This article is talking about how there is a cutoff deadline for members of Congress to sign up for Obamacare. Since there have been many problems recently with signing up the deadline for Congress members was extended for an extra week in compensation for the trouble with getting people who sign up verified. Many feel that this is giving them special treatment yet there aren't deadlines for anyone else to sign up. Congress is also the only ones being required to exchange their current benefits with Obamacare in order to continue to get employee health benefits. In my opinion this is not special treatment for them because they are the only ones who have the requirement and who have a deadline at all and he reason for the deadline is something that is out of their control.
I don't see how people could see this as special treatment, especially sense they're the only ones who have the requirement or deadline. The deadline should move accordingly on what's all going on that gets in the congress' way, its not their fault if something gets in the way.
Yeah, I don't really think this is any kind of special treatment either. Their circumstances are different from most people's, so it makes sense that they would have different deadlines. Also, they can't help if something comes up and gets in the way of them signing up.
I too agree that this shouldn't be considered special treatment, I do not see how it could be seen that way considering that they are the only ones with a deadline in the first place. Also, if the people in charge of getting people signed up are having trouble getting people verified, I do not see how that could be held over Congress' heads.
This article is about Senate approving the bill to renew a bill that bans guns that can not be picked up by metal detectors. Its expiration came to attention because of the making of mostly or completely nonmetal guns by 3D printers. In my opinion this bill being renewed will help prevent the misuse of guns in places where they should never be in the first place. I also think that there should be the addition to the bill that all plastic or other nonmetal firearms should have to have a meal attachment in order to fire so they can not be passed through any type of metal detector.
I did not know that guns could be made with other materials besides metal. I think that not only should they ban nonmetal guns, but they should also make sure everyone carrying should have their CCW license and present it at the time of going through the metal detector just in case they have a nonmetal gun. If they do not, then there should be serious consequences because guns are serious!
They make non metal guns?! I think that this is insane, and I completely agree that they should have some type of metal to be noticed by metal detectors, or they should be banned. This could lead to some serious problems if not fixed!
They should totally ban these freaky non-metal guns, or at least make some new restrictions for them. These 3d printers are so gnarly. I was initially psyched, because like, they can print food, you know? But printing guns? That's like using the technology to get around gun laws, or something. I feel like it's a total misuse. It's going to be a hassle finding ways to combat these breaches of security.
Hey, I heard about these plastic guns! I'm totally for this bill because what if someone who's bonkers finds a smart guy with a 3D printer and gets a huge arsenal of 3D-printed weapons and dresses them up in little doll clothing and kills people? I wouldn't want that kind of blood on my hands. Why must science always be used for evil? That's another question to address in my memoir.
I feel that the ban on plastic guns is overall a good thing. However, it is not the guns themselves that are the problem, it is with the people who manufacture and use them. We currently have laws that ban felons from having guns but not surprisingly, many of those felons still get guns and commit more crimes with them. The ban on plastic guns will have about the same effect as these other laws. It will prevent the normally law abiding person from doing a one-time stupid act of trying to carry around a gun at an airport. The ban will not stop a serious criminal as that is just one more law they laugh at and ignore. Maybe convicted felons should have to have a background check at the store to buy a 3D printer so at least it would be harder for them to get this type of weapon.
This doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Well unless they would use this for like detectives or police forces. This seems like it could be super bad especially with how they are trying to ban guns and make it so people can't even have them, but yet people still do it illegally.
This story is bad all the way around. The fact that the bill made it all the way to congress is bad. The idea of plastic guns that cannot be detected by metal detectors sounds really bad. Whoever came up with this idea is just evil and plotting something. The reason why someone would want a plastic gun is to do something bad. If you’re an honest person and want to carry a gun legally you’d want a real gun that is detectable.
Nonmetal firearms have been becoming a thing for awhile now guys, 3D printers are now making it just a lot easier to do. You know, they have guns that can fold into a small rectangle that's really easily concealable, but those aren't being banned (just saying). I think with the way technology is going they won't be able to stop plastic weaponry from becoming the new norm, so they'll have to do something besides simply banning nonmetal weapons. Props to anyone that figure out a system of tracking ammunition electronically, or much more likely, electronically managing firearms like in those sci-fi movies. Think about it, being able to control whether or not a gun fired using computer chips. That's probably where we're heading ladies and gentlemen
what is adding a metal part to the bill going to do? if they are going to misuse the guns then they are going to get rid of the metal anyways. we really don't have a choice because these weapons are going to become more available, so as our technology evolves then we have to evolve our security.
