7 thoughts on “Revised Policy Option Brief on Gun Control (Tenzing)”
The seriousness of this problem is sufficiently stated, and widely known. It would be beneficial to focus on a few examples and how these policies could have potentially prevented those tragedies.
There is a lot of opposition to sweeping changes to national law. Are there any options of the government to offer state incentives to implementing gun control initiatives? Tax breaks, or funding for extended background checks and monitoring to states that want to implement stricter gun control programs. It might be a more achievable way to achieve gun control legislation.
It would be helpful to know the costs or additional staffing needs to implement the policies mentioned. To me, universal background checks seems to be the most option that could be most easily implemented without extensive cost or infringing on the gun manufacturers.
You are able to articulate the issue of gun violence very well in your policy memorandum. You mention several examples of mass shootings in the United States over the past decade. However, it might be beneficial to be able to define what a mass shooting is specifically. Is it a certain amount of people that get shot? That die? Or, what type of weapon that is used? I believe a clarification of this term would be beneficial for your argument.
I also like your example of the Australia’s response to their mass shooting back in 1995. That is the shining example for supporters of gun regulations that laws controlling usage of firearms does indeed work well. What exactly did Australia enact with their gun regulations in the 1990s. Also, are there examples in the United States with regulations such as these? I know New York passed the SAFE Act in 2013, but I am not sure if any statistics have been released yet on its’ impact on gun violence.
Also, another issue you maybe interested in looking into for gun control is suicide. Many suicides in the United States are caused by individuals who turn to a gun more to make a split second decision about their life. Here is a link that provides more statistics and may provided more references for you (http://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts).
You make an excellent case as to why this is a pressing public issue that must be taken up by our federal legislators. The proposals you present as potential options are sound and have been championed by supporters of gun control for decades. However, if you are able to add a few more statistics or explain Australia’s program just a little bit more in-depth, I believe your memo would be that much stronger.
In the wake of recent events, the multiple mass shootings in the last few weeks, coupled with your policy options brief – I think it is clear how serious this issue is and has become. It really makes me sad to think that gun violence has just become a “normal” part of our everyday lives and that so many people are victims of such horrific acts of violence. In terms of options not included, I agree with your concluding statement that these options will only limit the usage of guns, but ultimately it is left to the people. I think the people are our last option, but I am uncertain if and how to change their minds.
At the same time, in terms of the options listed, I have enough information to make a decision. Based on Tenzing’s policy options brief, I would say that the universal background checks would be the best option. If there is an extensive background check on an individual before he or she purchases a firearm, it may prevent people with prior criminal records and mental illness from taking ownership of a gun. This could potentially save more lives, which is something I hope we can accomplish with this legislation.
The issue of gun control has been seen in many of the recent cases, specifically the horrible campus shootings. I also think the writer provides the readers with sufficient statical evidence about the seriousness of the issue. I think the writer offer sufficient amount of options for this problem. The writer provided sufficient amount of information in the options offered. I think out of the three options offered by the writer, the one that works and not work for me is the gun buyback and the necessary checks for owner. It works because it will literally reduce the number of people owning guns. It does not work because there is no guarantee that the quality of the guns are good. Still, this is the best option.
I think that this is a great topic to tackle, since gun violence is a huge problem in this country, and only seems to be increasing in severity. I believe that you did a good job at illustrating the problem. The startling statistics alone are sufficient in showing what a big problem gun violence is. Especially when comparing the amount of deaths from guns in the U.S. to other advanced countries. It’s scary to see that the U.S. numbers are much, much higher. I think that you provide a comprehensive list of solutions to solve the problem. Recently the NY Attorney General sponsored gun buyback programs around the state, which was met with much success. As outlined in your brief, this solution would help bring many unused guns out of commission, and keep them out of the hands of those wanting to do harm. I believe that all the solutions you have outlined should be implemented to really have an effect on the problem. When implementing one solution would certainly help, all the solutions working together would have the most dramatic effect.
