In my previous blog post, I explored a source that discussed the history of gun control. I focused on the section of the article in which I found most interesting; the section which talked about the number of proposed laws that regarded gun control after the Columbine High School shooting. Most of these laws were not passed, even after such a tragic event. This made me question whether or not any laws had been considered or passed after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that happened in December of 2012. I came across an article that was published by the New York Times on March 15, 2015 entitled “The Final Post-Mortem on Sandy Hook”. This article was written by Francis X. Clines who has reported for The Times for over 40 years and has won a Polk Award for some of his work.
Cline gives a brief overview of what has happened since December 2012 when this tragic event took place. He tells of how Sandy Hook Elementary has been torn down and that plans for the school’s new construction includes “controlled hiding spaces” in which children and teachers can hide in case of another emergency such as this (2). Many other issues have been brought to attention due to this tragedy, one of these things being, of course, gun control. The article shares that parents of the children who were harmed are suing Remington, the manufacturer of the weapons used in the shootings (6). These law suits are of no use though because a law was passed in 2005 that protects the gun industries from liability involving deaths by their weapons (6). I find this quite intriguing. I understand why manufacturers would want to take these precautions, almost like malpractice insurance for a doctor. They aren't responsible for the actions that an individual takes when using their product, so why should they be liable? I feel like the only time they should be liable is in the event of a death that occurred from a malfunction of their product, not because of the reckless behavior of any individual who owns their product.
The author goes on to explain that the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission states that there’s “‘no legitimate place in the civilian population’ for high-powered battlefield rifles and large capacity ammunition magazines designed for the military” (7). I can see where people believe in this statement. For what purpose can a military grade weapon used for killing enemies serve a purpose for a regular community civilian? But some have to think, would banning these certain firearms violate our second amendment rights? And also, most rounds that are used by our military to defend our freedom are significantly smaller than the ones that hunters use to kill deer and other animals. Any type of ammunition can do harm to others. But these large capacity magazines can raise questions as well.
This article is a recent once, published in 2015 so the information could be up to date and creditable in that aspect. The author has written many different articles about topics dealing with recent political issues and it seems like he may have some bias when it comes to these issues. News sites can also contain a bias within themselves, which could be likely in The New York Times. Although this site and author can have bias, I think that this information is extremely useful in this topic. I found it very interesting and useful when the author discusses how the parents of the children who were harmed in this event were suing the manufacturer. I also like how the author continued to explain that this action was almost useless because of laws that were put in place. This article is useful for the topic of gun control because it discusses laws and opinions that deal with the evolving issue.
Clines, Francis X. "The Final Post-Mortem on Sandy Hook." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Mar. 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.
Cline gives a brief overview of what has happened since December 2012 when this tragic event took place. He tells of how Sandy Hook Elementary has been torn down and that plans for the school’s new construction includes “controlled hiding spaces” in which children and teachers can hide in case of another emergency such as this (2). Many other issues have been brought to attention due to this tragedy, one of these things being, of course, gun control. The article shares that parents of the children who were harmed are suing Remington, the manufacturer of the weapons used in the shootings (6). These law suits are of no use though because a law was passed in 2005 that protects the gun industries from liability involving deaths by their weapons (6). I find this quite intriguing. I understand why manufacturers would want to take these precautions, almost like malpractice insurance for a doctor. They aren't responsible for the actions that an individual takes when using their product, so why should they be liable? I feel like the only time they should be liable is in the event of a death that occurred from a malfunction of their product, not because of the reckless behavior of any individual who owns their product.
The author goes on to explain that the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission states that there’s “‘no legitimate place in the civilian population’ for high-powered battlefield rifles and large capacity ammunition magazines designed for the military” (7). I can see where people believe in this statement. For what purpose can a military grade weapon used for killing enemies serve a purpose for a regular community civilian? But some have to think, would banning these certain firearms violate our second amendment rights? And also, most rounds that are used by our military to defend our freedom are significantly smaller than the ones that hunters use to kill deer and other animals. Any type of ammunition can do harm to others. But these large capacity magazines can raise questions as well.
This article is a recent once, published in 2015 so the information could be up to date and creditable in that aspect. The author has written many different articles about topics dealing with recent political issues and it seems like he may have some bias when it comes to these issues. News sites can also contain a bias within themselves, which could be likely in The New York Times. Although this site and author can have bias, I think that this information is extremely useful in this topic. I found it very interesting and useful when the author discusses how the parents of the children who were harmed in this event were suing the manufacturer. I also like how the author continued to explain that this action was almost useless because of laws that were put in place. This article is useful for the topic of gun control because it discusses laws and opinions that deal with the evolving issue.
Clines, Francis X. "The Final Post-Mortem on Sandy Hook." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Mar. 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.