Should the law on gun control in U.S. be refined?
Citizens in the United States are granted the right to own a gun. Any individual 18 years of age or older may purchase a rifle or shotgun from a federally licensed dealer in any state and any individual 21 years of age or older may acquire a handgun from a dealer federally licensed to sell firearms in the individual's state of residence under the gun law in the United States. Statistics had shown that about 59.1 million adults in the United States personally own a gun. Roughly 93 million adults or 49% of the adult U.S. population are living in households with guns. these have shown us that it is a norm for the people in U.S. to have their own firearms.
This norm has resulted in the widespread handgun violence in America. People are given the right to own a gun for safety and security purposes. However, some are actually abusing the right entitled to them. Gun has become a tool to help fufil their private desires. The recent Virginia tech massacre sparked off a series of debates on the gun control law in U.S. Despite his stay in a Virginia psychiatric facility, shooter Cho Seung-Hui was able to purchase a handgun leading to an outrage from gun control advocates.
In my opinion, the gun control law should be reformed. Currently, under the federal control law, anyone who had been committed to a mental institution involuntarily would be prohibited from buying firearms. However, nowadays people are committed into such mental institution willingly. The issue of concern is that the possibilities of patients suffering a relapse after their recovery are very high. This means that they will still pose a danger to the public despite receiving treatment. Thus, the law should be refined to include people with disabilities who had been adjudicated to be mentally ill and a danger to oneself or others. These people should be judged by doctors to prove that they will pose a threat to the society.
The Americans should stop tolerating gun laws and condemning thousands of innocent deaths every year. It is essential to reform the law to prevent a repeat of such a horrifying incident. The Americans should adopt the action taken by the Australians to limit the availability of guns in the country. The Australians had banned most types of semi-automatic weapons after the 1996 shooting spree by a man with a semi-automatic rifle who killed 35 people in Port Arthur, on the island of Tasmania. Such tougher restrictions would be able to minimize the number of innocent deaths each year and Australia has experienced the success. Reforming the law will certainly change the current situation in one way or another.
with references to:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,161377,00.html
Labels: Task 4
Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?
Personally, I think that torture is not justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists. Torture, in my opinion, is an act whereby pain and agony is being inflicted on a person, be it physically or mentally. Indeed, criminals and terrorists had committed serious crimes and ought to be punished. But is it really necessary to use means of torture to force information from them during interrogation?
In my context, torture is in fact a violation of human rights. Photographs shown on the internet are proof of such violation. One of which shows US prison guards with German shepherd attack dogs snarling at Iraqi prisoners like in some Gestapo jail. Another photograph shows an elderly Iraqi woman, stripped naked and being ridden like a donkey. Well, they may be criminals, but does that fact entitled anyone with the right to hurt and humiliate them? In the example of Abu Ghraib, a series of abuse is being used, from physical to sexual abuse. People should not be abusing the power or authority bestowed upon them – the authority to investigate and interrogate.
Interrogation is a skill, not a legal standard part of wanting tighter command and control. Using harsh interrogation methods on criminals had breached the humane principle of democracy. Investigators are willing to forgone their humanity for certain benefits. They may be able to “gain” power and more authority with important information obtained from these criminals. Moreover, applying torture may not necessary boost the productivity. The example of Abu Zubaydah cited in the article proved the point. Despite the application of brutality, information given by him was mostly useless. There is actually no guarantee that torture will work every time. So why are they still using it when there is no guarantee results?
Perhaps unexpected yield may be received through these coercive interrogation methods. But an indelible stain will be left on the honour of the American military. The pervasive torture, the humiliation, sexual degradation of prisoners, the gratuitous beatings, rapes and outright murders will eventually damaged the national security. Moreover, efforts to bring peace to Iraq and win the war against terrorism will be undermined. One should have thought of the consequences he had to bear. One of the consequences that occurred to the Americans is that no matter how hard they tried to suppress their scandal with regard to torture, it had already tarnished their international stage. Those photographs shown on the internet served as irrefutable evidence of the depravity of the US leaders and this will be etched in the memories of many.
With references to:
http://www.internationalist.org/iraqtorture0504.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/talk/index2.html
Labels: Task 4
New Media - Power to the people or threat to stability?
We are living in a world of email, blogs, instant messaging, mobile phones, internet along with other technological advances. Almost everyone have access to these technological products and this had made it easier for people to make use of media to create trouble. People have a command over these sources, and this authority have enable them to use these sources to distort facts, create false impressions and even causing instability. In the middle east countries, the Muslim's public views of the West have been poisoned. In the example given, the false story of the Koran was spread to people through the various channels like internet and magazines, sparking off riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan. People have a control over these media and thus could easily employ them to create disorder.
