Meredith K Freeland

content warning: violence, injury, racial slurs

Though I spend every morning listening to political podcasts that constantly discuss racial tensions and identity politics, I have never been faced with the truths of race in America the way I was on August 14, 2018. We go numb to so many of these issues as the news stories become commonplace and redundant- it took a violent, harsh, and tangible reckoning with reality to make me even begin to fully digest the status of racial relations in this country. And yet, my conclusion is quite simply that it is complicated. And it needs to change.

Let me explain.

I was walking home from the metro after work at about 6pm on a Tuesday. Minding my own business (admittedly paying attention to very little besides my iPhone), I was startled by commotion and yelling on the sidewalk in front of me. As I got closer and saw through the people gathered around, I was accosted by the sight of a small, white woman laying on the ground in a pool of her own blood. Never before had I seen such injury in real life.

I approached the people surrounding her and made sure that someone was calling the police and an ambulance; then, I began to investigate. As it turns out, this woman’s misfortune was the result of a racially-charged altercation on the public bus. She had started an argument with some black bus riders, asking them to turn down their loud music because she found it offensive and annoying. Apparently, this dispute escalated on the bus, and it resulted in her aggressively calling them all “n****rs” as she got off at the stop. A black man and woman also got off the bus, and the man proceeded to hit her in the back of the head. The woman then attacked her.

Both of the physical aggressors left, and the bus driver drove away without calling the police or checking on the woman.

By the time I was with her, the woman was laying on the sidewalk, screaming through a mouthful of blood that “she is so tired of being treated like trash simply because she is white,” that “white lives matter,” and that she “hates living in a black neighborhood.”

Upon hearing the story and observing the victim’s behavior, I selfishly followed my thoughts straight to the strain this put on my personal values. This woman treated her fellow bus riders with a level of disrespect that is absolutely unacceptable. She was then espousing racial beliefs that I registered as abhorrent. How could I continue to sympathize with her?

Yet I couldn’t leave. There was a woman in need of urgent medical attention. Despite her treatment of fellow Americans, she was treated as less than human in the physical attack. No name-calling or verbal slurs could possibly warrant such a response. I felt conflicted. The outspoken political activist inside me wanted to argue with her about her claims of white struggle. But this was not the time nor the place.

After being sure that she was in the hands of medical professionals, I continued my walk home and reflected upon the jarring experience. Two things occurred to me that will forever change my perspective:

(1) Her experiences are real. And her experiences are valid. A history of black oppression and mistreatment does not negate the horrendous treatment she received at the hands of black citizens. While her views on racial relations may be limited to her life and do not include the reality of racial inequalities on a larger scale, she has a real and true hatred brewing inside. This should be a concern for each and every political affiliation. Whether she is “wrong” or “right” is secondary. She feels threatened and mistreated by the black people in her community, just as many black citizens feel about their relationships with white community members. These tensions feed animosity, violence, and cultural divide. The adversarial nature of race relations in this country, the pitting of blacks against whites, is dangerous – for both groups.

Recognizing that my polar opposite political and racial views don’t negate the reality of her experience, her trauma, and the development of her ideology forced me to acknowledge the severity of the disrepair in the state of American race relations.

(2) The horrendous altercation resulted in a championing of black character. It wasn’t until I was removed from the adrenaline and terror of the situation that it dawned on me- the woman who was on the phone with the police and helping the victim clean her wounds was black; the man who chased down the bus to document the bus number and the driver who left the scene of the crime was black. The heroes were black. The heroes were black in a situation where a racist white woman was the victim of a crime at the hands of  two black people.

For me, this served as a reminder that no one race is good or evil. People are good and people are evil. There are gracious and kind citizens of every color. More importantly, people are not inherently compelled to side with the people who look like them- I felt sympathy for those who were aggressively called racial slurs, and the black woman helped the white woman in pain. Further, a victim can still be a victim and also not be innocent. The woman who was attacked behaved horribly and treated others in an unacceptable manner; however, she in no way justified a physical attack. These situations are so very complicated. Race relations are so very complicated.

