The first article, by Adam Gopnik, is on the subject of the 2007 Virginia Tech Massacre; the second is an article by Susan Sontag on the September 11 Attacks. The two articles, although based upon different events, both critique the United States government for the way these attacks were handled. It is evident that neither Gopnik nor Sontag approved of the way the Bush Administration dealt with these crises. For the most part, I tend to agree with both articles. I have some reason to believe that both situations could have been seen to more efficiently.
After reading the first article, it's pretty obvious that more could have been done to prevent the Virginia Tech shooting from happening in the first place. The statistics speak for themselves -- the US gun policy isn't up to par compared to other countries, who after experiencing shootings, accordingly tightened their gun laws. There is no reason any private citizen should be able to own guns made strictly for killing people. It scares me that it's so easy for people to acquire these kinds of weapons. The article points out the direct (and obvious) correlation between gun laws and gun violence. (Strict laws = less violence, Weak laws = more violence.) Of course, even with refined laws, some (although considerably fewer) shootings are bound to happen. I don't know if there could ever be a full-proof solution to prevent gun violence. Speaking hypothetically, had the US had stronger gun laws around the time of the Virginia Tech incident, it might not have happened. Thirty-three lives could have been saved.
Sontag's article objects the government's approach after 9/11. She believes that the focus was mainly on calming and comforting US citizens as opposed to actually taking steps to resolve the situation. After such a traumatic event, I can see why government officials would want to calm the people of their country. Family members, friends, and heroes were lost. I understand why the leaders of our country would want to create feelings of reassurance, confidence, and patriotism after something so upsetting. On the other hand, I don't think it was right for President Bush to put us under the impression that everything was going to be okay, when it clearly wasn't. He didn't exactly have a good plan of action. However, neither does Sontag. Yes, she freely criticizes the lack of execution done by the executive branch, but she herself never quite proposes a strategy.
Now I'm no government official -- thank goodness for that -- but I think both situations could have been handled a little more effectively. Far too many lives have been lost.
Great recap/response to the pieces, Jenna. I'm glad to see you put such thought into the pieces. I also like how you're able to consider both sides of the particular debate in your response. Nice job!
ReplyDeleteGood job keeping up with the posts. Keep writing, and check out some of your classmates' stuff, too, if you haven't already.
I agree with you on your first article in that if our country's gun laws were more strict, than these event would be less likely to occur. However, this is the curse we have from living in a country where freedom reigns (don't get me wrong, freedom rocks!), and I am uncertain as to what extent politicians' can restrict gun laws without them being unconstitutional. Then there are those people who say "Well, I didn't do anything" or "nothing affected me" and will argue and vote against it because the law gives them a more difficult time purchasing firearms. I think these factors are restricting these ideal laws from taking affect.
ReplyDelete