Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A— Wednesday, March 7, 2018
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
A beginner’s guide to effective gun control
More than just a wall
I
n the wake of the latest horrific
tragedy of the mass shooting
variety, our nation’s leaders
seemed to engage in the same
song and dance they do every time
something like this happens.
Take Senate Majority Leader
Mitch
McConnell,
R-Ky.,
for
example. After the unspeakable
shooting at Sandy Hook, where 20
children between the ages of six and
seven were murdered, the Majority
Leader said the following: “I invite
everyone to lift their hearts in prayer
for the victims and their families and
to unite around the hope that there
will soon come a day when parents
no longer fear this kind of violence in
our nation again.” At the same time,
Sen. McConnell blocked all bills on
gun reform from making it to the
floor.
Similarly,
after
the
Pulse
nightclub massacre, Sen. McConnell
held a moment of silence, and then
proceeded to silence all debate
on gun reform. Finally, after last
month’s shooting at Stoneman
Douglas High School where 17 high
school students were murdered in
one of the deadliest school shootings
in the world, you can probably guess
the extent of Sen. McConnell’s
action. If you had guessed thoughts,
prayers and a moment of silence,
then you were unfortunately dead
on.
One of the reasons these
politicians, mostly representing the
Republican Party, have gotten away
with this kind of reaction is because
of a dedicated “smoke and mirror”
campaign. These so-called leaders
almost seem to follow a shared
playbook when a mass shooting
occurs. In the 24 hours after the
event, they offer their thoughts and
prayers, hold moments of silence
and seem to genuinely grieve for
the families. After that period of
time passes, they condemn anyone
who spoke out in favor of more gun
control for politicizing the tragedy,
effectively politicizing the event
themselves.
For example, almost exactly 24
hours after the atrocity at Stoneman
Douglas High School, Ted Cruz
levied the following charge at
Democrats on national television:
“The reaction of Democrats to any
tragedy is to try to politicize it.”
Then, as sadness turns to anger
throughout
the
country,
these
politicians start a mass information
campaign, pointing their fingers
at any and all actors who are not
part of the gun industry, including
themselves.
Republican
leaders
blamed the police, the FBI, the
school’s administration and even
the students in Parkland, Fla.
To a certain extent, they weren’t
wrong. The FBI had received tips
about the shooter even though it is
legally murky what they could have
done. Furthermore, police did not
swiftly enter the building, which
could have potentially limited the
number of casualties. However,
blaming teachers and students
for not reporting the shooter was
ludicrous. It’s a tactic I know well
as a former high school debater —
throw out as many arguments as
possible and hope that one sticks.
Except, in this case, the goal isn’t to
win tournaments as much as save
people’s lives.
Curiously, one argument these
politicians never seemed to land
on is more effective gun control.
They claim if everything else went
perfectly, a crazy person would never
be able to have a gun and use it at a
school. They claim it’s not a problem
with the laws themselves, but the
execution of the laws that exist. They
claim we’ve done everything we can.
But, we empirically have not. Just
a cursory glance at gun laws in our
country and across the world shows
gun reform can and has saved lives.
To make it easier for them, because
I understand a certain leader of ours
prefers bullet points, I will list just
a few of these policies with a brief
description of each:
1. Assault rifle ban: The United
States banned assault rifles between
1994 and 2004. There was a marked
decrease in gun massacre incidents
as a result and an increase after it
was allowed to lapse. In Australia,
an assault rifle ban and gun buyback
program has saved an estimated 200
lives per year.
2. Background checks: Boston
University found that universal
background checks and ammunition
background checks significantly
decreased
gun
mortality
by
comparing states that have those
laws to states that don’t.
3. Gun violence restraining
order: In recent mass shootings,
there have often been red flags
associated with the shooter. For
example, various people close to
the Stoneman Douglas High School
shooter were aware that he posed
a threat but had no legal resource.
In cases such as these, individuals
should be able to petition the court to
confiscate a weapon from someone
the court deems as a danger to
oneself or others.