If nothing else, it is a call to everyone, especially white people, to be the heroes, not the bystanders. No matter the color of the victim, mistreatment of people is unacceptable, and there is no excuse for standing idly by.

While this traumatizing experience did more to complicate my understanding of racial relations than clarify it, it made one thing clear as day: this country does not operate on a system of functional societal interactions. The behaviors we demonstrate and the hatred we fuel is not only counterproductive but unsustainable. We are in dire need of a drastic transformation of the way we interact, the way we speak, and the way we think about our neighbors.

Though there are various sources of irony in Donald Trump’s campaign, from his assertion that competition in health insurance will lead to the coverage of pre-existing conditions to his claims that the foreign manufacturing of products that he purchases is killing American jobs, one ironic facet of his performance in the second Presidential debate is worth far more than just noting. Donald spent a decent portion of his speaking time emphasizing the horrid conditions in American inner cities and the catastrophic crime and murder rates. He referenced the recent tragedies in cities like Charlotte to drive home his point. Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, and for America should he be elected, he fails to notice that his rhetoric and his treatment of his fellow citizens are precisely what perpetuates the hatred and divide that foster violence and criminal activity.

The most apparent and relevant example of the dangerous rhetoric that Mr. Trump employs is found, ironically, in his “apology” for other horrendous rhetoric of his. Donald’s excuse that his statements about women that were leaked days before the debate were simply “locker room talk” is more damaging than just a horrible excuse for an apology. Let’s be very clear. Donald asserted that he can do whatever he wants to women because he is famous. Donald claimed that he can simply “grab them by the pussy”. Many media outlets have chosen to say that he has spoken inappropriately about women or that he mentioned grabbing them by the genitals, but if a nominee for President can say those words without repercussions, that indicates that the American public is totally fine with hearing those words. “Grab her by the pussy”. That is how the potential future leader of our nation speaks about over 50% of our population. To even imply that the young men in locker rooms after a high school football game or changing before gym class can utilize this language and have it written off as “locker room talk”, as boys just being boys takes this Trump phenomenon to a new level of horrifying. Not only would Donald Trump not advocate for women in policy, not only will he objectify us and ridicule our appearances, but Donald Trump will perpetuate, allow, and enable a culture in which men are allowed to dehumanize women because, well, that’s just what men do.

Following the lead of the Republican nominee, many will respond to this analysis on Donald’s rhetoric by asserting that Bill Clinton’s actions speak louder than Donald Trump’s words. Let me pre-empt this response with a few crucial observations:

1. Bill Clinton is not running for President. Period. It is not only irrelevant to discuss his mistakes during Hillary’s run for the office but frankly quite sexist. To blame his wife and hold her responsible for his actions is at the root of the misogynistic society that a Trump presidency would perpetuate.
2. The logical follow-up from Trump supporters is that Hillary has claimed she will heavily involve Bill in her executive branch.  That’s a debate and a discussion that can be had. Appointment to many important government positions requires further approval, and Hillary should be held to high standards when choosing those with whom she surrounds herself. Let’s also not forget that Trump has expressed his high hopes that Sarah Palin will accept a position on his cabinet, so let the debates commence.
3. Hillary’s role in Bill’s sexual assaults is unclear and likely a diversion tactic on behalf of opponents. While Juanita Broaddrick’s allegations of rape are unproven, I firmly believe in giving the victim the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that Bill did rape her, there is still no indication that Hillary was aware nor complicit with the action. Broaddrick claims that Hillary “bullied” her, though research into the claim shows that Broadrrick made this statement based on an inference she made about Hillary’s tone at a rally. Hillary thanked Juanita for everything she had done for Bill, and any assumptions about her tone are barely anything worthy of comparing with Donald’s leaked videos.
4. Even if what Bill did was absolutely abhorrent, Donald Trump is in no way excused from his actions by pointing that out. No one is innocent by comparison. Just because someone else did something worse does not in any way mean that your unrelated action is acceptable. The rhetoric that Donald Trump has used consistently, not just in the leaked video, is absolutely inexcusable from any America citizen. His position as the Republican nominee for the President of this great country simply makes his words that much more powerful and that much more revolting. A man with his influence should be utterly ashamed to have uttered such verbiage, and America should be humiliated that we let such a man attain such influence.

