Gun Control

A woman scrambles for her phone. Her heart thrums in her chest, a rapid-fire rhythm she thought she’d only ever hear once in her life. Around her, people are screaming, running, ducking for cover. She sends an ominous text message, the same exact one she sent two years ago: “Active shooter.”


What are the odds of being at the San Bernardino shooting in 2015, and then at the Las Vegas massacre? Evidently, large enough [1].

Columbine. Sandy Hook Elementary. Newton, Connecticut. Charleston. Orlando nightclub. Boston Marathon. San Bernardino. Las Vegas. It seems as though the latest shootings are the deadliest; based on this data, the next mass attack will only be worse [2].

Though the discussion of gun-ownership and gun rights is highly debated and controversial in the United States, legislation is complicated: federal law has certain restrictions on persons who can transport and possess guns, but other caveats and nuances are found in individual states.

Federal law dictates the following: fugitives, illegal aliens, some criminals, and the like cannot own or carry guns; certain firearms, such as machineguns or unregistered ones, are illegal to all [3]. But even within federal law, there are many loopholes and vague provisions: small-scale firearms dealers aren’t required to have background checks, and the description of the mentally ill is ambiguous [4].

Across states, there are many variations in background checks required for owning guns and carrying firearms, as well as the locations to which owners may bring their weapons. Even in neighboring states, one state may require permits to purchase all types of firearms -- as seen in California -- while the other requires none -- like in Nevada. Similarly, California requires registration of all firearms while Nevada requires none [5]. The first step in gun-control regulation, though onerous, should be clarifying federal and state law to elucidate meaning and restrictions.

In regards to the right of citizens to bear arms, the debate is slightly more complicated.

“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” [6]. This is the line from the Second Amendment that many advocates for gun-rights quote. Many supporters of stricter gun regulation claim that the quote, referring to a militia, defends the collective rights of self-defense [6]. Both sides are well-backed by diverse sources: from news to books to essays entitled, “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” and “A Nation of Cowards.”

There’s a distinct line between safety and liberty; it’s impossible to be completely safe without losing much individual liberty. Traffic laws -- wearing seatbelts, stopping at stop signs -- limit an individual’s right to happiness (for some, this may be driving 95 on the freeway) but they protect most of society. There are violations of these laws, and consequently, accidents and deaths. The price paid for individual liberty is a perpetual risk.

Guns are dangerous: an equalizer, a weapon that can be wielded “effectively by almost anyone… not demanding great skill or strength” [7]. However, the right to guns is delineated in the Constitution, which is the single most important document in this country. Without following the parameters of the Constitution, there would be nothing upon which US laws are based. If citizens are to be restricted from owning or keeping firearms, then there should be a Constitutional Amendment to reflect that change. At the moment, legislation allows citizens to bear arms.

With that being said, legislation can and should regulate firearm possession. In the aftermath of aforementioned mass shootings, the first step should be regulating guns in public areas, prohibiting firearms in facilities where over 200 people may congregate. Of course, this is just an example; these numbers and rules need to be refined. But it’s obvious that guns prove more hazardous in concentrated areas. Especially when many Americans use guns for hunting or target shooting, there’s no need for firearms in public areas [8]. Removing guns from such locations mitigates risk.

Moreover, the banning of automatic guns and machine guns should be readily enforced. Current law leaves loopholes; for example, the Las Vegas shooter made his own semi-automatics [9]. Such methods of creating automatic or semi-automatic guns should be restricted, even if such machineguns are already banned in the US [3].

Citizens have the right to bear arms, but the government has the right to regulate this ownership -- to some extent. Again, having liberty means having risks; laws are in place to mitigate those risks, but only to a certain degree. This means previously mentioned inconsistencies in legislation should be changed to become more uniform: citizens are allowed to own firearms and carry them to approved locations, but all states should regulate the licensing and sale of such firearms, as seen in California.

Both sides of this debate will mostly likely agree that guns give their users power.

In his famous work, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes wrote that people were “naturally wicked” and should “not be trusted to govern” [10]. Accordingly, Hobbes thought that absolute power should fall to a ruler over these people. Opposing this is the belief that people are inherently good and law-abiding. Though it’s abundantly evident that this isn’t always the case, a government should set the latter conditions as standards, punishing those who are not law-abiding, rather than removing rights altogether. Trusting law-abiding citizens gives governments the ability to give people power. Those who abuse this trust will be dealt with accordingly.

As of October 18th, in 2017, there have been 286 incidents of mass shootings and 1,644 incidents of shootings or killings from police [11]. It’s clear that guns and firearms are dangerous. But American legislation prevents government interference between citizens’ liberties and their safety. To best protect the public while maintaining individual rights, the government needs to clarify and enforce legislation on gun-control, ensuring that while citizens are allowed to own firearms barring automatics, state legislation requires registration, licensing and thorough background checks.