4. Bump stock ban: Bump
stocks are gun modifications that
allow semi-automatic weapons to
operate similarly to fully automatic
weapons. Bump stocks often come
with 60 to 100-round magazines. A
ban on these devices could limit the
carnage a gun can bring.
5. Gun licenses: Federal law
does not mandate that people acquire
a gun license before purchasing a
gun, and there is no process of gun
registration. One study found that
if such a law were to be enacted,
projected mortality could be reduced
by 84 percent.
6. Thoughts/prayers: To date,
no scientific research has shown this
particular method to be effective
in preventing the death of innocent
individuals.
I am not sure any of these
reforms will work. While there
seems to be real evidence that they
can save lives, no one can be sure
what effect they will have on the gun
violence that plagues our country.
But that’s exactly my argument;
conservative leaders cannot claim to
have tried everything without giving
firearm reform a chance. We owe it to
the people of Parkland, Fla., Orlando,
Las Vegas, Newtown, Conn. and too
many others to halt the shedding of
innocent blood. Moreover, we owe it
to the next town that has to face the
inestimable pain of burying loved
ones if we don’t do everything in
our power to never have to utter the
words “thoughts and prayers” under
these circumstances again.
Rishabh Kewalramani can be
reached at rkew@umich.edu.
RISHABH KEWALRAMANI | COLUMN
REBECCA SCHAENZEL | OP-ED
“
Borders
are
an
obstacle
to
unity,
to
humanity really,” Chico
MacMurtrie exclaimed during
his presentation of his Border
Crosser robots. Do borders
just continue to reinforce a
tendency toward isolationism
and separate us from one
another? Borders might isolate
us from a true immersion
into
multiculturalism,
but
what poses a real obstacle
to humanity is a wall, a
fortification of a nation.
A strong push for a border
separating Mexico and the
United
States
once
more
moves into the spotlight with
President Trump’s proposal
on the DACA debate that he
would grant citizenship to
the 1.8 million immigrants in
exchange for $25 billion in
funding for his border.
The “security” of a wall was
one of his campaign promises,
but the thing with walls is
they merely function as a
filter. It deters those who seek
a better life for themselves
and their family, but not those
adversaries who pose a threat
to the nation, as they will find
a way to circumvent a wall. As
Jack Anderson said, “Security
cannot depend on the hope
that a fortification will not
fail. Eventually, and always,
walls fail us.”
Walls are a failed concept
as they only offer a temporary
relief to a problem that lies
much deeper and needs to be
addressed with policy reforms
instead of physical separation.
Walls
are
not
permanent
solutions, as evidenced by
those that have been erected
in the past. As Cicero decried,
seeking justification in past
practices is flawed in the most
basic sense that not everything
found in law is just, even if
measured
against
history.
The logic to keep “others”
out once before led the U.S.
to protect its nationhood and
sovereignty on the basis of
prejudicial
exclusion
with
the Chinese Exclusion Act of
1882. What is most damaging
about this type of approach
to immigration control is the
delay it causes to sustainable
immigration reform.
It is time to rethink the
way we view borders. A wall
will not instill unity, but
rather perpetuate a divide,
especially if it is brought
about by coercion or somehow
forcing Mexico to pay for
it. International treaties or
agreements
signed
under
threats or coercion are not only
invalid, as stated by Article
52 of the Vienna Convention,
but can also reproduce neo-
imperial relations that will
only strain alliances among
the global community. While
borders should certainly exist
as
jurisdictional
measures,
a wall will form a barrier to
human
movement
and
all
under the excuse of protecting
one’s sovereignty.
There
are
additional
consequences
to
be
considered when building a
wall such as the caging effect,
a positive correlation between
increased border enforcement
and unauthorized migrants
settling permanently instead
of traveling back and forth
in fear of apprehension. By
dividing geographical space,
we inherently separate what
makes us human: a sense of
community and togetherness.
Regulation is warranted, but
by falling back on the idea of
imposing a barrier between
you
and
the
enemy
we
continue to feed into a flawed
way of thinking.