sources: The Political Insider;

As the infamous Clinton email scandal hits its peak, it’s no surprise that any information we can get our hands on is likely from an exceptionally partisan source trying to sway us before November. Let’s see what we can deduce from all of the political rhetoric and strategic media.

(1) The Actual Emails 

The accusations involve around 30,000 emails she sent on a private server, clintonemail.com, during her time as Secretary of State. It has been stated that 113 of them contained confidential information. There is now discrepancy about the level of classification, as much of the information was declared classified after the emails had been sent, making the use of the private server to convey that information legal (and in line with precedent set by past officials). There is nothing suggesting that the server’s security was breached or that the emails were hacked.

(2) The Comey Statement

Who is James Comey? He is the FBI Director, and a Republican who served as a US attorney and then deputy attorney general for the George W. Bush administration.

Comey gave remarks on the investigation on July 5, setting an eery precedent for how the FBI handles such controversies. The Justice Department has protocol and procedures that Comey completely dismissed in his decision to speak publicly about the situation, ridiculing the individual whom he ultimately decided was not worthy of charges. While Comey argues that his statement was appropriate because of the exceptional interest the public has in this investigation, he fails to recall that almost all cases investigated by the FBI are of interest to the public. Because of this public intrigue, “the rules exist, so that the department cannot speak outside the bounds of court when it does not bring charges,” Matthew Miller of the Washington Post explains. Publicly announcing all of the reasons why he deems Clinton deplorable and wrong without indictment  was completely inappropriate, even if some of his claims are understandable or valid. If we want to berate leaders for living above the law and protocol, here’s another prime example.

Now onto the content of his statement. He expressed that Clinton was “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” Yes, it is fair to deem this email debacle careless. Even Clinton admits that she could have made better decisions.

He adds that in assessing previous investigations into “the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.” Comey explained that past prosecutions involved “clearly intentional and willful mishandling,” “vast quantities of materials,” and “indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice.” He assures us that the FBI did not find any of those characteristics extant in Clinton’s case, and thus finds charges unnecessary.

The criminal code that addresses classified documents requires evidence that the government official “knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location” to find criminal activity. No concrete evidence exists.

(3) The Lynch-Clinton Rendezvous

Monday night, the night before Comey’s statement, Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch were at the same airport and spoke on her plane. Lynch assures us that the conversation consisted of polite small talk centered around travels and grandchildren. It is totally warranted to get skeptical right about now.

Lynch has since stated that meeting with Bill was a mistake and that she would not do it again as it implied inappropriate conduct. In an attempt to solve back for this lapse in judgment, she stated that she would accept whatever recommendation came from the FBI director, and that is exactly what she’s done.

It’s evident that there’s no evidence of Clinton knowingly storing classified information on a private server, so rendezvous with Lynch or not, the case against Clinton doesn’t hold enough water for a trial.

If you’re curious about the potential motives or logic behind Bill’s conversation with the AG or the nature of a Clinton scandal, please feel free to read more: Vox- Bill Clinton Lorette Lynch Plane Meeting.

(4) The Pattern

Let me make clear that this argument, while intriguing and worthy of inspiring some serious American introspection, should be least compelling. It is logically fallacious to say just because wrongdoings have occurred in the past that they should be excused in the present. However, I think it worthy of noting the asymmetrical scrutiny raining down upon Secretary Clinton.

