Should guns be banned in the United States?
Should guns be banned in the United States? On the 16 April 2007, Cho Seung Hui, a South Korean American permanent resident, shot 32 fellow schoolmates and wounded many before turning the gun at himself. Before the gunman shot himself, he handed over a video type to the media. This video has broadcasted globally. This gunshot had left the world crying. Many have being debating over the loose freedom of American citizens and whether or not the video should be broadcasted across countries. In America, the legal age for possessing a gun is as young as twelve of age. It is such a young age that, even in Singapore, it is consider a child. So the question is: are children allowed to have guns? Is this a sensible way of self-defending? I personally do not agree. Let us put it this way, does a child know what a gun can do? Does he also know that the gun they possess is not a toy? Many may even treat it as a toy gun and start to play with their friends. Young children possessing a personal gun may just shoot at their friends over minor issues as a form of “punishment”. Little do they know how danger it is to carry a gun with them? In the perspective of the adults, having a gun, be it self-defense or otherwise, is a threat too. Adults though know that it is illegal to shoot someone may just do it at the expense of impulsion. They usually cannot control their emotions and commit crimes that are irreversible. This totally defeats the purpose of possessing a gun.
To defense oneself, it does not necessarily have to carry a gun. Learning of martial arts or other protective exercises do help. In addition, image if everyone in the United States carries a gun around, they may just use it in an inappropriate way, resulting in more and more killings. This will only bring about social unrest. Thus ii think that the possessing of guns in America should strictly prohibited by law.
Next come the controversial topic: should the video and images of the victims be shown to the public? Personally, I am against the idea. The video, self-recorded by the gunman, contained violent speech that is a negative example to many young audiences out there. Audiences who do not have a strong will may think that what the gunman did was right. Some may even take pity on him for committing the deadliest offence. Young kids watching the video may think that it is “cool” to operate a gun. Others may find the images gross and disturbing. To the loved ones of the victims, it is just like spreading salt on their wounds, contributing more to their sorrow. I think this is very unfair to the families and friends of the victims. Watching the video and images of the victims can be disgust to many because of the bloody bodies captured.
Next, broadcasting the images and video of the incident will lead to many potential melancholies from carrying out the same dreadful offence. People who are unhappy with the society or are being discriminated will think that it is an effective way to vent their anger. It acts as a villain to others. Since the gunshot had brought the world together in discuss the incident, autistics who are sick in the mind may find it a way to draw the attention of the whole world. This is bloodcurdling. Ergo, I see an immediate withdrawal of the images worldwide.
According to CNN, Cho Seung Hui was suspected to be suffering from depression and autism. His fellow classmates were to hold responsible for the gunshot. They called Cho names like “china guy” and “question mark kid”
. The classmates of his did not show care and concern for him, worse still, discriminated him and ostracized him. The tragedy would not have taken place if the students were to be more sensitive towards their friend. If at the minimal, not to call him names or make fun of him. All the 32 lives would have saved if the Cho were to give enough love from the society. Thus, I urge the government and schools to educate on their people to be more empathy and caring.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Term 2 Week 5 Task 4
Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in the two articles and substantiate your ideas with examples of your own. Your response should consist of at least two content paragraphs and be at least 300 words long.
Torture, a both physical and mental form of punishing criminals and terrorists should be deterred. Punishing the offenders by torturing them is unethical. It is harsh and inhumane. By torturing them, we can neither guarantee them to turn over a new leaf non guarantee it an effective way to deter any crimes from happening. The criminals though violated the law are still human beings. They should not be tortured for they are not animals. It is morally against the human rights. This method of punishing them is not necessarily productive and effective. It is a cruel act though it is used to punish the criminals. Torturing the criminals may in turn become the root to social riots. Supporters of the terrorists would not want their heroes to suffer in great pain and may even retaliate and become anti-government. This defeats the ultimate aim of torturing the criminals. It also does not serve as a deterrent to crime rate. Thus, to effectively deter any potential offenders, torturing of criminals should not be the main solution.
In some cases, not a single terrorist has been prosecuted; they have been raped, tortured and murdered. This is totally truculent. The authorities are apparently abusing their power to commit "legal" crimes. They have reacted in a way that has violated the international law. I personally think that the criminals and terrorists should be given a second chance. They can be punished by serving community involved programmes, corrective work order or treat them as coolies. By torturing criminals is not an ideal solution as criminals or terrorists may harbour a hostile attitude towards the authority. This will eventually result in a negative impact on the country and its population. Also, it is the government's responsibility to bring all the prisoners 'under the protection of the law' so they should not be torturing the criminals. Therefore, I think that the use of torture is not justified to a huge extent.
