forth, “Under the proposal, pilots would not be required to carry firearms. They would also have to undergo psychological testing and background checks, and extensive firearms training” (Stark). According to the article, the training and tests the pilots would have to undergo would be very demanding to ensure that they are capable of using a firearm. If the pilot successfully completes the training, then this would allow him or her to be deputized as a federal law enforcement officer. In a Wired article it adds:
“Currently pilots must have their weapons locked when carrying them to and from the cockpit and they cannot carry their weapons outside the cockpit such as during a visit to the lavatory.” (Paur)
By these pilots being restricted to
…show more content…
Many pilots do not feel comfortable with having a weapon on board their aircraft during flight; however, this policy would not require pilots to have a weapon on board but merely an option. In Starks article, she utters, “Weapons would be optional. Under the proposal, pilots would not be required to carry firearms” (Stark). This is a good proposal since not all pilots feel comfortable with bearing a weapon on their flight. According to the articles, even if the pilot does not want to have a weapon on board the aircraft, he or she will still be put through the training and tests as a pilot who wants to conceal a weapon on board. In Price’s article, he declares, “All pilots are trained and deputized federal law enforcement officers” (Price). This idea is of great benefit for the pilot. Although a pilot may not feel comfortable with having a weapon during flight, if a prohibited item were to make it on board the aircraft by a passenger, a weapon for example, the pilot would be trained on how to properly use it if they were able to disarm the individual. One can conclude that with the events that have occurred in the past, something needs to be put into effect so that history does not repeat itself. When one considers the proposals put forth in the policy of …show more content…
Without a doubt change needs to occur; however, we cannot sit around and hope that someone speaks up we need to do it ourselves. We need to ensure that we are making our voices heard. It is up to each and every American to write their legislators write the FAA to inform them that although this policy is great, it is not enough. There should have been a policy of arming pilot’s years before the attacks on September 11th occurred and I blame you as well as myself. It should have been up to us to see that the security in the airports was not enough. It was our job to act before it was too late, but we can act now because tomorrow is too late. According to USA Today news article it expresses, “WASHINGTON— More than one in 10 of the nation's airline pilots are cleared to carry a handgun while flying, and the number will continue to grow, according to a Transportation Security Administration projection” (Frank). These statistics are not going to protect us from the inevitable attacks that are just waiting to happen. According to these statistics only 10% of the planes are actually being armed, leaving 90% of the flights vulnerable against any future attacks. It is time for us to now take a stand, now is the time that we must get off the sidelines and speak out. If we choose to not speak out, if we choose to be the bystander that does
Recently, the government has reverted back to its old ways and is allowing pilots to carry firearms if they go through a training program (Goo 1). “The Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDO) program was created after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and has since trained 12,000 pilots on how to defend their aircraft against an attack” (Hudson 1). Pilots carrying handguns on a plane actually makes the plane a safer place because if a terrorist was trying to get into the cockpit, the pilot would have enough time to arm himself with the gun and either detain the terrorist or if necessary shoot the terrorist.
Action is the only remedy to indifference, the most insidious danger of all.” Elie Wiesel asserts that the world community is responsible to interfere when acts such as mass murder or genocide occur. He says that “silence encourages the tormentor” and “indifference is the most insidious danger of all”. One must speak out against oppression so there can be a difference. When one remains silent and doesn’t act, they are encouraging the person responsible for the genocide, not the victim.
Over the last decade or so, the United States of America has been shaken by an epidemic of terrifying mass shootings, devastating slayings of unexpecting victims, and unnerving annihilations of the innocent. There is no specific target, no explicitly sought-out group, nor definite individual. From a classroom of first-graders, to a crowded movie theatre, to a U.S. Naval yard, the location seems at most, random, other than that it is almost always a public place. The perpetrators responsible for these horrific murders also vary, and often surprise those who thought they knew them. However, while the occurrences of mass shootings are unpredictable and always shocking, most have one thing in common: the use, or rather misuse, of assault weapons-automatic or semiautomatic military style rifles. To ensure the safety, security, and well-being of the people of the United States, the government should ban assault weapons.
Everyone knows that parents’ first worry is the safety of their children. With the increase of violence in schools, parents have started to wonder if their children are really safe in the school setting. Shootings like Sandy Hook and Columbine left parents, administrators, and educators feeling the need to be proactive towards children’s safety. Reacting to situations like these is not good enough when children’s lives are on the line. Administration has started to brainstorm different ways to help insure the protection of their students. The idea of having teachers carry concealed weapons has been on the front burner for quite some time. As a result of this extreme idea, insurance companies have started to increase or even cancel policies with schools that have armed teachers because of the high risk they are putting themselves at. Parents and administrators also worry about the idea of children getting their hands on one of the teachers’ weapons and injuring themselves or other students. Because this idea seems quite extreme, I believe there are other alternatives that are less dramatic and more positively out looked, such as having armed security guards in schools.
