By Jessica Harvey
January 26, 2015 || Updated: February 8, 2015
Mallory
Simon, a senior producer of online presentations for CNN, wrote an overview of
CNN’s Guns Under
Fire: An AC360° Town Hall Special in her article, “Gun Debate: Where Is the
Middle Ground?” She opens with the story of Satwant Singh Kaleka—a man
who was shot five times in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Since that day,
Satwant’s son—Amardeep Kaleka—made it his life mission to prevent violence in
America. Kaleka stood up at the debate and questioned the possibility of
common ground. In response, Sandra Froman, a member of the NRA board of
directors, argued that there is common ground: not wanting insane people to
have guns. Soon after, Simon reports that the issue of background checks
arose. Neither Froman nor Dan Gross, a resident of the Brady Campaign to
End Gun Violence, could come to a consensus on background checks. As the
debate progressed, Simon recalls the subject of armed guards in schools.
A mother whose son was shot at Sandy Hook, announced that she is comfortable
dropping her kids off at a school with armed guards. Additionally, Simon
reviewed the conversation concerning mental illness: Liza Long, the woman who
wrote, “I Am Adam Lanza’s Mom,” wishes our resources would be directed towards
making people less
dangerous. Simon concludes with Kaleka’s greatest hope: “That the
will to do something about the violence does not die along with those who never
had to.”
(Click here to read the full article)
Broken
down, this particular debate can be split into six parts: opening emotional
appeal, gun violence, background checks, school security, mental illness, and
closing emotional appeal. Initially, Amardeep Kaleka’s story grabs the
reader’s attention. Out of curiosity, I searched for Kaleka on the
internet. Watching various videos, I took notes along the way.
Interestingly enough, Kaleka made a brief promo video for the nonprofit organization,
“Everytown for Gun Safety.” During the video, Kaleka stated, “Guns are
violent things and they can do a lot of damage.” He proceeded to say,
“Every day, 34 American’s are murdered with guns.” Did you catch
that? People are murdered with guns, not by guns.
Hold up, didn’t he just say guns are
violent? That leads into the second point of the CNN debate: gun
violence. Let’s get this straight, guns aren’t violent—people are
violent. Need I say more?
Another part of the
debate concerns background checks. First of all, why in the world should
we allow the government to impose stricter regulations on the American
people? In an ideal utopian society, banning guns would probably work.
However, this is reality: anytime regulations directly infringe on civil
liberties, it becomes tyranny. As Sandra Froman of the NRA expressed,
“We’re not supporting more background checks on law-abiding citizens.”
She continues by claiming that, regardless of the law, criminals will find
other means to obtain guns. In that case, millions of dollars would be
wasted to run background checks on innocent people. Evidently, the
subject of gun banishment did not come up in Mallory Simon’s interpretation of
the debate. However, it was discussed in the original broadcasting.
In fact, one member in the audience—Sarah McKinley—told the panel, “. . . Once
they start limiting [guns], they’re going to limit more. They’re not just
going to take our guns away, they’re going to start with one thing, and then go
to something else.”
Following the discussion
on background checks, the topic of school security arose. What’s wrong
with allowing schools to determine whether they should post armed guards?
Doesn’t that authority belong to the state and not the Federal
government? Although parents certainly should have a say—it is
unlikely. This is just the sort of issue that causes division between
parents and public schools. It’s time parents understood their lack of
control. As soon as children are handed over to a government ran
institution, parents sacrifice an element of authority. Not only are
schools teaching evolution as a fact, but Planned Parenthood is providing
sexual education textbooks for children as young as ten.
Unbelievable. Shouldn’t parents teach their children moral values?
Not according to the government. If parents allow children to be
conditioned by public schools, there is no guarantee of protection. I
can’t say whether or not I believe armed guards should be posted at
schools. However, I definitely believe teachers should have the right to
carry guns. After all, teachers build personal relationships with the
children. Also, given that they are in a position of authority, they are
probably background checked. With proper training, there is no one better
qualified to protect a classroom full of children than a teacher.
The last major topic
addressed during the debate was mental illness. I find it pathetic how
much violence is attributed to the mentally ill. In America, people fall
into one of two categories: sensible or insane. Anyone suspected of
suspicious behavior automatically poses a threat to society. Furthermore,
Obama and his minions define what classifies as “mentally ill.” According
to the article, “He and many others hope to keep guns out of the hands of the
mentally ill.” Isn’t that just grand? As “terrifying” as mental
people are, they’re not the ones committing the majority of crimes.
According to Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Chief Medical Correspondent, “. . . If you look
at the perpetrators of these crimes, most often there is not a diagnosable
mental illness . . . Only 5% are ultimately committed by someone who is
mentally ill.” Shocking, isn’t it?
Finally, the article
closes with an appeal to emotion: if you have personally experienced the pain
of gun violence, you think about it with every breath. Keleka hopes that
each side will throw out fear and “finally get to the point of what makes sense.”
Sadly, his hopes are unrealistic.