When will we wake up? When will this nightmare end?

Friday, I had gone through my normal routine of a busy school day, and walked out the door with relief that it finally was the weekend. For 20 students and 6 adults in Newtown, CT this did not happen. When I first heard the news before track practice, I hadn't fully digested what had happened. Runs normally provide an outlet for all of my thoughts and emotions. They give me the opportunity to forget the trivial problems I have throughout the day. Instead, I mulled over the implications of what had just happened, I was crushed. I am the oldest of 5, with 2 brothers and 2 sisters. I have seen all of them progress through all levels of the school system. Currently, one of my sisters is in third grade at Shady Grove Elementary. I can remember the vibrant halls of the school and the air of excitement which accompanied every day. My sister, unlike myself, is incredibly disappointed when she misses school. She loves to learn, she loves the elementary school experience. Elementary school fosters core values for every individual, it makes everyone what they are today. For all of the survivors of the shooting, their innocence is gone. Those children will never get to walk the halls with excitement, happiness, and enthusiasm.

When I envision the horror that ensued within the hallways of Sandy Hook Elementary, my stomach lurches. I am filled with intense feelings of sorrow, pain, and even anger. These young individuals had a whole life to live, they will never get to experience the joys to which we are all expecting to experience in our lifetime. They will never experience the joys of graduation(whether it be elementary school or high school). They will never have first kisses, proms, or weddings. They will never have the opportunity to explore the world for what it is. 6 years is not enough time for any life, the list of what they could have had experienced is nearly infinite.

Additionally, there is the pain for every family. I tried to imagine how much pain I would have felt should I have lost my sister, or any of my siblings for that matter. To have such a strong family tie severed so quickly is excruciatingly painful, it is an irreparable scar. I would never recover, never. I would think that they had not died in peace, those children left the world in horror. Those teachers who risked their lives, like Victoria Soto, also left the world in horror and uncertainty. The reality is incredibly painful, no one should ever be put through such torture. This has influenced me to take a long hard look at the gun culture in the US and how such events are even possible. In the past, I found that gun control would not help significantly and was in favor of what is known as "concealed carry" laws. I reevaluated my views.

America has been hit hard with the events that unfolded over the past week. It has been a wakeup call to the excessive amount of violence that fills our country. Within my short lifetime, I have heard of murder everyday, and the fact of the matter is, that most of us have been desensitized to such violence. It has become commonplace to our culture. In Philadelphia(pop. 1.5 million), the area where I live, there were about 9,000 murders over the course of 23 years. Over 75% of which were at the hands of a firearm.  In the US alone there were 8,775 deaths by firearms in 2010. That is almost 3 times the amount of casualties(2,996) from the 9/11 attacks EACH YEAR.

Now, lets look at the statistics from other countries. In Japan(pop. 127 million), where firearms are completely forbidden, there are 2 murders per year. In Canada, our northern neighbor, the murder rate is 1/5th of ours. Obviously American culture is incredibly different. It is ingrained in our minds, that we are a gun lovin', gun totin' country and that shows in the statistics; we are the country with the highest level of gun ownership.

We will never be able to move away from owning guns. Our nation will always push second amendment rights, it is sacred ground. Put simply, I see nothing wrong with hunting. If that is your hobby, then stick with it. But, where everything comes into question is when we take a long hard look at the sources of mass shootings. First off, I would like to put forth a map of school shootings around the world.

From this image, it is blatantly apparent that the US has been hit hard with school shootings in comparison to other nations. I can recall many mass shootings off the top of my head; Columbine, Virginia Tech, Gabby Giffords, Aurora Theater Shooting, the Sikh temple in Wisconsin, the mall shooting in Oregon, and now Sandy Hook.  Here is a map of shootings since 1999(last updated with Aurora shooting, starting with Columbine):

It is incredibly apparent that we have a problem here in the United States. We can NOT continue to run our country with the same model in place today. Many would argue that these individuals must have obtained the weapons illegally, there is no possible way they did this under our law. The shooter in this recent attack obtained the weapons from his mother, who were purchased legally. Of the 142 weapons obtained in mass shootings since 1982, 75% were obtained legally. I was particularly struck by the graph below:














What use is it for the general public to be armed with assault weapons? The shooter in Sandy Hook had used a Bushmaster .223 semiautomatic assault rifle. The same weapon used by the 2003 DC snipers(which resulted in 10 deaths).  This is the consumer version of the AR-15 used exclusively by the military. The medical examiner in charge of investigating the deaths in Newtown has claimed that all the deaths were at the hand of the Bushmaster .223 from close range. The Aurora, CO shooting also involved a legally purchased assault rifle. In this day and age, what is the point of having such weapons? I understand that the general purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that individuals have the opportunity to revolt against the government should it go awry. But in the modern era, there are so many checks and balances in place, that our government could never go to the extent of requiring an armed revolution to eradicate it. In fact, the government is far too powerful to begin with, that a revolution would be nearly impossible. The argument that assault weapons and quickly reloading weapons with large magazines should be available to the general public is irrelevant, and quite frankly out of place.

