My thoughts on gun control are pretty firm, even though I understand both arguments. Yes, it’s true that guns can serve to protect you from other people with bigger guns. BUT the only way we can minimize death by guns is to make it harder to get these guns. The problem will only fester and worsen if action isn’t taken to control the gun market. Simple fact: fewer guns means fewer deaths. Action must be taken to make gun control more stringent.
I feel like everyone is going to reflect on guns, but I will try to take a different route. First of all, I’d like to take this opportunity to tell everyone to go see Changeling, by Clint Eastwood and starring Angelina Jolie. It was a superb movie, the kind that grasps your attention the entire time. In particular I thought of you, Rachel, because this movie was based in the 1920’s when women’s rights were atrocious. I was so disgusted by the way Jolie’s character was treated and I think you would be similarly affected. Even though it was disturbing, it’s the kind of movie that really makes you think. (And I know you probably don’t think very highly of Angelina as an actor because I don’t tend to think highly of her either, but she did a great job.) How does this relate to security? Well, the premise of the movie is about a young boy who is kidnapped. Without giving anything away, I just want to point out that there is nothing in this world (not even guns) that could have prevented this tragedy or many others like it. Instead, through easy access to guns, these tragedies will become more common as we can see with the increase of gun-related deaths in the past century. If there is a way we can learn to prevent gun violence, that would be wonderful. But until some serious funding is produced for prevention methods, guns should be off the street and hard to get.
Ahh and how could I forget about the spy museum?! Well I thought it was pretty darn cool. I wish that I could have spent more time there, but unfortunately I had to speed through to get someplace else on time. From what I did see, I was very intrigued. The fact that stuck with me was that D.C. has the most spies per capita any place in the world! First of all, how do they know this? And second of all, wow, that’s pretty scary (but in a cool way).
An interesting exhibit that I wasn’t expecting to come across was the one about carrier birds! I couldn’t believe how vital these birds were in communication of World War I and many previous wars. At first I thought the exhibit was a hoax and it couldn’t possibly be true. But I learned that some crazy statistic (I believe 95%) of all the messages sent from pigeons to humans were received. Who would have thought? And there was this one pigeon, named Cher Ami (Dear Friend) that even received an award of honor for being shot down in the line of fire but he still completed his mission and delivered the message to the officer! I was in complete awe. If you feel like smiling, check out the brief, heartwarming article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Ami
The other thing I found interesting at the museum were the spy tactics of the ancient English royalty especially in the Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots era. Admittedly, I am obsessed with this era of English royalty, but in general I thought Queen Elizabeth’s extensive spy service was fascinating. It was headed by Francis Walsingham, who ultimately caught Mary Queen of Scots (Elizabeth’s competitive cousin) in her scheme to take Elizabeth’s place and brought her down to her death. Without Walsingham, Elizabeth would undoubtedly have been murdered or dethroned by conspirators who thought a woman was too weak to rule England. Because of her network of spies, Elizabeth went down in English history as one of its greatest rulers of all time. Simply because Queen Elizabeth was in such a vulnerable position, this vast network of spying techniques were implemented by Walsingham and obviously were effective!
So those are just a few things I thought I would share with you all. One final note… did you guys notice how the spy museum portrayed spying to be an older “profession” that is somewhat history? I was disappointed that there wasn’t a lot of information about current day spying (at least not that I saw) and that most of the attention was on Cold War era spies. However, I am guessing that it would be much riskier to have information about modern day spies and also very difficult to obtain information about them... so I guess it’s ok.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Carrier pigeons are alright. But they're not nearly as cool as the missile-guiding pigeons trained by BF Skinner, the father of behaviorism in psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon
I agree with your belief that some gun control is needed, but completly disagree with your statement that "Simple fact: fewer guns means fewer deaths." That is simply not true! Criminals will get guns, regardless of any laws or bans on them. If ordinary citizens are not able to have guns to protect themselves from those that obtain them illegally to use for violence, our society is in trouble. There are too many instances in which legal gun owners have prevented more deaths by stepping in and killing the shooter before they kill more people for that statement to be true. Jasmine's blog post includes a specific example of this. Guns are dangerous and they do kill people, but they can also be used for protection. I feel like it's hard to look at the good that guns do because they are capable of doing so much harm, but sometimes you need to. Guns are dangerous, but the way to stop gun violence isn't by taking guns away from people who want them legally and for the right reasons.
Hahaha Ben thanks for sharing that link... using pigeons in the military seems like a ridiculous idea now, but before the technology we have today it was a brilliant idea!
Michele... I am not saying that citizens shouldn't have access to guns to protect themselves. I agree that criminals will be determined to get guns. But what you don't see is that more people will become criminals with easy access to guns. More people will kill if there are more guns. That is why gun control will minimize the number of guns just floating around for any person to pick up and it will make it more difficult for someone to own a firearm, legally or illegally. How can you refute that by having less easily available guns, less people will be able to murder? It seems like simple math to me. Do you have a better solution to stopping gun violence besides decreasing the amount of readily available guns? That is the only way I can think of and your last sentence makes me believe that you have a different solution.
Emily, why are you and I the same person? and why aren't you watching the Daily Show with me right now? I agree with you on pretty much everything you say in your blog; the Spy Museum was very enjoyable, I love the Elizabethan Era, etc. I have a proposition for you: do you want to go with me to the femminist exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery? It is AMAZING! I went there and I hardly even had time to get through half of it, but it was INCREDIBLE...like I mean breath taking. You are the only person that I would really want to go with.
Michele,
I haven't gotten a chance to read Jasmine's post yet, but the way you describe it it sounds like the example she is using is just annecdotal evidence. In my blog I tried to provide data (arguing in favor of gun control) that is statistically significant based on relatively wide population samples. I don't really think that the general restriction of guns will ever be acceptable to most Americans, but I believe that there should be some extensive background check methods in place.
Post a Comment