My recently divorced History professor seemed to be in an extremely foul mood one dreary Monday morning. Every move and comment the class made seemed to irritate him more and more. Everyone in the room stopped moving and talking in concern for him, everyone except Josh, who is our class clown. He made the decision to make a comment to our teacher that any other day would have broken the ice and class would have resumed. For some reason, on this particular day it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. My professor looked up from the floor and in a matter of seconds had removed a gun provided to him by the school for protection, from under his jacket, and then shot Josh before anyone could do anything to stop him. Although, this is a story of fiction and never really happened, it could become a headline on the six o’clock news if David McGrath gets his way. He is the author of an article that supports teachers being given loaded weapons for protection in the classroom. To me providing teachers with weapons is a drastic move because the epidemic of school shootings is not as big as McGrath makes it out to be and there are many more sensible solutions that have yet to be explored.
Eighty-nine people die from gun violence in the United States every day according to the Brady Campaign , from school children to victims of domestic violence to people going about their daily lives. As we mourn the lives of those killed in incidents of gun violence across the country, we need to take action. We should all do everything in our power to keep tragedies like this from happening again. When it comes to addressing mass shootings, we need new answers
Americans are faced with a huge problem of violence in the streets, these streets have become a place where old people are beaten for their social security checks, where little women are attacked and raped, where teen aged thugs shoot it out for some turf to sell their illegal drugs, and finally where small children everyday are caught in the way of bullets during drive by shootings. We try to ignore the criminals in our society and how they hurt it, but we shouldn’t. We should take actions to stop these acts of crazy people. And people try, but the hard work of some misguided individuals to stop the legal ownership of guns doesn’t really affect the problem at all, and takes the guns from the innocent citizens, who simply want means of self defense.
Eile Weasel has quoted “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, not the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” This quote states that when you choose to remain silent when you know that something wrong is going on, you are supporting the evil side.
As a majority, we do not act; we are complacent. We do not take a stand; we fear failure and humiliation. We do not lead; we follow. Society has increasingly grown passive, tired, and complacent. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s idea of the "appalling silence of the good people" is as poignant today as it was in the 1960s.
Although the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from completely banning guns in America, limited restrictions are allowed on the distribution and possession of firearms. Certain groups of people such as criminals, the mentally unstable, and soldiers dishonorably discharged from the military are prohibited from possessing or interacting with firearms (Flynn). These restrictions are enforced by background checks in some states on both a state and federal level. However, gun laws vary from state to state and are often not thorough enough; the background checks are flawed due to lack of information and misinformation, and guns can easily end up in the hands of criminals and malevolent individuals. The ease of obtaining a firearm in America fosters crime and a dangerous environment. Hence, the Second Amendment should be reinterpreted so that stricter gun laws can be implemented because modern citizens do not require guns, current background checks are flawed, gun...
Many Americans are now applying for a license to carry licensed concealed arms with them. The rate at which licenses are being approved is worrying. This development is concerning law enforcement authorities. Putting so many firearms at the disposal of the public is counterproductive to the gains that are being made on improving security and especially in the cities where incidences of gun crime and violence are on the rise.
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.
Did you know the second amendment states that you have a right to own and use arms for protection? Kentucky passed a law in 1813 that prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons. In May 1987, Florida passed a “shall-issue” law that became a model for other states. There were 11 states that have the “may-issue” law which allowed permits. On July 8, 2011, Wisconsin became the 49th state to allow concealed carry. (ProCon.org) Adults who go through training and obtain a permit should be able to carry a concealed handgun.
In today's society we live in a dangerous world filled with mass shootings,rape, child molestation and other horrendous crimes. The society we live in now there is more crime happening than the previous generation. Everytime you look at your local news channel you see a crime has been committed. It is everyone’s duty to protect themselves from these horrendous crimes. The most important asset a peace loving man can do to protect himself is to carry a gun.
The discussion about gun control is far-gone, and America should enact laws that will require gun owners to register their firearms. A background check on every citizen bearing a gun is necessary so that guns do not land in the arms of felons and the mentally ill. Thinking that people can use guns to fight for their liberty is a far gone idea that needs a second thought. However, gun control is not the only solution because it is necessary to educate the population on the risks of keeping guns and asking them to remit the guns at their own will.