I also think that this is also a very difficult issue to tackle. People in America have such differing views on gun control that it can be difficult to find a solution that everyone is ok with, or just one that will pass in Congress. However, one thing that we can all agree on is that gun violence is a serious problem, and one that needs a solution.
The seriousness of the problem is definitely established, and the differences between the United States and other nations on this issue are well defined. There is also a great list of policy options that would limit the number and type of guns in circulation. I would like to see an alternative option as well however, that perhaps speaks to the views of those who feel gun ownership is a critical civil liberty. I don’t mean to suggest the author must prefer that option, but it might be constructive to offer a range of options that come from different ideological perspectives.
I think a little more information on mental health as it relates to gun violence could be helpful, and an option that addresses that problem would be great. With the exception of mental health statistics, this brief definitely gives me enough information to make a decision. Of the options presented, I would go with the first, to implement universal background checks.
The gun control issue has been prevalent in recent times but even if it wasn’t, I still feel as though the author has sufficiently presented the problem in a way that supports its seriousness. There is a lot of data presented with actual numbers and I especially liked the comparison to other countries, but it also addresses the human component of the issue, tugging at the reader’s heartstrings as well.
In terms of the presented options, I would say that the author did a great job of presenting plausible solutions but I would urge him to go further into detail regarding the background checks. So many people that argue that the recent increase in mass shooting is more of a reflection on the state of mental health in the U.S. rather than an issue of how many guns are out there in the hands of the public and I’d like to know more about how to combat this aspect of gun control. I would also suggest mentioning in more detail how the information gained from the background checks would be put to positive use regarding past criminal activity. What specific types and level of crimes would deem an individual unfit to carry a firearm?
Out of the options present by the author, I think the one that was have the fastest, most immediate effective outcome would be limiting magazine sizes and banning assault weapons. There is no justification for the existence of these types of weapons in the homes of the average American. The “self defense” argument that so many people pose, stating that they have a right to ensure the safety of their family, presents no need for a weapon that caters to mass killings.
The seriousness of this problem is sufficiently stated, and widely known. It would be beneficial to focus on a few examples and how these policies could have potentially prevented those tragedies.
There is a lot of opposition to sweeping changes to national law. Are there any options of the government to offer state incentives to implementing gun control initiatives? Tax breaks, or funding for extended background checks and monitoring to states that want to implement stricter gun control programs. It might be a more achievable way to achieve gun control legislation.
It would be helpful to know the costs or additional staffing needs to implement the policies mentioned. To me, universal background checks seems to be the most option that could be most easily implemented without extensive cost or infringing on the gun manufacturers.
You are able to articulate the issue of gun violence very well in your policy memorandum. You mention several examples of mass shootings in the United States over the past decade. However, it might be beneficial to be able to define what a mass shooting is specifically. Is it a certain amount of people that get shot? That die? Or, what type of weapon that is used? I believe a clarification of this term would be beneficial for your argument.
I also like your example of the Australia’s response to their mass shooting back in 1995. That is the shining example for supporters of gun regulations that laws controlling usage of firearms does indeed work well. What exactly did Australia enact with their gun regulations in the 1990s. Also, are there examples in the United States with regulations such as these? I know New York passed the SAFE Act in 2013, but I am not sure if any statistics have been released yet on its’ impact on gun violence.
Also, another issue you maybe interested in looking into for gun control is suicide. Many suicides in the United States are caused by individuals who turn to a gun more to make a split second decision about their life. Here is a link that provides more statistics and may provided more references for you (http://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts).
You make an excellent case as to why this is a pressing public issue that must be taken up by our federal legislators. The proposals you present as potential options are sound and have been championed by supporters of gun control for decades. However, if you are able to add a few more statistics or explain Australia’s program just a little bit more in-depth, I believe your memo would be that much stronger.