It is interesting to acknowledge the lack of response when similar scandals of greater magnitude have occurred in the past. A few quick examples in which we saw no trial (and very little media coverage):

a. Colin Powell had a personal email (AOL) that he used during his time in office in the exact same manner that Clinton did.

b. the director of the CIA knowingly gave a journalist (his mistress) a series of black books that the Justice Department declared contained “classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions quotes and deliberative discussions from high level National Security Council meetings and [Petraeus’] discussions with the president.”

c. Bush’s administration deleted 22 million emails on a private server amidst the firing of 8 US attorneys.

We want Hillary to be held to the same standard as the Average Joe? We’re nowhere close seeing as she isn’t even treated the same as her equally wealthy, politically powerful male counterparts. A quick search of  “Hillary Clinton unfairly treated” reveals endless evidence of her being scrutinized more than her male peers, unjustly portrayed by the media, and hit with frequent sexist attacks. I dare to posit that had another character executed her actions, this story would play out quite differently.

(5) The Impacts

There’s no indictment for Hillary. For those of us yearning for a trial, a public release of the information on this case, I invite you along a quick thought experiment. What if there were to be a trial? It would likely land us right where we are now. No concrete evidence of malicious intent behind her actions, but a whole lot of media drama and partisan pleas. In my completely unprofessional and personal opinion, forgoing the (arguably unnecessary) trial to preserve the dignity of this election is a compromise I’m willing to make. Almost all of the “confidential” information was deemed so ex post facto, destroying allegations of criminal activity. There was found to be no harm to national security, and, now that she’s been criticized for carelessness and the State Department scrutinized for its security and technology, she will likely be watched with a close eye when it comes to protocol and improvements will be made to the department’s logistics. That seems like a win to me. I’ll take that win, and I’d like her to take a win in November, too. Drowning Clinton in a trial that they can’t find evidence to support to appease the critics could cost her this frighteningly narrow election, risking the security and prosperity of the United States. I say we cut our losses. No one should be above the system for convenience, but, within the system, her actions don’t warrant a trial. Pursuing a trial because opponents are crying out for one would just ruin the system and the election.

P.S. I encourage you to actually read these

sources: Foreign Policy- Don’t Blame Hillary; Washington Post- James Comey’s Abuse of Power; Vox- FBI Email; Vox- Bill Clinton Lorette Lynch Plane Meeting; New York Times- FBI Findings; Politifact- Media Reaction to Bush’s Email Controversy; Newsweek- Colin Powell Emails

As bills fail in Congress, Presidential candidates make policy promises, and families mourn losses, it’s about time that we look at the cold hard facts surrounding the gun epidemic in this country. Let’s break down this whole gun ordeal, in the wake of all of the emotional appeals being made after the mass shooting in Orlando and the battles being fought in Washington.

(1) Doesn’t the Constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment, give me the right to own a gun?

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see anything in that verbiage specifying that citizens of the United States can own any type of weapon they want at any time no matter what. Further, the word “infringe” means (yes, I’m referring to dictionary.com) “to commit a breach of”, and, for those of us wanting further clarity, “breach” is “the act of breaking.” This implies that the 2nd Amendment tells us the government cannot break our right to bear arms. It does not, however, imply that the government cannot regulate that right- bend it, you could say. In fact, note the first words of the amendment: “well regulated”.

Justice Scalia wrote in 2008 that, “just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Unfortunately, his logic is flawed. The other two amendments exhibit expansion of applicability because their expansion serves to provide further protection of citizens as increased threats or security breaches have arisen. The 2nd amendment’s expansion to protecting all sorts of automatic war-grade weapons, however, does the opposite; allowing for the ownership of those weapons creates a larger threat to citizens than the one against which it would be protecting.

