a few rules to make the possess of guns safer. I liked the way he compared the regulations of cars to regulating guns. It showed how simple it would be to regulate guns. However, not all people follow the rules of driving (which is why we have drunk drivers.) With that being said, if people don't always follow the rules of driving, why would they follow the rules of possessing a gun.
With all of that being said, I guess I'm in the middle of the idea of regulating guns. If we do, people might feel safer, but in all reality, not all people will follow the rules. So it's like, we regulate them, but what's the point?
Interesting post. I think the idea is that we want to try to reduce the number of gun deaths. It's unrealistic to say that we are going to eliminate them. For example, do you think that we should get rid of all driving rules, just because some people don't follow them? 95
ReplyDelete