People has also found power in blogging with the rise of the blogging phenomenon. Other than using them to voice out their grievances and regain confidence by receiving feedback over their post, it has also aid them in establishing career. In addition, they are able to fight for their own rights with blogs. People in Morocco have made use of blogs to advocate for the independence of Western Sahara. Egyptians bloggers have held a campaign hoping to educate the world on their situation - that is free activists are being arrested and imprisoned because of comments made over their posts. Such movement actually won the Freedom of Expression award presented by Reporters Without Borders. This has proved that people are indeed having power to fight for their own rights and able to gain recognition with this.
Some forces stood up to fight against the internet censorship because the government was applying it to the people. For example, governments in some Middle East countries and in China have banned political websites which they thought have would be sensitive. Thus, people wanted to challenge the government because they think they should have the freedom to express themselves. Indeed, some have succeeded in the battle. In Pakistan, the Pakistani have access to blogspot blogs after they protested against the government ban. they have made use of the internet to connect to bloggers worldwide, inviting them to join in the protest. The government had lifted the ban after coming under increasing pressure from the community. This has once again show that people are gaining power from the media and this power is actually great enough to influence the government and empowered them.
Labels: Task 4
Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth?
The media is supposed to be liberal, supporting or allowing changes in political or religious affairs and encouraging self-expression. It should be a source where people are able to obtain first hand information, facts and truth. However, media in today's society are not delivering the truth and some have proven to be unreliable. Even in countries like America, where democracy is highly emphasized, the media is not that reliable too.
The media can forsake the truth for a lie just to earn credit. The example of Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s has shown us that the media should be blamed for the spread of the big lie. When he said he was holding on to a piece of paper that contains the names of communists who were employed by the America's State Department, the media believed and reported the news. In the end, it turned out to be a lie. This incident prove that they do not care to question the reliability of the source of their news and just reported it to the public, causing them to be fooled. So how can the media be relied upon when what they reported was just a fabricated story?
As quoted from the passage, many of the decisions made by the media are based on the 3 "P's", Popularity, Prejudice and Profit. In order to gain popularity, the America corporate-controlled media was likely to report news stories that they thought will be sensational enough to attract the audience. They tend to focus more on terror attacks, death and injuries. Take for instance the Iraqi war, the body counts of US killed or wounded are often accompanied by the tales of disillusionment on the part of Iraqi locals which will arouse the audience's feelings.
The media can be prejudice too. They have the freedom to choose their interviewee or edit news based on their personal judgment. The example in the article, where the journalist chose to interview a white instead of an African-American, show the biasness of the journalist. Her white audience applause for her actions, but in my opinion, she was unprofessional. It is alarming to discover that prejudice is actually exercised by premier journalist openly. In addition, the writer's personal encounter with the editor and his experience of such censorship showed us that the media would alter news as they wish. So can we still trust the news stories being reported by the media?
Corporate-controlled news are also profit driven. To increase profit, they "manufacture" and "market" news, treating news as a product. As stated in the article, analysis given by individual can be condensed to "sound bites". This will be manipulated to bring across the desired message. I think that this is equivalent to deceiving the audience, hood-wink them into believing the "processed" stories. The media is actually diminishing their own reputation as they sacrificed the truth, impartiality and ethics in exchange for ratings and profits.
The greatest concern of the media today is in fact their survival. Being government-controlled, they had to observe some rules. The US media coverage was polarized between 'good news' and 'bad news'. The media had to toe the line between a 'good news' and 'bad news'. In the debate "Iraq-Is the media telling the real story?", people are arguing about the reliability of US media. Lt Col Boylan who returned to the US as the chief spokesman for the US military said that there were less coverage of Iraq in the US media on his return than he expected and the complete story is not being told. A columnist for the International Herald Tribune, Roger Cohen said:"If you write a 'good news' story from Iraq you are immediately identified as an apologist for the administration...and if you write something critical then you're in the other camp." If journalists had to obey to these rules, they will not stick their neck too far out when reporting contentious issues. They will then not be able to bring the tuth back to the reader since they have to consider the classification of good and bad news.
Thus, the media can never be relied upon to convey the truth since it has not done its job as a pillar of democracy. If they continue to act in their way and manipulating facts, the detrimental effects will be felt for years to come.
Labels: Task 4