All of that aside, it is potentially even more important to note that this sentence that is so cherished by proponents of gun rights was written almost 230 years ago. Our founding fathers could not have fathomed a world in which the weapons that exist today were not only in existence but accessible to the masses. To assume that it is rational, advisable, or moral to insist upon the enforcement of an antiquated sentence at the expense of human lives is rather nonsensical. Remember, the US Constitution, while one of the great feats of human history, was born into an era that tolerated atrocities like slavery, sexism, and classism; it is not absurd to question the applicability of the logic used in creating this document to today’s modern society- a society in which, I’m hoping, we place a higher value on each human life.

(2) Aren’t I safer if I have a gun and can protect myself?

Contrary to popular American belief, the possession of a gun does not usually make a citizen safer. As articulated in The Guardian, having a gun simply increases the chances that a gun is used. For instance, the possession of a weapon may entice the owner to enter more dangerous situations due to a false sense of protection and over-confidence. There is also a greater chance that, even if the attacker was unarmed, the gun could be turned and used on the victim. Setting aside purely rhetorical arguments and looking at hard data, Professor Branas of UPenn reports a couple of key findings:

• “those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not carry”
• “for individuals who had time to resist and counter in a gun assault, the odds of actually being shot actually increased to 5.45 fold relative to an individual not carrying”

Psychologists Jessica Witt and James Brockmole add that gun possession creates a kind of paranoia, and owners begin to suspect others of carrying weapons as well. This assumption can, unfortunately, breed violence and overreaction.

To summarize the claim made by Australian Jim Jefferies, the “protection in one’s home” argument is not logically sound. On one hand, abiding by safety protocol and law, a gun should be disassembled, locked away, and out of reach. On the other, it can only be of use in the case of an imminent, dangerous threat if you constantly have it at the ready. The first scenario attempts to protect from accidents, while the second allows the weapon to serve as protection from external enemies. Unfortunately, they cannot exist in harmony. Either, your gun is too safely locked away to be of any practical use, or it is accessible and also extraordinarily dangerous and accident-prone.

Whether you look at the logic or at the data, you’ll find that using guns as a means for safety and protection is a flawed tactic. If it is safety that we want, we should look to eliminate the threat posed by the weapons that have already stripped so many of their lives, futures, and families.

(3) Is there actually a correlation between gun control and the number of homicides?

Dr. Bisakha Sen found in a 2012 study that “in general, states that require more comprehensive background checks before gun purchases also have fewer homicide and suicide deaths by firearm.” The results specify that states with specific requirements in background checks for factors such as mental illnesses or restraining orders, there is a correlated 7% decrease in homicides and 2% decrease in suicides. “Also, firearm homicide deaths are 13 percent lower when states have checks for restraining orders and 21 percent lower when fugitive status is checked.”

Further, assault weapons, while deadlier than other guns, are also more likely to be put to use. The Brady Center finds “assault weapons were 20 times more likely than conventional firearms to be used in crime,” when compared proportionately with their numbers in circulation.

The Guardian and the Council on Foreign Relations tell us two important things:

1. The US, home to less than 5% of the global population, has somewhere from 35-50% of the world’s civilian-owned guns, making it the country with the highest number of firearms per capita.
2. The United States’ gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, the highest firearm homicide rate of all developed countries.

This should tell us something.

(4) Does “gun control” mean that none of us can own any guns?

While I’m tempted to argue that perhaps it should mean that or that perhaps none of us needs any guns, no, it doesn’t mean that at all! Gun control can range from comprehensive background checks to banning specific types of weapons.

(5) If someone plans to commit suicide, won’t they just use other means if they don’t have a gun?

First, let’s look at the magnitude of suicides in the US. Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death. “In 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves.” Ok, so it’s a really big deal.

Now, let’s look at the factors behind these numbers. In over half of these cases, firearms were used. This means that firearms are used more frequently when people kill themselves than all other means (hanging, overdose, etc.) put together. There is a really critical distinction to make here: guns are not the most common tool in suicide attempts, but they are the most common tool in suicide deaths. This is because a suicide attempt by a gun is almost always fatal. The Harvard Public Health Magazine finds “about 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death. (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.)” Whereas an overdose or cutting allow time for the individual to reconsider their actions or get help, a gun shot is irreversible.

