The Great Gun Debate: A Useful Distraction?
It's becoming rather tiresome now - listening to the looping rhetoric of rich men in suits.
For the last 10 years, political clashes over gay marriage, abortion and gun laws have brought us many news stories (some more interesting than others), but people are now beginning to question whether it's actually worth putting so much money and attention into topics which seem almost petty when put alongside the greater issues in our world.
As tragic as last year's shootings were, I think that we're lucky to live in a world where such events are becoming more and more of a rarity.
While the figures for homicide in the US have been dropping steadily (the same decline can be seen in most developed countries), gun control arguments are becoming much more aggressive and much more frequent.
The contrast between homicide figures falling, and media attention rising, leads more questions.
Why is the media so obsessed with oogling over trivial arguments? The free ownership of firearms something deeply embedded into both American history and culture.
Some say that it's symbolic value is just as (if not greater) than it's physical one - firearms have always been a representation of your right to protection and self defense (this constitutional level of freedom is something held tightly by the Conservative factions).
It would be foolish to have a complete ban on guns with a complete disregard for the cultural and social implications.
The amount of controversy (just at this debate stage) is staggering, and I cannot even begin to imagine the consequences of an out-right decision being in made.
Campaigning, gun lobbies and aggressive journalism are all part of the whole gun controversy.
The noise created by activists and politicians has probably done a lot more damage than it has done good.
The Gun debate isn't just political, it's often drilled into communities on a social, and even personal level, and with that - comes arrogance and rigid viewpoints.
Regardless of the damage a gun can do, the 'extremists' on both sides of the argument need to consider the social consequences of an absolute decision.
Guns are banned, social insecurity will follow.
Guns are given complete relaxation, fear and insecurity will follow.
A realistic compromise needs to be made by the lobbies on both side, and the compromise needs to be made fast without prolonging the controversy that plagues papers, blogs and news channels.
A divided opposition is a weaker opposition.
This line of thinking has allowed for a complete diversion of media and journalism, and has driven (in my opinion) more significant global reports from the spotlight.
While thousands die in foreign wars, and US interventionism becomes ever more influential - the petty domestic disputes seem almost like a distraction.
It's within the interests of the US to keep a diluted argument in the loop, than have a clear announcement to give the public an idea of where American policies are heading.
The more detached 'normal' people come from the greater scope, the more flexibility governments and corporations have to do things that would have been shunned otherwise.
For the last 10 years, political clashes over gay marriage, abortion and gun laws have brought us many news stories (some more interesting than others), but people are now beginning to question whether it's actually worth putting so much money and attention into topics which seem almost petty when put alongside the greater issues in our world.
As tragic as last year's shootings were, I think that we're lucky to live in a world where such events are becoming more and more of a rarity.
While the figures for homicide in the US have been dropping steadily (the same decline can be seen in most developed countries), gun control arguments are becoming much more aggressive and much more frequent.
The contrast between homicide figures falling, and media attention rising, leads more questions.
Why is the media so obsessed with oogling over trivial arguments? The free ownership of firearms something deeply embedded into both American history and culture.
Some say that it's symbolic value is just as (if not greater) than it's physical one - firearms have always been a representation of your right to protection and self defense (this constitutional level of freedom is something held tightly by the Conservative factions).
It would be foolish to have a complete ban on guns with a complete disregard for the cultural and social implications.
The amount of controversy (just at this debate stage) is staggering, and I cannot even begin to imagine the consequences of an out-right decision being in made.
Campaigning, gun lobbies and aggressive journalism are all part of the whole gun controversy.
The noise created by activists and politicians has probably done a lot more damage than it has done good.
The Gun debate isn't just political, it's often drilled into communities on a social, and even personal level, and with that - comes arrogance and rigid viewpoints.
Regardless of the damage a gun can do, the 'extremists' on both sides of the argument need to consider the social consequences of an absolute decision.
Guns are banned, social insecurity will follow.
Guns are given complete relaxation, fear and insecurity will follow.
A realistic compromise needs to be made by the lobbies on both side, and the compromise needs to be made fast without prolonging the controversy that plagues papers, blogs and news channels.
A divided opposition is a weaker opposition.
This line of thinking has allowed for a complete diversion of media and journalism, and has driven (in my opinion) more significant global reports from the spotlight.
While thousands die in foreign wars, and US interventionism becomes ever more influential - the petty domestic disputes seem almost like a distraction.
It's within the interests of the US to keep a diluted argument in the loop, than have a clear announcement to give the public an idea of where American policies are heading.
The more detached 'normal' people come from the greater scope, the more flexibility governments and corporations have to do things that would have been shunned otherwise.
Source...