In the wake of recent events, the multiple mass shootings in the last few weeks, coupled with your policy options brief – I think it is clear how serious this issue is and has become. It really makes me sad to think that gun violence has just become a “normal” part of our everyday lives and that so many people are victims of such horrific acts of violence. In terms of options not included, I agree with your concluding statement that these options will only limit the usage of guns, but ultimately it is left to the people. I think the people are our last option, but I am uncertain if and how to change their minds.
At the same time, in terms of the options listed, I have enough information to make a decision. Based on Tenzing’s policy options brief, I would say that the universal background checks would be the best option. If there is an extensive background check on an individual before he or she purchases a firearm, it may prevent people with prior criminal records and mental illness from taking ownership of a gun. This could potentially save more lives, which is something I hope we can accomplish with this legislation.
The issue of gun control has been seen in many of the recent cases, specifically the horrible campus shootings. I also think the writer provides the readers with sufficient statical evidence about the seriousness of the issue. I think the writer offer sufficient amount of options for this problem. The writer provided sufficient amount of information in the options offered. I think out of the three options offered by the writer, the one that works and not work for me is the gun buyback and the necessary checks for owner. It works because it will literally reduce the number of people owning guns. It does not work because there is no guarantee that the quality of the guns are good. Still, this is the best option.
I think that this is a great topic to tackle, since gun violence is a huge problem in this country, and only seems to be increasing in severity. I believe that you did a good job at illustrating the problem. The startling statistics alone are sufficient in showing what a big problem gun violence is. Especially when comparing the amount of deaths from guns in the U.S. to other advanced countries. It’s scary to see that the U.S. numbers are much, much higher. I think that you provide a comprehensive list of solutions to solve the problem. Recently the NY Attorney General sponsored gun buyback programs around the state, which was met with much success. As outlined in your brief, this solution would help bring many unused guns out of commission, and keep them out of the hands of those wanting to do harm. I believe that all the solutions you have outlined should be implemented to really have an effect on the problem. When implementing one solution would certainly help, all the solutions working together would have the most dramatic effect.
I also think that this is also a very difficult issue to tackle. People in America have such differing views on gun control that it can be difficult to find a solution that everyone is ok with, or just one that will pass in Congress. However, one thing that we can all agree on is that gun violence is a serious problem, and one that needs a solution.
The seriousness of the problem is definitely established, and the differences between the United States and other nations on this issue are well defined. There is also a great list of policy options that would limit the number and type of guns in circulation. I would like to see an alternative option as well however, that perhaps speaks to the views of those who feel gun ownership is a critical civil liberty. I don’t mean to suggest the author must prefer that option, but it might be constructive to offer a range of options that come from different ideological perspectives.
I think a little more information on mental health as it relates to gun violence could be helpful, and an option that addresses that problem would be great. With the exception of mental health statistics, this brief definitely gives me enough information to make a decision. Of the options presented, I would go with the first, to implement universal background checks.
The gun control issue has been prevalent in recent times but even if it wasn’t, I still feel as though the author has sufficiently presented the problem in a way that supports its seriousness. There is a lot of data presented with actual numbers and I especially liked the comparison to other countries, but it also addresses the human component of the issue, tugging at the reader’s heartstrings as well.
In terms of the presented options, I would say that the author did a great job of presenting plausible solutions but I would urge him to go further into detail regarding the background checks. So many people that argue that the recent increase in mass shooting is more of a reflection on the state of mental health in the U.S. rather than an issue of how many guns are out there in the hands of the public and I’d like to know more about how to combat this aspect of gun control. I would also suggest mentioning in more detail how the information gained from the background checks would be put to positive use regarding past criminal activity. What specific types and level of crimes would deem an individual unfit to carry a firearm?
Out of the options present by the author, I think the one that was have the fastest, most immediate effective outcome would be limiting magazine sizes and banning assault weapons. There is no justification for the existence of these types of weapons in the homes of the average American. The “self defense” argument that so many people pose, stating that they have a right to ensure the safety of their family, presents no need for a weapon that caters to mass killings.