People that use non-metal guns are most likely going to be misusing it in the first place. People that want to have a gun for protection and other reasons would not need to take it into a place where no one else are going to have guns either. This seems like a legitimate bill and should be renewed.
I don't think this bill will be very effective as there is a fine line between a firearm and something else and it wouldn't be too hard to change it so much as to get around the law. Any other weapon could be suitable for a criminal to bring through a metal detector. Also, with what Curtis said, anyone with a plastic gun is most likely malevolent anyways and it wouldn't matter if they were breaking the law.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/10/politics/budget-negotiations/index.html?hpt=po_c1 This article discusses the new budget deal created by Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Patty Murray. They created a bill that will cut billions in military spending along with billions in deficit reductions. Without the approval of this deal we may be looking at another government shutdown if this deal is no approved by Congress.
I think that the government shutting down is very likely to happen again, if not now, but again in the near future. I think that the Republicans may not want to risk their audience turning against them by causing all of this turmoil. I think it would be very unwise. However, politics is a competitive subject and I think that the question of budget and shutting down the government is an inevitable happening.
This article is about the House finally approving a budget so that the government would not shut down again. Now the Senate has to approve it too for it to be passed. This is the first full budget agreement expected to pass by a divided government. I think this is a very beneficial decision that can really help all of the people who were affected by the government shut down last time, not have to fear another government shut down. The government shutting down in October hurt our economy. The shut down was very unnecessary and only cost people money due to a law that was already passed. This is a great step in the right direction for our country. http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/politics/congress-budget-why-now/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I hope that the news agencies continue to monitor this closely. Congress is patting itself on the back for coming up with a deal for a budget and preventing another costly shutdown. We will have to wait and see if congratulations are too soon until they actually pass this measure. One of our former Presidents expressed it will with his Trust but Verify comment. We can trust that they are on the right path, but we need to keep watching and verifying until the bill actually goes through. There could be any number of ways that some Congressman or Senator adds a special interest riders that causes the bill to get rejected and then we face another crisis and shut down.
This article discusses a congressman who is pushing for better mental health treatment and care in the U.S. in light of the Sandy Hook tragedy. It is very true that today in America we have a great deal of people with mental illness' that do not get the help they need. If this new bill passes, federal privacy rules will be loosened so that doctors can better communicate patient information with their loved ones, it also would ask for more beds and in and out patient services to be covered by those who have medicaid. This would certainly help out the number of tragedies like Sandy Hook, and others that do not receive much attention occur less often.The American government often has mental issues unattended to even when they are reminded what it can do for other people, such as these school shootings. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/12/mental-health-pushed-in-congress-before-newtown-anniversary/?hpt=po_c2
This is a great idea for doctors to communicate better with family about what is going on with their patients but I think this is a an excuse. When someone does something horrible and they get back to their right minds and realize that they are going to be in trouble they claim to be insane to try to get away with it or get a better sentence and it’s not fair. If you did something own up to it and take the punishment you get and move on.
I agree as well that this is a great idea. I believe that those with mental illnesses can not be counted on to clearly think for themselves. I think patients families should be allowed to make decisions for their member who has a mental illness. It would help to prevent tragedies, but it also could bring in people who falsely claim to have a mental illness.
Living with a family member that has a mental illness, I can say that they are not able to think clearly for themselves. Families of these patients should be able to speak for them. I think that when mental people do bad things that they are not in there right state of mind, I think that they do deserve come corrective action but we should also be understanding of why that person did it.I'm not saying that Sandy Hook was good because it wasn't , I'm just saying that people who have a mental illness dont think straight. I think the whole medicade thing is good as well
http://crossfire.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/04/increase-the-minimum-wage/ This article is about increasing the minimum wage. They increase it every year anyways. But the more they increase it, the more taxes and everything else goes up. I think its kind of dumb to increase it every year but they still do. Which they'e already done it twice. But like myself, I work two jobs. One being a server and we make 3.85 plus tips which is about half of the 7.95 normal minimum wage. So if they increase minimum wage, they should increase it for servers up to like only a dollar under the normal minimum wage. Just an idea, but then that goes into a whole different category of the business with their labor and how much they hae coming in vs. how much they are putting out.
