Ineffective vs Effective Gun Control

    If the point of gun control is to reduce gun violence and crime rates, than politicians are targeting gun control in an ineffective manner. The majority of gun laws are emotional laws, or they are targeting a specific aspects of a gun, which has no effect on crime rates.

    Take the AK-47 for example. It is synonymous to the bad guy. When people think of the gun, most people think of terrorists and our enemies. Therefore people only view it as a bad weapon, not the tool that it is. When the AK is banned, it doesn't make sense because there are other rifles that have very similar characteristics that are not being banned simply because they don't have the same name and look as the AK. Another issue are the countless attachments or variations of weapons that are banned, which has little to no effect besides making the lives of the law abiding citizen that much harder. Look towards the 1994 Assault RIfles Ban. The results were inconclusive. It did not significantly reduce crime, nor did it increase crime. Essentially they created a law that did nothing, and only annoyed law abiding citizens. Lastly, when too many restricting gun laws are in place, a rise in gun violence may occur like what happened in Chicago.  When Chicago banned all handguns, the percent of murders with handguns increased nearly 40%. (justfacts.com) The point of the law was to decrease handgun murders, but more murders were being committed by handguns. Clearly the law was not effective. Currently the majority of the laws that are being proposed are just more nuances, that do nothing except make people feel good that they are combating gun violence.

    There is only one good argument that is being talked about right now and that is banning the selling of weapons to people on the no fly list, but even that has flaws. Some people are arbitrarily put on the no fly list. To make the law fair, citizens must have a way to appeal being on the no fly list, that way they do not have their rights stripped without due process. Another possible law would be to enforce mental health screenings every five years or so, until they age out in their elder years. Most people would pass easily and they can continue on living their lives owning guns. But it would still prevent the mentally unstable people from obtaining weapons legally. The second possible law that should be brought up, that has already been proven to work here in the United States, is Project Exile. Project Exile was a program developed to significantly decrease the amount of gun violence by making the penalties for illegal gun ownership and use much stricter in Virginia, 1997. It gave people a minimum of five years in prison when caught with an illegal firearm. It was possibly the most effective gun law ever written. It dropped firearm related murders by almost 40%.(policechiefmagazine.org) No gun ban or feature restriction has ever come that close to being that effective. It only applies to criminals, not the law abiding citizen, and criminals are the reason we need gun control. However, this law was terminated because certain politicians deemed it discriminatory towards minorities. It targets people who break the law, not people of color. If all three potential laws were to be put into place, it would have tremendous success in reducing gun violence, which is the ultimate goal of gun control.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=3192&issue_id=112013

Hillary Clinton Had Pneumonia

“Hillary Clinton: Had Pneumonia” is the opening headline in Zach Galifianakis’ Between Two Ferns, and the video is an incredibly effective and strategic step toward Clinton’s goal to reach younger voters. In the twelve hours since being released, the video has had thousands of tweets, comments, and about half a million views. In less than a week, it has received another ten million views. It will undoubtedly continue to rapidly gain attention and showcase a more humorous, relatable side of the candidate.

The purposefully awkward and hostile interview with Galifianakis might be Hillary’s most favorable interview yet. A “behind the scenes” reveals she suggested the video be created, as well as the fact that the majority of it was improvised. Hillary has been mocked in her previous attempts to show her playful side, and a huge setback in popularity has been how likable she is perceived as. Seeing the presidential candidate in this context makes her seem genuinely relatable, and, as stated by the director in the interview, “She let out a big laugh on one of the early questions after Zach asked it, and it set us at ease that she got it and was having a good time... Zach would tell a joke and she would laugh really hard. And of course, we can’t use the laugh because that’s not what these are about.” Clinton’s enjoyment of the process, her genuine humor, and her relatability all make the interview incredibly light-hearted and fun for the audience. As Clinton has struggled with claims of her being “cold,” “distant,” and “calculating,” among many others, this interview shows a genuine humor that is not often seen.

I wasn't a Hillary supporter to start. At the beginning of this election, I was definitely feeling the Bern. I felt that Bernie Sanders was more likable. I believed he was a better public speaker, and I agreed with many of his ideals. And now, looking back, I realize I fell for something that many of us did. At first, I agreed with claims that Hillary appeared “cold,” “calculating,” “distant,” and even “unlikable.” I knew she was more than qualified, but was she someone I really wanted representing our nation? I should have known better, and known to have recognized the sexism embedded within my own perception.

I wished Clinton would show the passion that Sanders does in her speeches, or banter with other candidates during debates. I held these expectations without acknowledging that, if she were to act as an ideal male candidate, she would only receive criticism. She would sound “shrill,” “too emotional,” and “hormonal.” In all of Clinton’s years in a workplace dominated by men, she has undoubtedly learned that, as a woman, controlled responses are necessary to gain respect. Her controlled character is easily misperceived as aloof, cold, and calculating, but those are all things she absolutely has to be in order to be taken seriously.

Hillary Clinton has pressed through an incredible amount of sexism, and, having learned how to react to it, is seldom seen in a casual manner. Galifianakis created an environment in which she doesn’t need to be reserved and controlled. It wasn’t a serious event. This interview reveals a genuine part of her personality, and is a refreshing reminder of the upcoming election. If Clinton is elected this fall, it would be making a huge step in history. "Not to take away from that historical significance from you perhaps becoming the first female president, but for younger, younger generations you will become their first white president," Galifianakis deadpans. "That’s pretty neat too."

Between Two Ferns: https://youtu.be/xrkPe-9rM1Q