In some places, prisoners were tortured by using microwaves to, literally, heat the water molecules in their skin, causing horrific pain. This causes injuries. The wounds may not be able to be cured. They would be hurt mentally which may even warps their character. Torturing can also ended up killing the criminals. This is not the main purpose of torturing the criminals. thus, the use of torture in dealing with terrorists is not justified.
However thinking of how devastated the loved ones of the victims are, torture becomes acceptable. For instance, the 9/11 was an awful carnage and a nation's broken heart, people were screaming. This made the torture sounded justified. Yes, imagine that if your loved ones have been murdered, what will you feel? The only answer is to take revenge by making the murders suffer? However, though it may be acceptable in the sense, the standards of acceptable torture should be handed carefully. There should not be over limit to the degree of torture. It should only include reasonable application of pain. Otherwise torturing becomes a cruel act and the authority will be taken as sick in the mind.
In conclusion, to punish the terrorists and criminals may not be necessarily need to torture them. Torturing is against the international laws and is morally prohibited. We should be given the basic human rights, including the offenders. When one does something wrong he should be given a second chance to turn over a new leaf. If he were to be tortured, he would then harbour hatred and repeat his mistakes again after he is released. Thus, to prevent any social unrest and to obey the international laws, the use of torture should not be practised in dealing with criminals and terrorists.
Torture, a both physical and mental form of punishing criminals and terrorists should be deterred. Punishing the offenders by torturing them is unethical. It is harsh and inhumane. By torturing them, we can neither guarantee them to turn over a new leaf non guarantee it an effective way to deter any crimes from happening. The criminals though violated the law are still human beings. They should not be tortured for they are not animals. It is morally against the human rights. This method of punishing them is not necessarily productive and effective. It is a cruel act though it is used to punish the criminals. Torturing the criminals may in turn become the root to social riots. Supporters of the terrorists would not want their heroes to suffer in great pain and may even retaliate and become anti-government. This defeats the ultimate aim of torturing the criminals. It also does not serve as a deterrent to crime rate. Thus, to effectively deter any potential offenders, torturing of criminals should not be the main solution.
In some cases, not a single terrorist has been prosecuted; they have been raped, tortured and murdered. This is totally truculent. The authorities are apparently abusing their power to commit "legal" crimes. They have reacted in a way that has violated the international law. I personally think that the criminals and terrorists should be given a second chance. They can be punished by serving community involved programmes, corrective work order or treat them as coolies. By torturing criminals is not an ideal solution as criminals or terrorists may harbour a hostile attitude towards the authority. This will eventually result in a negative impact on the country and its population. Also, it is the government's responsibility to bring all the prisoners 'under the protection of the law' so they should not be torturing the criminals. Therefore, I think that the use of torture is not justified to a huge extent.
In some places, prisoners were tortured by using microwaves to, literally, heat the water molecules in their skin, causing horrific pain. This causes injuries. The wounds may not be able to be cured. They would be hurt mentally which may even warps their character. Torturing can also ended up killing the criminals. This is not the main purpose of torturing the criminals. thus, the use of torture in dealing with terrorists is not justified.
However thinking of how devastated the loved ones of the victims are, torture becomes acceptable. For instance, the 9/11 was an awful carnage and a nation's broken heart, people were screaming. This made the torture sounded justified. Yes, imagine that if your loved ones have been murdered, what will you feel? The only answer is to take revenge by making the murders suffer? However, though it may be acceptable in the sense, the standards of acceptable torture should be handed carefully. There should not be over limit to the degree of torture. It should only include reasonable application of pain. Otherwise torturing becomes a cruel act and the authority will be taken as sick in the mind.
In conclusion, to punish the terrorists and criminals may not be necessarily need to torture them. Torturing is against the international laws and is morally prohibited. We should be given the basic human rights, including the offenders. When one does something wrong he should be given a second chance to turn over a new leaf. If he were to be tortured, he would then harbour hatred and repeat his mistakes again after he is released. Thus, to prevent any social unrest and to obey the international laws, the use of torture should not be practised in dealing with criminals and terrorists.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Term 2 Week 4 Task 4
New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in the two articles and substantiate your ideas with examples of your own. Your response should consist of at least two content paragraphs and be at least 300 words long.
