Why Gun Bans Still Don't Work

In John Lott’s article, “Why Gun Bans Still Don’t Work,” he refers to the recent shooting that happened at UT. Lott states that the shooting could possibly have been avoided if the gun ban on campus was not enforced. He explains that when the gun bans were enforced in cities such as Chicago and D.C., murder rates of the two cities sky rocketed.  After the Supreme Court abolished the gunlock and handgun ban in D.C., the murder rate declined by 23%, which is about three times more than the national murder rate decline as well as cities with roughly the same population. One thing that is often debated is that if citizens are able to carry concealed hand guns they will use them inappropriately out of fear when not necessary.  Lott  explains that a very minimal percent of citizens who actually go through the process to obtain a permit have the permits taken away at any time and are generally very law abiding. Lott has found that statistically, from 1977-1999, public shooting rates have dropped in the United States by 60% after the passage of the right-to-carry laws. Death and injury rates resulting from public shootings have also decreased by 78%. Public places that have gun free restrictions are the most typical areas for shootings.

For the most part, I agree with Lott in his argument about gun bans being ineffective. The statistics that he provided about the public shooting and murder rates are legitimate and you can't argue with them. I don’t believe that allowing guns in every public place will solve the country’s problems as far as deaths by weapons go. However, I do think that if more law abiding people carried them legally it would serve as immense protection against criminals who carry them illegally. I think that this would discourage criminals from using them as much because more people would have an effective way of protecting themselves. All together I think this is a pretty strong argument and I have to say I agree with most of it.

Obama Proposes $210 Billion for New Jobs

In the article "Obama Proposes $210 Billion for New Jobs", it explains the attempt to win over the economically struggling voters. President Obama declared, in his speech on Wednesday, that he was going to set aside $210 billion to help create new jobs in the construction and environmental industries. Many wonder where this money is supposed to come from.

Obama explained that the extra funding for these jobs would come from ending the war in Iraq, raising taxes on citizens with higher income, cutting tax breaks for corporations, and taxing carbon pollution. The largest part of the funding will go to create 5 million green collar jobs which are jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources. The other half of the funding will be given to the National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to build more highways, bridges, and airports.

I think this is a legitimate article because we were just recently talking about Roosevelt’s New Deal in class the other day. There are a lot of similarities between the New Deal and Obama’s new proposition. People working under the New Deal did things like paving roads, creating public parks, and building homes. These tasks are similar to those that Obama proposes we do today. I think, if everything goes as planned, this could help boost our employment rates and do a lot of positive things for our struggling economy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23148959/