With the eradication of assault weapons, one step in the right direction would be present. But, many still believe they should have the right to defend themselves. Would concealed carry solve the problem? When studying attacks in the past, it seems that many would not even be able to defend themselves in time. Mass shooters act quickly and are ready to die. They normally kill themselves by their own hand. The shooter in the Newtown attack moved quickly, the first call of the start of the shooting came about 8 minutes before the call that the shooting had ended. Chances are, a concealed weapon held by one of the teachers would not have been able to solve the problem. Many individuals would be in shock when placed in such a dangerous situation. Killers are ready to kill, many individuals have a hard time justifying killing another being, even when their life is at risk. It is simply human nature.

With the recent reevaluations of our gun laws, many opponents of more regulation say that "guns don't kill people, people do." Guns are the tool which allow the people to carry out such heinous acts. Regulation on guns would help reduce access to the tools. But, we must also address the individuals who carry out the attacks. First, violence is certainly prevalent in the media, but putting blame on video games is simply shortsighted. The real problem lies in the television networks and other news outlets. Following every shooting, media outlets clamor to the site of the attacks and drop everything. For days, they provide 24 hour, around the clock coverage. Suddenly, the shooter is everywhere, his name spreads around the country. Many individuals look for publicity and attention in today's society. Why should we continue to give it to shooters? It only causes lonely, angry, and emotionally insecure/unstable individuals to carry out acts which give them attention. It needs to be the media outlet's responsibility to give much less attention to the shooters, to bring down the coverage. Otherwise, many hopeless and angry individuals will continue to thirst for media attention through committing horrific acts. Roger Ebert, an acclaimed film critic said the following regarding violence and the media following the Aurora shooting;

   "I think the link is between the violence and the publicity. Those like James Holmes, who feel the need to arm themselves, may also feel a deep, inchoate insecurity and a need for validation. Whenever a tragedy like this takes place, it is assigned catchphrases and theme music, and the same fragmentary TV footage of the shooter is cycled again and again. Somewhere in the night, among those watching, will be another angry, aggrieved loner who is uncoiling toward action."

We, as Americans are faced with an incredible dilemma. Our own president, was reduced to tears and could not continue his speech in front of hundreds of representatives from international media. I appreciate the fact that our president is a human being, and he is able to show that in the face of the world. Following the Gabby Giffords shooting in Arizona, Barack Obama vowed to follow through on the promise on working on a solution to quell the violence in this nation. Because it was his first term, Obama was reluctant to take strong action. Now, in his second term, Obama has an incredible amount of freedom to push his belief and bring influence. Obama said,

"As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it is an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago, these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."

As we move past this tragedy, I think it is time that America takes a long hard look at itself. I ask Obama to be strong in his belief on gun control. I ask Republicans, like myself, to work across party lines to find a viable bipartisan solution. I ask politicians to do their job by finding a solution which can ensure a better and safer future for everybody whether it be in the realm of mental health, gun control, or the safety of our schools. I ask the media to reevaluate itself. Is that Pulitzer really worth invading the privacy of victims and giving attention to individuals who have committed unfathomable tragedies? I ask the NRA to reevaluate itself. Put yourself in the position of the families affected by this tragedy. Would you rather trade your weapons for the lives of many victims of mass murder?

The divisive question of gun control has been an incredible issue in this nation. Finding a solution to this ongoing problem is certainly not going to come easily. If we never try to work on curing this disease which has plagued our country, the situation will only continue to get worse. I never want to think of the possibility of losing any of my friends or family to the hands of a murderer. The beauty of America is our democratic system. When we cooperate and work together, much can be accomplished. It is time to change, to come together, to ensure a better and safer future for our country.