New media of the new age gives people a say in everything under the sun. With the new media, people are able to write online diaries - blogging. Blogging promotes freedom of speech. It allows people to voice out their own opinions and to argue for any controversial topics raised. Political issues which are once out-of-topic to mouths of many are now openly discussed in blogs. Bloggers are given a room to shout out their point of views. Living in this IT-dominating era, we have more choices of what to do and what to say. People possess the power to say anything they want "freely". This new media brought to us not only convenience but also promotes decision-making. Through online forum, people are now able to participate in decision making and offer their ideas. It serves as a platform to press freedom and an opportunity to develop media careers. Feed backs and comments can be exchanged through blogs and forum.
Another form of new media, the Short Message Service (SMS) are omnipresent. In advance developing country like Singapore, almost everyone carries a mobile phone. People use mobile phone to keep in touch with their loved ones or business partners locally or globally. SMS is even more commonly in use by teenagers. Informative and entertaining messages are sent via the SMS. New media helps in connecting the people in the universe together. It is a power to the people.
However, new media brought not only pros but cons too. With the new media, people are free to express their feelings on anything and everything. They may be insensitive towards what they post and end up being sued. For instance, last year, two teenagers posted some religious remarks on their blogs and they got fined by Singapore government. Many countries also start to imprison cyber-dissidents. For example in the article, some bloggers and journalists were imprisoned for posting materials found offensive to Islam. Some had being sentenced because of posting political issues online. This acts as deterrence to many potential cyber-dissidents.
Due to the increase in fake news and untrue articles, some countries come out with the government censorship which blocks or closes any websites or blogs containing trace of untrue information or offensive contents. Take for example, China demanded Google to filter off any anti-government websites before it is allowed to be set up in China. More examples are the banning of all political websites advocating Western Sahara's in Morocco and publications mentioning women's rights in Iran. In some places like Ethiopia, blog hosting servers are appearing. They are inaccessible to many. This is to completely wipe out the place for any dissident discussions.
I think that new media is more of a power to the people than threat to stability. The number of people using the media as personal leisure and for business purposes far outweighed the number of people for illegal usage. Thus I think the government should not block the blogs entirely. They should encourage its people to post more online thoughts so that they are aware of how its population thinks of them. Creating disorder in the country by bloggers should be deterred but that's only a handful of them. Therefore, in conclusion, I strongly think that new media is a power to the people not a threat to stability.
New media of the new age gives people a say in everything under the sun. With the new media, people are able to write online diaries - blogging. Blogging promotes freedom of speech. It allows people to voice out their own opinions and to argue for any controversial topics raised. Political issues which are once out-of-topic to mouths of many are now openly discussed in blogs. Bloggers are given a room to shout out their point of views. Living in this IT-dominating era, we have more choices of what to do and what to say. People possess the power to say anything they want "freely". This new media brought to us not only convenience but also promotes decision-making. Through online forum, people are now able to participate in decision making and offer their ideas. It serves as a platform to press freedom and an opportunity to develop media careers. Feed backs and comments can be exchanged through blogs and forum.
Another form of new media, the Short Message Service (SMS) are omnipresent. In advance developing country like Singapore, almost everyone carries a mobile phone. People use mobile phone to keep in touch with their loved ones or business partners locally or globally. SMS is even more commonly in use by teenagers. Informative and entertaining messages are sent via the SMS. New media helps in connecting the people in the universe together. It is a power to the people.
However, new media brought not only pros but cons too. With the new media, people are free to express their feelings on anything and everything. They may be insensitive towards what they post and end up being sued. For instance, last year, two teenagers posted some religious remarks on their blogs and they got fined by Singapore government. Many countries also start to imprison cyber-dissidents. For example in the article, some bloggers and journalists were imprisoned for posting materials found offensive to Islam. Some had being sentenced because of posting political issues online. This acts as deterrence to many potential cyber-dissidents.
Due to the increase in fake news and untrue articles, some countries come out with the government censorship which blocks or closes any websites or blogs containing trace of untrue information or offensive contents. Take for example, China demanded Google to filter off any anti-government websites before it is allowed to be set up in China. More examples are the banning of all political websites advocating Western Sahara's in Morocco and publications mentioning women's rights in Iran. In some places like Ethiopia, blog hosting servers are appearing. They are inaccessible to many. This is to completely wipe out the place for any dissident discussions.
I think that new media is more of a power to the people than threat to stability. The number of people using the media as personal leisure and for business purposes far outweighed the number of people for illegal usage. Thus I think the government should not block the blogs entirely. They should encourage its people to post more online thoughts so that they are aware of how its population thinks of them. Creating disorder in the country by bloggers should be deterred but that's only a handful of them. Therefore, in conclusion, I strongly think that new media is a power to the people not a threat to stability.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Term 2 Week 3 Task 4
Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in this article and substantiate your arguments with your own examples.
