Virginia Tech shooting:Do tightening firearm laws alone guarantee safety?

The shooting at Virginia Tech University was definitely an incident that attracted the attention of many .Since then, many controversial issues such gun policies, censorship and racial discrimination has been brought to light. Following the massacre at Virginia Tech, many have been debating if stricter laws on fire arms should be enforced. Many advocates are on both sides of the debate. While a minority group suggests that the easy access to guns in America is the main reason as to why America's homicide rate is much higher than in any other industrialized country; a large majority feel that one such incident should not be the sole reason to tighten firearm laws.

I agree that certain gun policies should be reviewed. However, I frankly do not believe that tightening firearm laws alone would guarantee safety. Below I present my views as to why I believe that certain gun policies need to be reviewed.

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.” This quote by Indian philosopher
Mahatma Gandhi is definitely applicable to the massacre at the Virginia Tech.The easy access to guns in America enabled the student, Cho Seung Hui to obtain firearms easily after going through routine background checks. Though these checks were meant to confirm that the firearms were in safe hands, they clearly failed to do so. Furthermore, guns which were meant for self defense were used in the wrong way. As, he soon made the headlines by going on a murderous rampage at his university, killing 32 people. Further investigation showed that Cho Seung-Hui had bought his guns illegally, though with the appearance of legality. He was said to have slipped through a loophole. The question now is, why have laws which demand safety background checks before purchasing of firearms, if they are unable to work effectively. Does it not suggest that stricter laws on gun policies are yet to be enforced?

Furthermore, the legal age for buying a gun in the state of Virginia is only 12.It is almost appalling to visualize small kids carrying guns in their pockets. Though the guns can only be obtained with parental supervision, is it really a necessity to allow kids to have guns. Though I know that tightening this law may not help entirely, I do feel that it is necessary precaution to review this law especially after the Virginia Tech massacre as 12 is too young an age to be carrying a firearm.

However, as mentioned before, tightening firearm laws itself might not guarantee safety. This is because with reference to the massacre, the easy access to guns was not the only reason as to why the incident occurred at Virginia Tech. The murderer, Cho Seung-Hui , a student at the university was identified early as being mentally disturbed. Moreover, he showed possible signs of violence through his writings which increasingly became unhinged. However, these signs which were overlooked led to such a bitter incident to occur. Furthermore, having the idea that gun control laws lower gun crime is a myth. One can declare a place gun-free, as Virginia Tech had done, but people will find ways and means to bring guns into the place. Besides, even if there were even tougher gun policies, access to gun would still remain relatively easy. Those that cannot buy will steal or borrow. Cho Seung-hui was obvious a mentally disturbed individual, and there is evidence that there had been careful planning before the massacre was carried out . The likelihood is that he would have found a way to lay his hands on some form of weapon even if Virginia's, or America's, gun laws were a lot stricter.


Another reason why tightening firearm laws itself might not guarantee safety is because there are cases whereby guns have indeed saved the day. As ironical as it may seem, it is the truth. In a Pennsylvania high school for example, an armed merchant prevented further deaths. Furthermore, there facts that prove that enforcing stricter firearm laws have proved useless. An example is the shooting in Dublane. After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. However, this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

In conclusion, I strongly feel that certain gun policies should be reviewed. However, tightening gun policies or taking them away from people will neither guarantee safety nor remove the guns from the hands of criminals.


Source: nytimes.com

Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news: they make the news.Discuss this with references to recent events.

"The media is not just the message. The media is a massage. We're constantly being stroked, manipulated, adjusted, realigned, and manoeuvered." This quote by Joey Skaggs is definitely applicable in today’s context. Before looking at this in depth, let’s define the key terms in the question. What exactly do we refer to as mass media and how recent is recent. Well, mass media is a term used to denote, as a class, that section of the media specifically conceived and designed to reach a very large audience such as the population of a nation state while recent events are anything of late occurrence or events that are lately happening.

Referring back to the question, the statement that mass media do not report the news but make the news definitely holds true. Often we would have followed up closely with certain news just to realize that not all the information reported is accurate.This does not apply only to current affairs but also to news on celebrities. Why is it that there seems to be more bad news reported than good? Is it because the world going to the dogs? Or simply because we are being manipulated?Media manipulation is an aspect of public relations in which partisans create an image or argument that favours their particular interests.This tactics used by the mass media involves the suppression of information or points of view by crowding them out, by inducing other people or groups of people to stop listening to certain arguments, or by simply diverting attention elsewhere.