Though this may be the best way to compromise between both sides of the discussion, there are many factors and subtleties that must be addressed in this issue. Gun regulation is hotly debated and highly controversial for a reason: this debate has moral, social, and economical repercussions, some of which may not be obvious yet. But this is for certain: the fight for public safety versus the respect of individual rights will continue, and ultimately will involve much of society in the process.

Sources:

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-las-vegas-firefighter-20171005-story.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-two-dead-in-mandalay-bay-casino-shooting-latest-updates

    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/07/us/gun-control-explained.html

    https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

    http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/04/did-las-vegas-shooter-get-arsenal-guns-easily-legally/

    http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/nature/hobbes-bio.html

    http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

Science and Society (A Look at US Government and Separation of Powers)

In 2013, Washington DC published a final version of Next Generation Science Standards, a new benchmark for students in elementary, middle, and high school to adhere to when studying sciences. Here are two of the many standards:

• Scientific inquiry is characterized by a common set of values that include: logical thinking, precision, open-mindedness, objectivity, skepticism, replicability of results, and honest and ethical reporting of findings.

• Scientists’ backgrounds, theoretical commitments, and fields of endeavor influence the nature of their findings.

The new science standards emphasize the required objectivity in science, but acknowledge that scientists are people with identities. These identities may influence research [1]. Though it is clear that quality scientific results come from procedural and objective standards, it’s impossible to separate an individual’s background from their research. However, the distinction is clear enough so that while identity may influence logic, reasoning, and exigence, scientific inquiry and results remain as objective as possible.

For example, in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia’s harsh deserts leave little arable land for sustenance farming. In South America, Belize’s coastline communities face poverty as the fishing industry declines due to overfishing. To compensate for this, there have been recent developments in the seaweed farming community: growing seaweeds in the ocean as a form of mariculture may provide another form of industry to these less fortunate communities [2, 3].

Researchers and scientists wanting to assist these countries may push for the benefits of seaweed cultivation, but ultimately are responsible for ensuring that such agriculture does not negatively impact the marine community close to the farming area (which, to my understanding, it actually does the opposite) [4].

Essentially, while the goal of science is to remain as objective as possible for replicable results, separation of research and personal influence is almost impossible, making some overlap inevitable. Even so, most science is objective enough so that personal influence does not completely change the results of an experiment.

This idea of influence, but not total control, of separate areas on each other resurfaces in many fields outside of science as well.

In the government, Federalist Paper 47 is James Madison’s examination of the separation of powers in the US government. Though objections in that day argued that the three branches should be completely “separate and distinct,” Madison employs logic and references the British Constitution and Montesquieu to rebut this complete separation [5].

One of Madison’s main points against total separation is efficacy. The primary goal of all governments is to be functional: for the US, as long as the branches can operate mostly independently, then they are serving their purpose. As long as the powers are separated enough, to the point that one is not in “danger of being crushed by… [the] other," then the branches are functional [5].

In regards to tyranny, the objection to the United States’ government is the fact that power -- whether it be in legislative, executive, or judiciary branches -- is still concentrated in the hands of the few, that it doesn’t matter if these representatives are still elected, power still remains concentrated. To this, Madison references Montesquieu in saying that the purpose of the branches’ distinction is to avoid complete and total power of “one department… exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department” [5]. Again, this correlates with the notion of overlap, but not total separation: each governmental branch functions in and of itself; no power completely belongs to two or more branches so that a tyrannical law can be written, executed, and enforced by the same power. In the same way that human personality and identity may affect or instigate scientific research, the three government branches may influence one another but are still distinct enough so that they can each function and serve their purpose. They are still distinct enough so that a questionable law written by one branch may not be passed by another branch influenced by the first to execute it.

Finally, for all that the three branches are separate, they are all still part of the same government. All three branches belong to the same people and the same nation. If they were completely, totally separate, then there would be no common ground upon which to build a foundation to work upon; nothing would be accomplished. Yes, checks and balances and bureaucracy exist to purposely slow all work, but the main purpose of the government is to function for the people -- a common goal for all three branches. Having separate entities in the government defeats this purpose, because the “whole fabric of the constitution [requires] one indissoluble bond of unity and amity” [5]. The branches are connected and linked in some inevitable way, inseparable because they are all part of the same government. The human condition and personal thought are connected and linked to scientific research in the same inevitable way, because both are the product of people.

Another example: though the separation of church and state is an idea well-known, there are still many instances of church and state overlapping one another in America today. Marriage blurs many of the lines between church and state; in the courtroom, citizens swear over the bible; the pledge of allegiance every morning mentions “God” and the dollar signed is inscribed with “in God we trust.”

Though such overlap exists, for the most part, the two bodies are distinct enough. The church does not write policy and the state does not run religion. Citizens still follow their own religions, regardless of who is in office.

Of course, all of these examples are convoluted in some way -- some believe that is is possible to completely separate science from subjectivity, through hard facts or numerical measurements; some believe that the presence of religion in state (in courtrooms, the pledge of allegiance, the dollar bill) is already too much.

But in science, in government, and in the universe, all things are somehow connected, aren’t they? The question is not whether two spheres overlap; the question is how much they should overlap, and where the line between distinction and separation, between influence and control, should be drawn.