In this modern world, media has played a crucial role in our daily life. It is not only a source of entertainment but one to educate and enlighten the audience. The news media in Singapore is controlled by the government. The media is not free to comment on any political issues and all the criticisms are muted by the media.
Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth? I think that it can be relied only to a small extent. Here are the reasons for my argument.
The media has always been providing information to educate the public. They provide information and facts which are almost error-free. These messages will then be conveyed to the public in high accuracy. Through this, the public rely upon the media to feed them with news and facts. The working adults have a hectic schedule; they will approach the media to find out what's happening in the country and in the whole world. People generally invest high trust in the media. They seldom doubt about the level of reliability of the sources published.
According to the article, the author mentioned that the media can be labeled as the 3 Ps, Popularity, Prejudice and Profit. The source says that to avoid any arguments, the media has continuously ignored articles that could educate or enlighten. It has been keeping important news until it is safe to publish. Sometimes, when it is "safe" to announce to the public, those news may not be relied upon as there maybe some changes made. Thus the news will not be true to a large extent.
The journalists may be biased when writing news reports. They will add in their own opinions and comment on them. Some may even choose to publish only the good points of the celebrity but dilute the bad side. As a result, not the both side of an issue are addressed, this is highly biased. The media will not be true. This is prejudice. Thus the media cannot be relied upon for conveying truth.
The media also makes profit when the news is published. Sometimes, in order to make high profit, or to attract the public attention to the news, the media will try to fabricate news. Thus I think that the media is not fully reliable. The reporters may be hypocrites; they report news which they themselves do not like. However for the sake of the profit, they have to do it. This may cause unreliable in the sources as the reporters may be biased. Their articles may be subjective.
Interviews which are not aired in live are subjected to changes. The responder and the interview are able to change their lines if they find the answers offensive. This results in inaccuracy of the reports. The news is not original, they are not purely written. The truth thus cannot be conveyed through the media.
Some news is simply propaganda. There is no freedom of speech in Singapore. For instance, the news media in Singapore are not allowed to publish news about the politics and things which will cause harm to Singapore Government. Also in China, the websites criticizing China Government are removed from the Internet to ensure that there are no anti-government groups.
Reading from only one source is not enough as it may not reliable to get the necessary information one needs. We have to widen our reading horizon if we were to be fed with true news.
In this modern world, media has played a crucial role in our daily life. It is not only a source of entertainment but one to educate and enlighten the audience. The news media in Singapore is controlled by the government. The media is not free to comment on any political issues and all the criticisms are muted by the media.
Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth? I think that it can be relied only to a small extent. Here are the reasons for my argument.
The media has always been providing information to educate the public. They provide information and facts which are almost error-free. These messages will then be conveyed to the public in high accuracy. Through this, the public rely upon the media to feed them with news and facts. The working adults have a hectic schedule; they will approach the media to find out what's happening in the country and in the whole world. People generally invest high trust in the media. They seldom doubt about the level of reliability of the sources published.
According to the article, the author mentioned that the media can be labeled as the 3 Ps, Popularity, Prejudice and Profit. The source says that to avoid any arguments, the media has continuously ignored articles that could educate or enlighten. It has been keeping important news until it is safe to publish. Sometimes, when it is "safe" to announce to the public, those news may not be relied upon as there maybe some changes made. Thus the news will not be true to a large extent.
The journalists may be biased when writing news reports. They will add in their own opinions and comment on them. Some may even choose to publish only the good points of the celebrity but dilute the bad side. As a result, not the both side of an issue are addressed, this is highly biased. The media will not be true. This is prejudice. Thus the media cannot be relied upon for conveying truth.
The media also makes profit when the news is published. Sometimes, in order to make high profit, or to attract the public attention to the news, the media will try to fabricate news. Thus I think that the media is not fully reliable. The reporters may be hypocrites; they report news which they themselves do not like. However for the sake of the profit, they have to do it. This may cause unreliable in the sources as the reporters may be biased. Their articles may be subjective.
Interviews which are not aired in live are subjected to changes. The responder and the interview are able to change their lines if they find the answers offensive. This results in inaccuracy of the reports. The news is not original, they are not purely written. The truth thus cannot be conveyed through the media.
Some news is simply propaganda. There is no freedom of speech in Singapore. For instance, the news media in Singapore are not allowed to publish news about the politics and things which will cause harm to Singapore Government. Also in China, the websites criticizing China Government are removed from the Internet to ensure that there are no anti-government groups.
Reading from only one source is not enough as it may not reliable to get the necessary information one needs. We have to widen our reading horizon if we were to be fed with true news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)