In my essay, I will refer to three recent events namely ‘Mixed signals on granite exports to Singapore’, ‘Reports of N Korea apology 'inaccurate' and ‘Abdullah tells government officials to stop arguing through media’. I have chosen these events as recent because they have occurred within a short span of time.Citing examples from these events, I will prove how the media plays up the news instead of reporting them. The ban of sand from Indonesia to Singapore has been a topic of discussion over some time.It is clear that media had played up the news as it was stated clearly that ‘quibbles over technical terms ‘ had brought the topic of possible granite ban to light. Earlier this month, Mr Hassan and Trade Minister Mari Pangestu told Singapore that there was no export ban on granite.However, this contradicted the statement provided by several Jakarta officials who hinted a possible ban on the export of granite to Singapore.This confusion over the granite ban reported by the media has not only sent mixed messages to the readers but has also made Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda look into whether the export of granite chips should continue. So, one might then ask how the media has made the news.Well, why did the media choose to report news that might cause confusion instead of reporting the finalized decision? The reason is that the media does not report exactly what happens but twists the news to attract attention.

The second news article on inaccurate reports of North Korea’s apology reiterates the above stated point. Media had reported that North Korea had apologised for conducting a nuclear test that caused its neighbour disturbance and that it was not carrying out a second one.However, China said that the reports were inaccurate and that there is no guarantee the it will not test again. It also indicated that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. (DPRK) had no plans for a second nuclear test but if other countries impose more pressure, the DPRK may take further steps.This is clearly an example of the media not reporting the news but making their own.Thus, leading to unwanted problems.The third news is about a spat between the police and the deputy minister over conflicting crime data.Both parties not only claim that their data is accurate but also point fingers at each other telling the other had manipulated the crime rate figures.The question now is, why had the media decided to report on the argument between the government officials even though it knows that doing so will cause many to lose trust in the government.Simple! to attract attention. No doubt that they give the data , but only in a way they want us to view it.In other words, they make the news.

The media sways the public, and this is undeniable.However, is it true that the media always makes the news instead of reporting them.If so, why do we still look to newspapers as a reliable source of information Let's not forget, however, that the influence of the mass media depends not only on what and how they report, but also on how the audience perceive all that. This depends on the audience's perception, education and social affiliation as well as other circumstances. Whether we think that media makes the news or reports them is in the way we see it.When a dog bites a man that is not news, but when a man bites a dog that is news. This is the kind of news that makes people stop and read; and that is the reason why media has to make the news by presenting it in a different perspective instead of merely reporting it.

“You Tube has no ethics, it’s been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.” Do you agree?

You Tube, one of the largest and fastest growing video entertainment communities with Google’s expertise. In this techno-savvy world it is hardly possible to find anyone who has not heard of it. No doubt that, You Tube is a haven for entertainment for many, irregardless of their age. Not only does it provide free access to online videos, but your opportunity to showcase your talent in video making is just a click-away! Then again, is You Tube merely an outlet where you can be entertained or is it a portal where moral values are not given a second thought. Has it gone too far this time?

Though being a You Tube user myself, I have to agree that to a large extent, it has no ethics. So what exactly do ethics mean? Well, ethics are defined as principles concerning right and wrong and how people behave. It was clearly a detestable act for You Tube to allow clips that are offensive to Thailand’s revered monarch to be viewed by many online. Even though, You Tube terms of use state clearly that among other things, defamatory material is not permitted, it refused to remove the clip until Thailand introduced a government ban on the site. Soon after the original video was claimed to have been removed by the creator, other clips showing images of the king’s face covered with graffiti and juxtaposed with images of feet surfaced. Thus, causing Mr Sitthichai, Thailand’s communications minister to accuse You Tube of “being heartless and culturally insensitive for refusing to do anything.”

True, that one cannot come to a decision that You Tube has no ethics based on one event. However, further research has shown that this is not the first time that someone has pointed a finger at You Tube for being insensitive. TV journalist, Robert Tur, filed a lawsuit against the company fro hosting a number of news clips without permission. Countries such as Iran and Turkey have also introduced ban on You Tube. While Iran banned You Tube in an attempt to impede “corrupting” foreign films and talent; Turkey blocked You Tube for some time for insulting Turkishness and having alleged Turks and Ataturks to be homosexuals. This clearly reiterates You Tube’s lack of moral principles.

Though , You Tube has established itself as a well-known entertainment portal, I would not say that it was created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money. The abundance of video clips have definitely entertained people. However, it has done more than that. It has helped to boost creativity among the users. Last year, You Tube held a competition to reward the most innovative video. This undoubtedly encouraged people to stretch their limits to produce entertaining videos. Moreover, the visual element of You Tube also makes it possible to explain treatment and intervention that is otherwise difficult to describe in other web-based formats. An example would be the government funded clinic in Builth, Wales, UK which posts videos on You Tube demonstrating how to sample blood sugar levels and use an inhaler. This has in turn benefited many.

In conclusion, though to a large extent I agree that You Tube does not have ethics, I would not entirely agree that it was created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.