I agree with the idea on not raising the minimum wage. If the minimum wage increases, like you said that would result in more taxes and also if this minimum wage increased, then maybe the people who only try for minimum wage and nothing higher would stay at the minimum wage level just because they know that this minimum wage keeps getting increased to the point where they just receive more money for just having minimum wage.
They increase the minimum wage to account for inflation. There's a reason why you can't spend 20.00$ and get the same amount of groceries you would in 2000 as you would now 2013. And they'll never increase it to where the minimum wage is enough to live solely off of; the minimum wage laws are there so you can be paid something manageable instead of what those Chinese sweatshop workers make.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/13/21878758-poll-support-for-strict-gun-control-drops-to-pre-newtown-levels?lite Last year after the Sandy Hood shooting the amount of people favoring stricter gun control increased to 61% last February only two months after the shooting. Now people favoring stricter gun control has dropped to only 52%. That is still a high amount but 95 in a nation of 317 million people that's about 28 million people who's minds where changed. Oddly enough when I came looking for this article I saw some breaking news about a high school shooting in Colorado. No one has died that we know of, but this is sure to spark another fire in the legislation for stricter gun control.
I find this article very interesting. It really makes me think back to when we talked about the whole federalism aspect of American politics. We talked about how the Framers were afraid of huge sparks of interests that would lead to quickly made policies, this is why it is so hard to make laws like these. I think that the fear that the Framers had is clear here, showing that about 28 million people have changed their minds.
I believe this article proves that people's opinions change over time. People wanted more gun control, but as the Sandy Hook tragedy popularity decreased, then they didn't really support gun control laws. Stricter gun control laws won't really change anything because they will be acquired illegally and still used. People don't really know what they want because they change as events change.
I tihnk this article is very interesting. It actually shows that people wanna take a stand for gun control, but at the same time how their opinions have changed. I agreee with what John said , It is hard to make decisions about these kinda things, considering so many people have changed there minds. I feel that stricter gun laws might work because it would be making it hard for someone to have or even purchase a gun.
i really have no idea how stricter gun laws can really make a difference. Most registered gun owners aren't the ones committing the crimes. The guns are either stolen or bought illegally. So then we have less people who will use their fire arm to possibly saves someones life or themselves because peoples emotions flare after any tragedy occurs.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/12/21879083-house-approves-budget-deal-over-token-conservative-opposition?lite The new budget deal has been pasted through the House at an overwhelming win. It was 332 yay and 94 nay. This new budget deal gives the guidelines for the national budget for the next two years. With Paul Ryan supporting it, it received support from the Republican party except for a few who's sponsors such as interest groups said that they wouldn't support them any more and the lawmakers became scared to lose their job so they went along since elections are not too far away. This caused an out lash by John Boehner saying that they were more interested in money than being a good lawmaker.
This article is how these people want more strict gun laws. The people in this article who wanted the stricter laws were giving the example of the school shootings that happened almost a year ago. I really do not believe though that stricter gun laws will really keep things like this from happening. After this shooting happened, all schools around the country have had more protections from these things happening, and these protections are actually good ideas. But if a person is already dumb enough to go and commit murder, then i would be sure that the person would still try to get these guns illegally and with out responsibility anyways.
I think that instead of gun control laws, we should have better school training for these types of situations. Westland's lockdown protocol leaves us like sitting ducks while schools elsewhere are so much better trained to handle these situations. This is what should be done for a lot of other schools.
I think that we do need gun control laws. If the law is enforced, then stupid, irresponsible people will be less likely to get guns, and if they get them through another person, then that person should face severe punishment, as well. Yes, while we are at school, it is the schools responsibility of our safety, however, if we just have secure schools and not safer restrictions on guns, then it is just a disaster waiting to happen. Gun safety should be tackled from all sides.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/10/politics/congress-obamacare-extension/index.html?hpt=po_c2
ReplyDeleteThis article is talking about how there is a cutoff deadline for members of Congress to sign up for Obamacare. Since there have been many problems recently with signing up the deadline for Congress members was extended for an extra week in compensation for the trouble with getting people who sign up verified. Many feel that this is giving them special treatment yet there aren't deadlines for anyone else to sign up. Congress is also the only ones being required to exchange their current benefits with Obamacare in order to continue to get employee health benefits. In my opinion this is not special treatment for them because they are the only ones who have the requirement and who have a deadline at all and he reason for the deadline is something that is out of their control.