A 2008 study by Miller and David Hemenway, author of the book Private Guns, Public Health, found “rates of firearm suicides in states with the highest rates of gun ownership are 3.7 times higher for men and 7.9 times higher for women, compared with states with the lowest gun ownership—though the rates of non-firearm suicides are about the same.” Skepticism about these facts is understandable, but the logic holds true even when extraneous factors are accounted for. For example, a smaller proportion of gun owners report having attempted suicide compared to non-owners, indicating that it is not an intrinsic higher probability to be suicidal that is impacting the data but, in fact, a pure probability that when suicidal tendencies exist they are more likely to result in fatality in the presence of a weapon.

If you’re still not convinced, just Google “do guns impact suicides”, and I promise you’ll find plenty of reading for your free time.

(6) If gun control laws are put in place, won’t criminals still be able to get them illegally?

Even if that’s true, the compilation of two other components of the logic behind gun control outweigh this argument: first, the decrease in suicides alone would be enough to justify gun control; second, the lack of evidence for self-defense and homicide protection indicates that even if criminals can access these illegal guns, citizens are no worse off than they were before. This draws the conclusion that, on net, gun control is beneficial for American citizens even if this specific argument is conceded.

Now, in an attempt to debunk this argument, it is first important to look at some real-world examples. In a moment I’ll examine how gun control has played out in other countries. The international successes of gun controls indicate the insignificance of “black market” guns sales or this “criminals don’t abide by laws” mindset.

Much of the proposed legislation also deals with this notion directly, attempting to eliminate this under-the-table market. Enforcing background checks, requiring registrations, closing gun show loopholes, it all aims to regulate and track the gun market.

(7) What if I just want to use my gun for hunting?

I don’t quite understand the appeal or necessity of hunting, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a valid argument to be made here. Fortunately, gun reform and control does not mean that you can’t have access to them at all. If you are able to abide by the newly established processes and store/use your gun safely, there is no reason that hunting cannot continue. Moreover, the types of weapons that are most concerning to the safety of the masses, such as automatic weapons, are completely unnecessary for any hunting activities in which you might want to partake.

In fact, The Economist explains, “no hunter, and nobody interested purely in self-defence, needs a semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round magazine.” Mitt Romney adds that assault weapons “are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

(8) Wasn’t the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban a huge failure? Why would we do that again?

Some argue that the Assault Weapons Ban failed, and this argument exhibits some validity due to the inadequate legislation and enforcement. The reasons why the previous ban was insufficient are not the same reasons we should use to dispute future gun control.

First, the ban didn’t address all of the right weapons. Clark Wholfred of NYU writes, “it failed to prohibit particularly dangerous weapons, because the firearms encompassed in the statute’s definition of assault weapons were not uniquely lethal compared to weapons that remained legal under the ban.”

Second, the law was too easily circumvented. The abundance of loopholes allowed gunmakers to continue the production and sale of the exact weapons that were intended to be banned. In some cases, all it took was a simple design change (with little to no impact on the gun’s functionality) and a new name to legalize the production of a weapon under the ban’s new requirements.

These shortcomings in legislation can deem the Assault Weapons Ban somewhat of a failure. Fortunately, this analysis simply indicates that any future gun control should be more comprehensive. Further, there is also evidence of the Ban’s successes, which we can hope to emulate.

On the other hand, the decline observed in the percentage of assault weapon crimes is still significant even if you include the “copy cat” guns that fell through the loophole in the legislation, according to the study in 2004 by the Brady Center and data analysis conducted by former ATF agents. Before the ban, assault weapons (including these copy cats) made up 5.7% of crime traces; after the ban, this group of guns has been 3.1% of traces, showing a 45% decline. This all means that even though copy cat weapons may allow criminals to side-step the ban in some cases, “this substitution effect is far from complete”, rendering the ban at least a partial, and definitely a substantial, success.

