The One-Sided Gun War of the Sexes

“The One-Sided Gun War of the Sexes” was written By Rose Wong and was posted on The New York Times by The Editorial Board on April 14, 2017. Wong’s main purpose for this editorial was to highlight the issues on fire arms and the inattention the term intimate partner violence gets by not only Americans, but more importantly our national government.

Gun carnage is often a result of intimate partner violence. Most killers often obtain guns because of the people running the national background check system. While yes, there are federal and state laws designed and created to keep people from acquiring guns illegally, people work their way around them. Rose strengthned her argument by in-cooperating that nearly each week 10 women are shot to death by their so called loved ones. Americans are never informed of these tragedies and they are often kept a secret unless it is something like a school shooting, which just happened a few days ago. In fact, Rose mentions that about half of shootings in just the last few years are from people who had a background of killing, yet somehow was unnoticed in the purchasing of these murder weapons. There were many laws passed in the 1990’s to ensure safety by rejecting people who had been charged with any serious crime especially domestic abuse to not be able to purchase fire arms. However, even with these laws, back ground checks are often ignored or completely disregarded in the process of buying a fire arms. The laws made for regulations on guns may in fact be a current law, but they need to be reinforced, stronger, and more known. Republicans especially agree with this, and they have made their opinions on gun safety heard and clear to congress.

People are dying each and every day due to the inattention on intimate partner violence and the illegal purchase of fire arms. Buying fire arms for personal safety is something everyone should have the right to do. However, people buying fire arms for intention to hurt someone in addition to a previous back ground of violence is what the government need to pay attention to and stop.

Commentary on “The Wall To Be, Or Not To Be, - That Is The Question”

          I chose to comment to my classmates blog titled “The Wall To Be, OrNot To Be, - That Is The Question” from a source I was unable to find. However, with what I was able to read, I do agree with my colleague on that fact that Donald Trump’s idea on building a wall is quite simpleminded and idiotic. Building a wall could no way stop people from entering the United States if that was their whole goal. Yet, while what I read was interesting and what seemed to be true facts, I wish my colleague would have had a reliable source I could have followed with and elaborated more on his/her topic without just listing questions.

            First of all, my colleague did have great points as to why Trumps wall would never work. As I did some research about the wall, Trump mentions that he would only have to build so much of the wall because natural barriers such as lakes and mountains will keep immigrants from passing. But in reality, a wall may indeed make it harder for immigrants to pass but I do not think it will in any way stop them to, it never has. I also agree with my classmate on the money issue. I think building a wall will only put is more in debt, something we really do not need. Donald Trump says that Mexico is going to pay for the wall and in fact says it is going to be “easy” to get them to. Again, this is foolish to say. Mexico is not going to hand over 8 to 12 billion dollars to build a wall, they even said this.

            I think my colleague wrote a satisfactory commentary. I agreed with all he/she had to say, yet I think this is a topic that could have endless things to write about. We both agree that building a wall is not a smart idea. It is a money pit and there will be little to no positive outcomes with this idea. I must say it was a great topic to write about though! This is a topic very popular in our government today.