Gun Silencer Bill Advances, Moves to House Floor, Miranda Green, CNN, September 13
A new bill is going to the floor of the House after passing through committee. The bill contains controversial legislation regarding the ability to purchase gun silencers. There are strong support and opposition on both sides and the bill is very controversial. From the video, you get a look at both sides of the argument. The video goes more in-depth on the pros and cons of the bill and what each side is arguing for. Gun rights have always been a disputed topic, since the founding of our nation. With a Republican majority in Congress, the bill has a chance at getting through on some level. But the silencer portion of the bill is what has people concerned. If passed in its current form, the bill would allow people easier access to purchase silencers with less screening processes. This brings a concern to many gun control groups who say that the bill poses a threat to the people's security and safety. The image shows a political cartoon that depicts a school classroom with an armed teacher. The cartoon shows the availability of guns in the country and how the fear that guns instill in some people.
Questions:
1. Do you think that the idea that guns silencers will help with hearing is accurate or is it a ploy to make more money for gun manufacturers? Why? Should this bill become a law and why/why not?
2. Is there a way to check the influence and power of interest groups? If not, what is an idea or method to control them?
Gun silencers are unnecessary as they only means to get away with a crime. There are other preventative measures for hearing loss that can be used by regular hunters that do not pose potential threats. Furthermore, the registration process for a silencer acts as a deterrent for many. By taking away this process, silencers will be more readily available to domestic abusers, the mentally unstable, and criminals. This bill should not become a law, because it is simply a means for the gun industry to expand their influence and wealth, and poses a threat to people in precarious situations.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the selling of gun silencers will only make people more inclined to purchase a firearm. Gun silencers are all around us and, to some people, actors that are looked up to/idolized are using them regularly in movies and shows. This bill should not become a law due to the fact that it is unnecessary and will only promote crime.
ReplyDeleteJack Deasy: I believe it is just another way for gun manufacturers to make money. Silencer's are unnecessary for hearing protection with the use of ear-muffs. This is probably more deadly because it will allow people with guns to commit silent crimes. If it was to become a law, a strong background check on purpose for use, and should only be allowed in gun training.
ReplyDelete2: There is no proper way in checking except with loss of privacy and bias targeting.
I think that this bill should not become a law because it will give absolutely anyone easy access to gun silencers. This will even include people such as criminals and those with mental illnesses. While it will help gun manufacturers make more money, making this a law will increase the amount of crime in the U.S and become a threat to our overall safety.
ReplyDeleteGun silencers are another way for gun manufacturers to make money and also make it easier for people to get away with crime. Therefore, it should not become a law because its unnecessary and will put the public at risk.
ReplyDeleteI think that gun silencers are just another way for gun manufacturers to make money, and there has not been any substantial evidence to support that people with guns tend to have more hearing problems. Gun manufacturers usually care about the money they're making more than they care about the consequences that exist as a result of what they're selling, and this gun silencer bill is just another example of that. This bill should not become a law because silencers will give people more incentive to buy guns and use them to commit a crime, which would only be more of a threat to public safety.
ReplyDeleteAlthough less screening for gun silencers could prove beneficial to gun industry, it does seem like something that could endanger the safety of individuals. Moreover, to avoid hearing loss, other items (such as earplugs) could be used instead and would not warrant the potential risk that silencers pose. As a result, the bill seems unnecessary to the general population and thus should not become a law.
ReplyDeleteBy creating easier purchases of silencers, gun manufacturers are simply trying to increase their earnings. The impact on hearing is almost complete nonsense and just a way to expand the sales of guns and accessories. With silencers, it is easier for people to use guns for hunting in restricted areas for instance. Illegal hunting would be easier as well as gun use all around, which would in turn benefit gun manufacturers along with the money made off the silencers. The fact that the bill passed committee shows that interest groups like the NRA have too much power and goes along with the fact that even though most Americans support more background checks and screenings, the bills never pass. Interest groups are leading to more hyperpluralism and it is very hard to regulate.
ReplyDeleteI believe that gun silencers and the deafness argument are ploys by the corporate members of the National Rifle Association to convince their civilian counterparts to support their proposals. The NRA has too much power as an interest group due to its corporate and political sway, and the lack of alternatives to gun silencers speaks to the inability of corporations to account for the harm that guns cause.
ReplyDeleteI do not think gun silencers should be legal. The only argument that can be made for gun silencers is that it could mitigate the effects of shooting on hearing; however, I believe it would be more practical and safer to invest in better noise cancelling earphones/plugs to solve this rather than giving out a lethal, but legal product into the hands of the public.
ReplyDeleteGun silencers are completely unnecessary for an event other than shady business. In an environment where guns are used for legal purposes, it often includes training. Silencers reduce accuracy and awareness of guns and they would therefore be pointless: one could wear ear plugs.This bill should not become a law because of what was argued previously: in environments where guns are legally used, ear plugs should suffice. A way to check the influence of interest groups includes lobbying in certain legislative-based environments.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that gun silencers help hearing is definitly a ploy to make money. Gun violence is a huge problem in america and silencers will only make it worse, and give criminals one less thing to worry about. Gun companies know this and know that they will make a lot of money on gun silencers and they are exploiting this to make a buck.
ReplyDeleteThe most important element of this debate is the silencer itself. Gun silencers do not silence guns. They are intended to suppress the sound of a gunshot so as to not hurt the ears of the person firing the gun. At the same time, gun manufacturers want to make silencers legal in order to make more money. If you sold apples, you probably wouldn't want the government to outlaw the sale of apples. The fact that the gun lobby supports it for financial purposes does not illustrate anything about the actual safety of these silencers.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that gun silencers will help with a loss of hearing in any way. Gun silencers should not be legal, as they will reduce the chance of others hearing a crime take place. If one is shooting at a range or other legal area, it is much more ideal that they wear earmuffs to muffle sound. This is certainly another ploy for gun companies to make money, however, they are not considering the possible cons of quieter guns.
ReplyDelete1. I completely believe this propose bill is a way to make more money for gun manufacturers because the NRA in particular never admits to any of the crimes by guns and are protected by the second amendment. Therefore, with a Republican congress, I believe there is potential for the bill to pass, especially because members of Congress could have ties, economically or not, to the NRA.
ReplyDeleteIs there a way to check the influence and power of interest groups? If not, what is an idea or method to control them? Although the iron triangle of congressional, bureaucratic agencies, and interest groups work to contain the power of interest groups and represent primarily those interests, I think that interest groups are so narrowly focused that if enough people agree with their stance it will be hard to overcome their pull, especially because wealthy people who believe in their cause can give all the money they want to support it.
ReplyDelete