Category: 2016

In light of the recent events in Orlando, our nation is yet again faced with the question of prevention of gun violence in the future. Orlando is most definitely not an isolated incident, in the past ten years, 301,797 Americans have been killed due to gun related violence according to The Trace.

Some events other than Orlando include Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, UCLA, and Tuscon. Every day the percentage of gun violence is significantly increasing. In result, innocent children and families are being killed.

There have been many opinions circulating regarding gun violence, and according to DC resident, Laura Catalani, legislations should be put in place to alleviate tensions. Catalani says the government has made, “attempts, but no movements have been put forth.”

Although, legislation is harder to see in the making, the physical use of guns is easier to recognize and she believes it needs, “to be harder to get guns,” because too much violence is present in Catalani’s opinion. American citizens such as Catalani fear a future of violence and believe it needs to stop before the practice rubs off on our children. It’s all “part of the puzzle for gun violence,” said Catalani.

Even students, such as Lily Cervantes have an opinion on gun control. Cervantes believes gun violence is one of the most common issues in the United States today.  She believes that while “gun violence is terrible, it is inevitable and is hard to avoid completely.” She thinks there should be more security when it comes to guns and more precautions to avoid future shootings.  

In the relation of mental illness to gun violence she believes that “mental illness, depending on what you have, makes you more aggressive and in the strong mind set.” Cervantes as well as others gun advocates believe that gun violence is something that we should handle with care in looking towards our future. Although Cervantes believes gun violence is becoming very common, she is hopeful that it can be avoided through stricter background checks and more control overall.

from Think Progress

American citizens, such as Viviane Wade, local DC server and hostess feel the affects of this ever-increasing issue. Wade said she feels completely uncomfortable carrying a gun, and expressed this opinion by stating that she “wouldn’t even want to touch a gun,” let alone own one. She believes that many times those who do carry guns draw trouble to themselves.

Wade would like to see some changes in policy that can decrease the amount of unfit people carrying guns–one of the greatest issues our government is still trying to tackle. One suggestion that she did have to move towards a safer future was to reinforce the age requirement to purchase a gun; a rule that many sadly ignore. She did however remark that there is “no age limit on mental illness” and added that overall background checks need to become stricter.

Statistics show that the total number of firearms bought in each state is less than the amount of murders that occur in that same year.  California being the highest in number of murders totaling 1,745 has 1,224 firearms according to the FBI link. Hawaii has the least murders with only 9 in one year and 6 firearms.  These facts prove that in some states gun violence is more prevalent than others, but is still a daily problem everywhere in the United States.  

According to The Trace on an average day, 36 Americans are killed due to gun violence which supports the fact that gun violence is an obvious issue that needs to be focused on and studied more.  In total about 12,253 (including Guam and the Virgin Islands) were killed in gun related crimes in 2013 and that number seems to be rising with 12,942 in 2015.  

There has been debate on whether or not there needs to more legislation or just higher prices for guns in general to make it harder to get them. But, to understand why people even have and use guns, it’s important to know the two pro-gun and anti-gun sides.

52% of Americans supporting the anti-gun side want more gun laws, while 14% of Americans supporting the pro-gun side want laws to be less strict according to a recent Gallup Poll. The reason for this divide, according to Psychology Today, boils down to these three main reasons: people are brought up using guns, using a gun is simply fun and empowering (for example in video games), and can make you feel safe.

So should people be allowed to own guns for safety as long as it’s legal, or should there be more legislation to abolish illegal guns? From a psychologist’s perspective, having guns at home leads to more deaths than actual protection against crime.

In a 2014 Gallup Poll 63% of people believe owning a gun at home makes them safer. According to a 1999 study those individuals who believed they felt safer were mainly young, male individuals who had no children. While protection is vital, and something Americans feel they need now more than ever, it’s having a negative impact on the younger generations.  

In recent years, several studies have been conducted in order to determine what makes up the mentality of a gun-owner. Researchers found that several factors make up this mentality such as political views, social culture, racism, lack of self-confidence and impulsivity.

Social gun culture was found to be one of the leading pressures to purchase and carry a gun. In a  2015 study done by Bindu Kaleson at Cornell University, it was found that the average American gun owner was typically white, high income, and over 55 years of age. Questions raised in this study that were  relating to social gun culture included things like, would the individual’s family or social circle think less of them for not owning a gun or does their social life include activities with guns.

Another typical attribute of a male American gun owner was described as a “crisis of confidence”. What this means is that men who feel significant pressure to be hyper masculine are  again more likely to own and carry a gun in order to feel a sense of security. Those who are angry, impulsive, or risk taking may also be more inclined to own a firearm. According to Huffington Post, all humans are somewhat aggressive in their natural state and the possession of a gun can bring out this not so deeply buried characteristic.

Lastly, those with racial resentment are more likely to oppose gun reform. In a 2013 study by Walter Forrest, Michael Daly, Kerry O’Brien, and Dermot Lynott found that “sociocultural factors such as fear of black violence may be associated with gun ownership, and with opposition to gun controls.” This theory has been supported in several other studies as well. Although many of those who own guns don’t use them in a violent way, studies such as these may help lead us to much needed answers in the future.