Sources Used:
http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us.html
http://cdn3.standard.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/max_800/2012/07/20/story-mass-shootings-web-146689.jpg
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-do-we-have-the-courage-to-stop-this.html?ref=opinion
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ToHuoOmnXR4/UMyuOMkeJLI/AAAAAAADp6A/hfixOS1I1s8/w497-h373/SchoolShootings.png
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/special_packages/inquirer/Philadelphia_Homicides_1988_2011.html
https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/07/02-5
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/gun-own-rates-oecd.jpg
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/weve-seen-this-movie-before.html
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22194021/full-text-obama-speech-after-connecticut-school-shooting

Could this upcoming supreme court ruling provide a definitive stance on gay marriage?

As someone who has spent numerous occasions looking into the constitution of the United States, I have taken a very strong stance on gay marriage. When a country was founded on the basis of the separation of church and state, I fail to understand how it is even reasonable for the government to define marriage as a man and a woman. Recently, the supreme court has decided to look into the legality and validity of proposition 8, a California proposition which brought a definite definition to marriage as between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 has been under incredibly heavy scrutiny since its narrow passing and now could be possibly completely shot down. Many proponents of gay marriage are anxiously looking to this decision, hoping that a definite answer can be provided. This opinion piece by Walter Olson published in USA Today questions how important this case may actually be. Olson argues that the Supreme Court is likely to make a very slight decision, one which won't be decisive enough to settle the issue of gay marriage. There are two specific pieces of legislation being scrutinized in the supreme court, proposition 8, as previously mentioned, and DOMA(Defense of Marriage Act). Olson believes that DOMA is likely to be deemed unconstitutional and proposition 8 is up for grabs by a small margin but will probably go the California voters as was previously defined in Hollingsworth vs. Perry. I find it unfortunate that such a situation is possible. When looking at a constitution from a strict POV, there simply is no way that marriage should be restricted. The United States is the supposed land of equality, and until the government acts as such, I fail to agree with such an assumption. In the future, it is my hope that the government takes an assertive stance on this controversial issue and sets the record straight. There will always be individuals who have a skewed and blind perspective and fail to see the injustices of restricting marriage rights. Hopefully, there is a transition where the majority of Americans decide to support marriage equality and take the initiative to truly provide equality for each individual regardless of sexual orientation.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/07/gay-marriage-supreme-court/1755135/

IRB Post 3: The drastically conflicting character of Steve Jobs

In my previous posts on Steve Jobs, I raved primarily on how Steve Jobs had somewhat of a tiny upbringing and was passionate about what he did.  The "bad side" of Steve hadn't been exposed at this point. In this section, Isaacson strays away from the chronological progression which had been used in Steve Jobs. Instead, he inserts small sections which delve intricately into interesting yet more minor topics. The two most intriguing topics which Isaacson delved into were the relationship between Bill Gates and Jobs, and the section on Jobs' romantic pursuits(which were shrouded in secrecy until this biography). The fantastic attribute of this textbook is the use of interviews which are tangential to the topic itself. Of course, Jobs and Gates were primarily quoted in the section, but so were many engineers from Microsoft and Apple which had looked at the relationship from the outside. This provided a more three dimensional perspective of the relationship between the two which simply could not have been achieved through just the insight of Jobs and Gates. This section showed that there was a much more mutual relationship between Gates and Jobs than would have been expected. They both depended on each other's successes. The relationship section portrayed a much different side of Jobs. Perhaps the most interesting part was seeing the opinions and thoughts from the women who had dated him. This showed Jobs as a romanticist, something very contrasting from the uptight business character Jobs had been developed as during the beginning chapters.
The greatest insights these small subchapters provide, is the fact that they add greater depth to the chronological story as a whole. The small tidbits derived from each subsection carry through the life story of Jobs and can be traced back. Overall, Isaacson is able to provide a full embodiment of Jobs, where you could see everything from Jobs' perspective and the people who affected and worked with him. I began this text was a very strong understanding of the textbook history of Jobs and Apple. But seeing this whole new dimension is incredibly captivating to the reader. Isaacson certainly kept in mind the audience of this book, by appealing to both the Apple history newbies and the buffs. This simply is not a normal chronology of Jobs' life, it is a window into his world with vivid and excruciating detail. I have been intrigued throughout, questioning the public opinion of Jobs. If anyone were to make a comment on Jobs, I sure hope that they at least have read this biography. Experts on science speak about science, but only after they have learned from textbooks. This is essentially the textbook for Steve Jobs, and should be required reading for anybody who intends to speak about him.