References

1. Next Generation Science Standards by Topic. (n.d.). Retrieved September 17, 2017, from http://www.nextgenscience.org/overview-topics
2. Andrews, S. (2016, August 09). Belize Seaweed: The Next Big Thing for Fisheries. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from https://thefishsite.com/articles/belize-seaweed-the-next-big-thing-for-fisheries
3. Al‐Hafedh, Y. S., Alam, A., Buschmann, A. H., & Fitzsimmons, K. M. (2012, March 07). Experiments on an integrated aquaculture system (seaweeds and marine fish) on the Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia: efficiency comparison of two local seaweed species for nutrient biofiltration and production. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-5131.2012.01057.x/abstract
4. Duarte, C. M., Wu, J., Xiao, X., Bruhn, A., & Krause-Jensen, D. (2017, April 12). Can Seaweed Farming Play a Role in Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation? Retrieved September 17, 2017, from http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2017.00100/full
5. Yale Law School: Lillian Goldman Law Library. (n.d.). The Federalist Papers: No. 47. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp

Cybercops and Cyberrobbers

Sunday morning. A man wakes up and walks down his driveway, picks up his newspaper. Comes inside. Drinks coffee. Reads.

Fast forward twenty years. Sunday morning. The same man wakes and reaches to his left, clicking on his phone. Three notifications from the night: another shooting in America, an independence movement in Spain, updates on the nuclear tension with North Korea. News is now available at the touch of a screen.

With this development, it’s becoming harder to find younger people without cell phones, Bluetooth, laptops. But as the Internet and cyberspace expands, so do the amount of vulnerabilities hackers can take advantage of.

From WannaCry to Equifax to political elections to Verizon to countless other corporations and organizations, it seems as though no one is immune to these hackers and cyberattacks. In fact, ransomware attacks have increased by 250% in 2017, affecting the US the most [1]. In a time when most nations have not developed a national cybersecurity force to respond to these attacks, like the way firefighters would respond to outbreaks of wildfire, one would think that all cybersecurity industries in America would be thriving.

 In mid-September, the US government “banned federal agencies from using Kaspersky Lab,” a type of antivirus and security software meant to protect against malware and other cyberattack [2]. At first glance, this may seem confusing: the government bans a private industry’s security software when malware and malicious cyberattacks are at an all-time high?

 But the Department of Homeland Security justified this decision by claiming that there are concerns about ties between “certain Kaspersky officials and Russian intelligence and other government agencies” [3]. Additionally, Russian laws allow some Russian officials to ask for help or information from Kaspersky, without alerting the public. This caveat, along with the history of Russian malware attacks and involvement in US politics, particularly the latest presidential election, is why the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) plans to replace Kaspersky with other security software [3].

 A Binding Operational Directive implemented by the DHS intends to remove all Kaspersky products from computers and technology within the next 30 days [4]. The government, specifically the US House Science, Space and Technology Committee, invited Kaspersky himself to a hearing on September 27th, but the hearing was postponed. In response to this, Eugene Kaspersky bemoaned the delay on his blog on October 2nd [5]. Kaspersky has been known for its ties to the Kremlin and the KGB, but “more than 85% of its revenue comes from outside of Russia,” making ties to any government bad for business [3].

 Though the DHS and the US government have justified this decision, companies similar to Kaspersky based in the US are also influenced by American government: they give information over to the government just as the Russians can be influenced to do [4]. The government may worry about external influence or external leaks -- in this case, information to the Russians -- but at the same time, the US and agencies like the NSA monitor and influence US security software in the same way. This relates to the idea of safety versus liberty, a question hotly debated in instances such as the Patriot Act and even the fight over gun control.

Cybersecurity in particular is intriguing because of its relevance and its novelty, and also because of the humanistic nature behind attacks. Although all of cyberattacks are through technological mediums, such as phones or computers, there is always people behind attacks, and there are human strategies behind every piece of malware. In this sense, cybersecurity relates closely to forensics, detective work, investigations, and the like, except through the medium of Internet and technology. Moreover, as technology develops, there become more and more ways for hackers to attack. At the same time, hackers are continually developing new strategies of offense and defense, which makes cybersecurity a constantly changing field.

And as mentioned before, there is currently no national cyberforce to protect Americans against malware and malicious attacks. It’ll be interesting to see how such a defense force might develop and how the government will play a role in its growth. Will the government allow cybersecurity software and forces to develop in the private sector, or begin to weed out products, as seen with Kaspersky?




Sources:

    http://www.newsweek.com/ransomware-attacks-rise-250-2017-us-wannacry-614034

    http://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/18/us-ban-kaspersky-software/

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/13/us-government-bans-kaspersky-lab-russian-spying

    http://www.normantranscript.com/opinion/columns/feds-ban-kaspersky-antivirus/article_d00fd114-9994-597c-9abe-20dc96a63c4e.html

    http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/353416-kaspersky-pokes-congress-over-cancelled-testimony