Overall, gun violence is a major problem in the United States today, and something that we should all be working to improve.  Opinions differ on the issue but ultimately changes need to be made starting with the agreement of appropriate gun ownership, and whether legislation should be more prevalent. But, in order to have an agreement, the psychology behind the violence needs to be understood, and taken into account when making these decisions.  

Affirmative Action continues to grab headlines throughout the United States, after the recent Supreme Court decision on Fisher v University of Texas Americans debate the importance of cultural diversity and the most effect strategy to combat bigotry.

The Affirmative Action program exists for the purpose of accepting more minorities into higher education, however some would argue that this can exclude qualified whites from being accepted into college. Some students feel that a race box is unnecessary to include on a college application, while some believe that we must celebrate racial and cultural differences. The long lasting controversy heated up after the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the University of Texas’ acceptance process.

Student Abigail Fisher sued the university in 2008 for not accepting her because she is Caucasian. The court finally ruled in a 4-3 decision in favor or the University of Texas, promoting the continuation of Affirmative Action. “Indeed, to compel universities to admit students based on class rank alone is in deep tension with the goal of educational diversity as this Court’s cases have defined it,” said Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has ruled that students applying to the University of Texas can be treated differently because of their race or ethnicity,” Fisher said to the New York Times, “I hope that the nation will one day move beyond affirmative action.”

The case surrounding Affirmative Action sparks the arguments surrounding the best way to end racism. Some believe that we should ignore race in an effort to achieve true equity. “We should look at race like hair color,” said Wyatt Warberg, 16, “we shouldn’t give someone more of an opportunity based on their race.”

Meanwhile some students support the belief that racial differences must be acknowledged, and since equality has yet be achieved between ethnicities, we must honor our heritage. “If we don’t think about race then you lose a part of who you are,” said Grant Owens, 15.

Owens explains that he believes giving minorities more opportunities is especially important to create a culture of success. “The next generation can see people who look like them doing things,” said Owens. Specifically regarding the discussion around the race box on applications, he believes it helps celebrate diversity and also give more information on the student to see if they’d be interested in certain organizations. “I’m strongly against ignoring race,” said Owens, “your race is pretty important, it’s for clubs like the youth NAACP.”

However both students want to ensure that the majority has a fair shot at success. “We’re trying to accept everyone and we’re pushing white people away from opportunities,” said Warberg.

“It’s a double edged sword. You don’t want situational majorities to be excluded,” said Owens.

The necessity and effectiveness of Affirmative Action will continue to be decided. While most Americans want to simply move past racism, many wish to ensure that American culture celebrates our differences. We continue to search for true equity, and while it it easy to talk about, the hard part is finding the right path to equality

Information on graphic attributed to the US Department of Commerce.

 

As the 2016 race for president heats up, many people are wondering if they’ll be stuck choosing between the two main presumptive nominees: Donald Trump (R) or Hillary Clinton (D). “I think the candidates, especially Donald Trump, are taking it as a joke,” said NSLC student Allie Brown. Other adults do not hold favorable opinions of those candidates either; according to a poll conducted by the Washington Post, 55 percent of adults have an unfavorable view of Clinton, whereas 70 percent of adults have an unfavorable view of Trump. Some third party candidates are trying to capitalize on this opportunity, hoping to put themselves in a more favorable light than Clinton or Trump.

One of the third party candidates gaining traction is Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico. Johnson is the presidential candidate for the Libertarian election. Johnson ran in 2012, taking over 1 million votes, good for third place. However, Johnson was far off from the number of votes Barack Obama and Mitt Romney received (65.9 million and 60.9 million respectively). This year, Johnson is trying to have his voice heard by qualifying for the presidential debates in the fall. In order to do so, Johnson needs to have 15 percent of the vote in national polls. In an Investor’s Business Daily poll, Johnson received 11 percent of the vote. CNN recently had an interview with Johnson, highlighting his stances on policies like immigration and gun control: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/gary-johnson-bill-weld-town-hall/

Another candidate rallying for support is Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. In a CNN/ORC poll released June 21, 2016, Stein pulled in 7 percent of the vote among registered voters. Stein is trying to get the support of Bernie Sanders fans. “The difference between Bernie Sanders and myself is he was trying to have a revolutionary campaign inside a counterrevolutionary party,” said Stein, according to CNN.

Third party candidates have made an impact before; in 1992, businessman Ross Perot ran against Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush and Democratic nominee Bill Clinton. Perot lead both Bush and Clinton in national polls before dropping out of the race in July 1992. Perot then reentered the race in Oct. 1992, and participated in the debates with Clinton and Bush. Perot received 19 percent of the popular vote.

Some believe that third party candidates are “spoilers” to the election process. In the 2000 election, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader garnered 97,488 votes in Florida. In a document written by Dartmouth College and UCLA students and presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, the students claim that because of those votes to Nader, Al Gore lost the key state of Florida, giving George W. Bush the majority of electoral college votes (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf). Others say that having third party candidates gives people more of a choice. “I think we need more representation for our opinions,” said NSLC student Miles Misurasa.

The following is the results among third party candidates in the 2012 presidential election (information provided by the FEC): http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012pres.pdf

However, when Obama and Romney are added in, the results are very different:

According to this data, third party candidates will need more support than they received in 2012 if they want to be seen as serious, viable candidates.