I don't see how people could see this as special treatment, especially sense they're the only ones who have the requirement or deadline. The deadline should move accordingly on what's all going on that gets in the congress' way, its not their fault if something gets in the way.
DeleteYeah, I don't really think this is any kind of special treatment either. Their circumstances are different from most people's, so it makes sense that they would have different deadlines. Also, they can't help if something comes up and gets in the way of them signing up.
DeleteI too agree that this shouldn't be considered special treatment, I do not see how it could be seen that way considering that they are the only ones with a deadline in the first place. Also, if the people in charge of getting people signed up are having trouble getting people verified, I do not see how that could be held over Congress' heads.
Deletehttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/09/senate-approves-gun-screening-bill-sends-to-obama/?hpt=po_c2
ReplyDeleteThis article is about Senate approving the bill to renew a bill that bans guns that can not be picked up by metal detectors. Its expiration came to attention because of the making of mostly or completely nonmetal guns by 3D printers. In my opinion this bill being renewed will help prevent the misuse of guns in places where they should never be in the first place. I also think that there should be the addition to the bill that all plastic or other nonmetal firearms should have to have a meal attachment in order to fire so they can not be passed through any type of metal detector.
I did not know that guns could be made with other materials besides metal. I think that not only should they ban nonmetal guns, but they should also make sure everyone carrying should have their CCW license and present it at the time of going through the metal detector just in case they have a nonmetal gun. If they do not, then there should be serious consequences because guns are serious!
DeleteThey make non metal guns?! I think that this is insane, and I completely agree that they should have some type of metal to be noticed by metal detectors, or they should be banned. This could lead to some serious problems if not fixed!
DeleteThey should totally ban these freaky non-metal guns, or at least make some new restrictions for them. These 3d printers are so gnarly. I was initially psyched, because like, they can print food, you know? But printing guns? That's like using the technology to get around gun laws, or something. I feel like it's a total misuse. It's going to be a hassle finding ways to combat these breaches of security.
DeleteHey, I heard about these plastic guns! I'm totally for this bill because what if someone who's bonkers finds a smart guy with a 3D printer and gets a huge arsenal of 3D-printed weapons and dresses them up in little doll clothing and kills people? I wouldn't want that kind of blood on my hands. Why must science always be used for evil? That's another question to address in my memoir.
DeleteI feel that the ban on plastic guns is overall a good thing. However, it is not the guns themselves that are the problem, it is with the people who manufacture and use them. We currently have laws that ban felons from having guns but not surprisingly, many of those felons still get guns and commit more crimes with them. The ban on plastic guns will have about the same effect as these other laws. It will prevent the normally law abiding person from doing a one-time stupid act of trying to carry around a gun at an airport. The ban will not stop a serious criminal as that is just one more law they laugh at and ignore. Maybe convicted felons should have to have a background check at the store to buy a 3D printer so at least it would be harder for them to get this type of weapon.
DeleteThis doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Well unless they would use this for like detectives or police forces. This seems like it could be super bad especially with how they are trying to ban guns and make it so people can't even have them, but yet people still do it illegally.
DeleteThis story is bad all the way around. The fact that the bill made it all the way to congress is bad. The idea of plastic guns that cannot be detected by metal detectors sounds really bad. Whoever came up with this idea is just evil and plotting something. The reason why someone would want a plastic gun is to do something bad. If you’re an honest person and want to carry a gun legally you’d want a real gun that is detectable.
DeleteNonmetal firearms have been becoming a thing for awhile now guys, 3D printers are now making it just a lot easier to do. You know, they have guns that can fold into a small rectangle that's really easily concealable, but those aren't being banned (just saying). I think with the way technology is going they won't be able to stop plastic weaponry from becoming the new norm, so they'll have to do something besides simply banning nonmetal weapons. Props to anyone that figure out a system of tracking ammunition electronically, or much more likely, electronically managing firearms like in those sci-fi movies. Think about it, being able to control whether or not a gun fired using computer chips. That's probably where we're heading ladies and gentlemen
Deletewhat is adding a metal part to the bill going to do? if they are going to misuse the guns then they are going to get rid of the metal anyways. we really don't have a choice because these weapons are going to become more available, so as our technology evolves then we have to evolve our security.