Moreover, a 2008 report by the Brady Center explains that without the ban, “it was estimated that approximately 60,000 more of the banned assault weapons would have been traced to crime in the 10 years the law was in effect.” The efficacy of the ban is solidified further by the fact that assault weapon violence spiked once the legislation expired. The Brady Center confirmed that “law enforcement agencies throughout the United States have reported an upward trend in assault weapons violence” since the ban’s expiration.

(9) Have gun laws worked in other countries?

Let’s look at a couple of examples, and I’ll try to stick to developed nations with governments comparable enough to ours and with somewhat diverse populations.

In Australia, the National Agreement on Firearms “all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, stiffened licensing and ownership rules, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation.” It is widely acknowledged that these measures have been very effective, resulting in a steep decline in gun deaths and a complete lack of mass shootings since 1996.

In the UK, the incremental tightening of gun controls, dealing with guns from assault weapons to handguns, has shown tangible results. Since the early 2000s, gun violence in England and Wales has plummeted, as evidenced by The Guardian. This is not to say that there weren’t struggles, such as dealing with the hundreds of thousands of suddenly illegal handguns in circulation. Moreover, those who used the guns for sport continue to show contempt and fight the regulations.

Not as comparable to the US demographically, Japan exhibits some of the toughest guns laws around. Unironically, they also report the fewest gun deaths. Blame this correlation on their lack of diversity and racial conflict or their general level of wealth, the correlation still exists. I’d like to argue that even if the unique challenges faced in the US (such as that diversity or income inequality) exist, any decrease in gun violence and any lives saved is worth action. Perhaps those extraneous factors will prevent our legislation from being quite as effective as Japan’s, but if it can eliminate even one Orlando, a Sandyhook or two, isn’t that enough?

(10) Doesn’t the majority of Americans want to retain their right to bear arms?

While data from September 2015 indicates that Americans are split almost evenly between supporting and opposing stricter gun control laws, the same study found that over 90% of those polled support background checks for all gun buyers. This study was conducted before the horrific events of 2016, including the Orlando shooting, so it can only be assumed that the numbers have changed. However, even enforcing universal background checks would be a step in the right direction and may eliminate the ability for dangerous actors to easily access these weapons. The bills that just failed in Congress, despite the filibuster and sit-in, included provisions like prohibiting people on the FBI watch list from having access to guns. Realistically, even if you want to own 100 guns, there is absolutely no reason that you should want people on the watch list to have access to guns, especially the dangerous weapons available in the US today. The counterargument to this provision articulates the flaws in the watch-list, and, to this, I propose we fix the list, refine our process, but not let these mendable flaws disable the protection of our people.

For the Constitution buffs and liberty defenders out there, I propose one notion: the right to life supersedes the right to carry. Let’s guarantee our people the first before we dispute the intricacies of the second.

If you’re still unsure or just curious, go to my Food for Thought page and watch the Vox video explaining America’s gun violence. I also encourage you to Google away and soak up as much (hopefully quality) information as you can to help you make informed decisions in November and everyday.

sources: 2nd Amendment; Washington Post- Why The Gun Debate Won’t Change After the Oregon Shooting; CFR: US Gun Policy- Global Comparisons; “DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER.” SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Oct Term, 2007. 26 June 2008.; Bishaka Sen 2012 Study; The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban”, March 2004.; “America’s gun laws: Colorado’s dark night.” The Economist. 28 July 2012.; Mitt Romney Interview May 2012; Clark A. Wohlferd [NYU] 2005; “Assault Weapons FAQ.” Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. 2011.; Brady Center- “Mass Produced Mayhem” 2008.; Harvard Public Health Magazine; The Guardian- So America, This Is How Other Countries Do Gun Control; The Guardian- Guns Don’t Offer Protection; Branas of UPenn: Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault; Witt and Brockmole: Wielding a Gun Increases the Bias to See Guns