I have to agree with Boehner, I really don't think that there is a whole lot of security measures that could have prevented this incident. Such public shootings are horrific but rare. I am sure that many politicians have taken security measures, but to what extent is necessary? I don't think more security at public events would hurt, but I also think that the level of personal security a politician wants should be a personal decision (for example whether or not you want a bodyguard). However, I do think that stricter gun laws would be an important step in preventing future incidents such as this. I think that most guns on the market serve no purpose other than shooting humans, so why is anyone besides law enforcement allowed to own them? I am fine with hunting, but rifles are different then guns that you take to a shooting range and fire at a human shaped target. I was kind of surprised that President Obama did not address gun control in his speech this past week. I guess it may have been a smart political move.
First of all, I agree with Boehner that a security detail wouldn't have prevented the shooting. Just because you have "protection" doesn't mean there aren't ways to get around it. Plus, being a politician you are taking the risk of being attacked. That's what happens when you live in a free country and people have the right to protest. I am not agreeing that people should go around shooting politicians that they don't agree with but politicians are always under attack. So get use to it. And these type of occurrences are going to become less and less rare, I think. People are unhappy with congress and the government. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if there were stricter gun control laws like Jackie suggests above, that still won't prevent shootings. There are ways to get a gun without going through the proper channels. Plus, not everyone carrying a gun is a murderer. That's like saying every politician is an idiot. Just because one person does something bad it doesn't mean the whole lot is bad or the idea is bad. People need to take responsibility for their actions and when you are in the public eye sometimes that means becoming under attack and sometimes innocent people lose their lives. We have these types of issues because we allow them to happen. Our country doesn't take precautions in helping troubled individuals. They are just pushed aside. So maybe our government needs to start listening to people and putting in the effort instead of arguing about gun control. Where there is a will there will be a way. It won’t matter whether or not a weapon is easily accessible.
Speaker John Boehner in the article claimed, “we have a very open society in America, and there is risk with this job." And that is true, all 535 members of congress do. I agree with both Jackie and Danielle that more security would not have stopped the attack. As Danielle mentioned that people are going to find a way to get a gun and do what they want to do, I was thinking that I completely agree. Even if we were to increase security detail on congressional members, the likelihood of injuries would most likely not lower.
I have to agree with Boehner, I really don't think that there is a whole lot of security measures that could have prevented this incident. Such public shootings are horrific but rare. I am sure that many politicians have taken security measures, but to what extent is necessary? I don't think more security at public events would hurt, but I also think that the level of personal security a politician wants should be a personal decision (for example whether or not you want a bodyguard). However, I do think that stricter gun laws would be an important step in preventing future incidents such as this. I think that most guns on the market serve no purpose other than shooting humans, so why is anyone besides law enforcement allowed to own them? I am fine with hunting, but rifles are different then guns that you take to a shooting range and fire at a human shaped target. I was kind of surprised that President Obama did not address gun control in his speech this past week. I guess it may have been a smart political move.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I agree with Boehner that a security detail wouldn't have prevented the shooting. Just because you have "protection" doesn't mean there aren't ways to get around it. Plus, being a politician you are taking the risk of being attacked. That's what happens when you live in a free country and people have the right to protest. I am not agreeing that people should go around shooting politicians that they don't agree with but politicians are always under attack. So get use to it. And these type of occurrences are going to become less and less rare, I think. People are unhappy with congress and the government. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if there were stricter gun control laws like Jackie suggests above, that still won't prevent shootings. There are ways to get a gun without going through the proper channels. Plus, not everyone carrying a gun is a murderer. That's like saying every politician is an idiot. Just because one person does something bad it doesn't mean the whole lot is bad or the idea is bad. People need to take responsibility for their actions and when you are in the public eye sometimes that means becoming under attack and sometimes innocent people lose their lives. We have these types of issues because we allow them to happen. Our country doesn't take precautions in helping troubled individuals. They are just pushed aside. So maybe our government needs to start listening to people and putting in the effort instead of arguing about gun control. Where there is a will there will be a way. It won’t matter whether or not a weapon is easily accessible.
ReplyDeleteSpeaker John Boehner in the article claimed, “we have a very open society in America, and there is risk with this job." And that is true, all 535 members of congress do. I agree with both Jackie and Danielle that more security would not have stopped the attack. As Danielle mentioned that people are going to find a way to get a gun and do what they want to do, I was thinking that I completely agree. Even if we were to increase security detail on congressional members, the likelihood of injuries would most likely not lower.
ReplyDelete