DeletePeople that use non-metal guns are most likely going to be misusing it in the first place. People that want to have a gun for protection and other reasons would not need to take it into a place where no one else are going to have guns either. This seems like a legitimate bill and should be renewed.
DeleteI don't think this bill will be very effective as there is a fine line between a firearm and something else and it wouldn't be too hard to change it so much as to get around the law. Any other weapon could be suitable for a criminal to bring through a metal detector. Also, with what Curtis said, anyone with a plastic gun is most likely malevolent anyways and it wouldn't matter if they were breaking the law.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2013/12/10/politics/budget-negotiations/index.html?hpt=po_c1
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the new budget deal created by Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Patty Murray. They created a bill that will cut billions in military spending along with billions in deficit reductions. Without the approval of this deal we may be looking at another government shutdown if this deal is no approved by Congress.
I think that the government shutting down is very likely to happen again, if not now, but again in the near future. I think that the Republicans may not want to risk their audience turning against them by causing all of this turmoil. I think it would be very unwise. However, politics is a competitive subject and I think that the question of budget and shutting down the government is an inevitable happening.
DeleteThis article is about the House finally approving a budget so that the government would not shut down again. Now the Senate has to approve it too for it to be passed. This is the first full budget agreement expected to pass by a divided government. I think this is a very beneficial decision that can really help all of the people who were affected by the government shut down last time, not have to fear another government shut down. The government shutting down in October hurt our economy. The shut down was very unnecessary and only cost people money due to a law that was already passed. This is a great step in the right direction for our country.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/politics/congress-budget-why-now/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I hope that the news agencies continue to monitor this closely. Congress is patting itself on the back for coming up with a deal for a budget and preventing another costly shutdown. We will have to wait and see if congratulations are too soon until they actually pass this measure. One of our former Presidents expressed it will with his Trust but Verify comment. We can trust that they are on the right path, but we need to keep watching and verifying until the bill actually goes through. There could be any number of ways that some Congressman or Senator adds a special interest riders that causes the bill to get rejected and then we face another crisis and shut down.
DeleteThis article discusses a congressman who is pushing for better mental health treatment and care in the U.S. in light of the Sandy Hook tragedy. It is very true that today in America we have a great deal of people with mental illness' that do not get the help they need. If this new bill passes, federal privacy rules will be loosened so that doctors can better communicate patient information with their loved ones, it also would ask for more beds and in and out patient services to be covered by those who have medicaid. This would certainly help out the number of tragedies like Sandy Hook, and others that do not receive much attention occur less often.The American government often has mental issues unattended to even when they are reminded what it can do for other people, such as these school shootings.
ReplyDeletehttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/12/mental-health-pushed-in-congress-before-newtown-anniversary/?hpt=po_c2
This is a great idea for doctors to communicate better with family about what is going on with their patients but I think this is a an excuse. When someone does something horrible and they get back to their right minds and realize that they are going to be in trouble they claim to be insane to try to get away with it or get a better sentence and it’s not fair. If you did something own up to it and take the punishment you get and move on.
DeleteI agree as well that this is a great idea. I believe that those with mental illnesses can not be counted on to clearly think for themselves. I think patients families should be allowed to make decisions for their member who has a mental illness. It would help to prevent tragedies, but it also could bring in people who falsely claim to have a mental illness.
DeleteLiving with a family member that has a mental illness, I can say that they are not able to think clearly for themselves. Families of these patients should be able to speak for them. I think that when mental people do bad things that they are not in there right state of mind, I think that they do deserve come corrective action but we should also be understanding of why that person did it.I'm not saying that Sandy Hook was good because it wasn't , I'm just saying that people who have a mental illness dont think straight. I think the whole medicade thing is good as well
Deletehttp://crossfire.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/04/increase-the-minimum-wage/
ReplyDeleteThis article is about increasing the minimum wage. They increase it every year anyways. But the more they increase it, the more taxes and everything else goes up. I think its kind of dumb to increase it every year but they still do. Which they'e already done it twice. But like myself, I work two jobs. One being a server and we make 3.85 plus tips which is about half of the 7.95 normal minimum wage. So if they increase minimum wage, they should increase it for servers up to like only a dollar under the normal minimum wage. Just an idea, but then that goes into a whole different category of the business with their labor and how much they hae coming in vs. how much they are putting out.
I agree with the idea on not raising the minimum wage. If the minimum wage increases, like you said that would result in more taxes and also if this minimum wage increased, then maybe the people who only try for minimum wage and nothing higher would stay at the minimum wage level just because they know that this minimum wage keeps getting increased to the point where they just receive more money for just having minimum wage.
DeleteThey increase the minimum wage to account for inflation. There's a reason why you can't spend 20.00$ and get the same amount of groceries you would in 2000 as you would now 2013. And they'll never increase it to where the minimum wage is enough to live solely off of; the minimum wage laws are there so you can be paid something manageable instead of what those Chinese sweatshop workers make.
Deletehttp://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/13/21878758-poll-support-for-strict-gun-control-drops-to-pre-newtown-levels?lite
ReplyDeleteLast year after the Sandy Hood shooting the amount of people favoring stricter gun control increased to 61% last February only two months after the shooting. Now people favoring stricter gun control has dropped to only 52%. That is still a high amount but 95 in a nation of 317 million people that's about 28 million people who's minds where changed. Oddly enough when I came looking for this article I saw some breaking news about a high school shooting in Colorado. No one has died that we know of, but this is sure to spark another fire in the legislation for stricter gun control.
I find this article very interesting. It really makes me think back to when we talked about the whole federalism aspect of American politics. We talked about how the Framers were afraid of huge sparks of interests that would lead to quickly made policies, this is why it is so hard to make laws like these. I think that the fear that the Framers had is clear here, showing that about 28 million people have changed their minds.
DeleteI believe this article proves that people's opinions change over time. People wanted more gun control, but as the Sandy Hook tragedy popularity decreased, then they didn't really support gun control laws. Stricter gun control laws won't really change anything because they will be acquired illegally and still used. People don't really know what they want because they change as events change.
DeleteI tihnk this article is very interesting. It actually shows that people wanna take a stand for gun control, but at the same time how their opinions have changed. I agreee with what John said , It is hard to make decisions about these kinda things, considering so many people have changed there minds. I feel that stricter gun laws might work because it would be making it hard for someone to have or even purchase a gun.
Deletei really have no idea how stricter gun laws can really make a difference. Most registered gun owners aren't the ones committing the crimes. The guns are either stolen or bought illegally. So then we have less people who will use their fire arm to possibly saves someones life or themselves because peoples emotions flare after any tragedy occurs.
Deletehttp://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/12/21879083-house-approves-budget-deal-over-token-conservative-opposition?lite
ReplyDeleteThe new budget deal has been pasted through the House at an overwhelming win. It was 332 yay and 94 nay. This new budget deal gives the guidelines for the national budget for the next two years. With Paul Ryan supporting it, it received support from the Republican party except for a few who's sponsors such as interest groups said that they wouldn't support them any more and the lawmakers became scared to lose their job so they went along since elections are not too far away. This caused an out lash by John Boehner saying that they were more interested in money than being a good lawmaker.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/12/mark-kelly-no-movement-on-gun-control-since-newtown/?hpt=po_c2
ReplyDeleteThis article is how these people want more strict gun laws. The people in this article who wanted the stricter laws were giving the example of the school shootings that happened almost a year ago. I really do not believe though that stricter gun laws will really keep things like this from happening. After this shooting happened, all schools around the country have had more protections from these things happening, and these protections are actually good ideas. But if a person is already dumb enough to go and commit murder, then i would be sure that the person would still try to get these guns illegally and with out responsibility anyways.
I think that instead of gun control laws, we should have better school training for these types of situations. Westland's lockdown protocol leaves us like sitting ducks while schools elsewhere are so much better trained to handle these situations. This is what should be done for a lot of other schools.
DeleteI think that we do need gun control laws. If the law is enforced, then stupid, irresponsible people will be less likely to get guns, and if they get them through another person, then that person should face severe punishment, as well. Yes, while we are at school, it is the schools responsibility of our safety, however, if we just have secure schools and not safer restrictions on guns, then it is just a disaster waiting to happen. Gun safety should be tackled from all sides.
Delete