Some
might
look
at
“them,” the Mexicans, as the
threat, but maybe one day,
future generations will look
back at this moment in time
and look at the ones erecting
walls as a threat to unity
and what it means to be part
of a community, a global
community.
Rebecca Schaenzel is an LSA
Junior.
Conservative
leaders cannot
claim to have
tried everything
without giving
firearm reform a
chance.
F
rom
1963—1973
the
“Northeast
state”
of
Nigeria
experienced
one of the largest population
growths in recorded history. In
that decade, the population grew
by 49 percent (in comparison
the U.S. grew around 12 percent
and China by 26 percent during
the same period).
Or at least that’s what the
1973 Nigerian census said.
This data was later announced
to be grossly inaccurate and
the
Nigerian
government
was forced to declare the
1973 census null and void
amid a scandal of “deliberate
falsification of data to gain
economic, political, and/or
ethnic advantage.”
Contrary to popular belief,
censuses are far from neutral.
Though they are supposed to
be an accurate representation
of the population and societal
metrics
(unemployment,
birth rate, marriage rate),
they are often subject to “data
politicization,”
a
process
by which government data
is manipulated to pursue a
political goal.
While it is true that there
are many flaws with censuses
(see
gerrymandering
and
episode six of the first season
of “The West Wing”), data
politicization is a deliberate
action
that
is
used
to
underrepresent, misrepresent
or altogether make a particular
population invisible.
A prime example is the
American census. According
to Becky Pettit, professor of
sociology from the University
of Texas at Austin, “there
have been different periods
of American history where
different
subgroups
of
the population have been
uncounted,
undercounted,
under enumerated, missing,
invisible.” Pettit points to
the fact that since 1942, the
U.S. census has been based
on a survey of household
information.
“We’ve
been
conducting
the
survey
effectively the same way to
gauge the health and well-
being, economic skills and
capacities of the American
population
since
1942
…
(Which)
categorically
exclude people who aren’t
living in households.” Pettit
identifies
the
massive
incarcerated
population
of
the U.S. as a group that is
particularly
affected.
She
details, “By 2015 almost ¾
of one percent of Americans
were incarcerated in prisons
or jails … Approximately 2.2
million Americans.” In other
words,
almost
all
national
surveys render the incarcerated
population invisible.
However, the effects of
census
politicization
are
not
confined
to
America.
Take the issue of Rohingya
identification in the 2014
Myanmar
census
for
example.
The
Myanmar
government claims that the
Rohingya are illegal Bengali
immigrants.
Contrastingly,
the Rohingya see themselves
as an indigenous population.
According to reports, “In
a
last-minute
decision,
the
Myanmar
government
announced that it would not
allow members of the Muslim
minority in Rakhine State to
self-report their ethnicity to
enumerators as ‘Rohingya.’”
Though certainly not a direct
causation, this erasure of
Rohingya
identity
on
the
census was fundamental in
the events that led to the 2017
massacre of the Rohingya
population.
By
making
the
Rohingya
population
“invisible” on paper and not
providing any sort of official
estimate
of
population
size, it was much easier for
Myanmar’s
government
to carry out a series of
massacres that led to the
deaths of more than 1,000 and
the displacement of 300,000
Rohingya as of September 1,
2017.
Finally, take a look at the
case of the data collected
in 1997 by the Palestinian
Authority’s
Bureau
of
Statistics.
According
to
numerous scholars, including
Yoram Ettinger and Caroline
Glick, the population of Arabs
living
in
the
Palestinian
territories has been greatly
inflated.
In
particular,
Ettinger
identifies
almost
400,000
Palestinians
living
abroad,
300,000 Jerusalem Arabs with
dual ID cards who have been
double
counted
by
Israelis
and
Palestinians,
and
an
overexaggerated Arab birth rate.
This, among other disparities,
contributes to a total of almost
1.15 million “invisible” Arabs
who aren’t counted in the census.
The importance of this
apparent
miscalculation
cannot be overstated. This
existence or absence of 1.15
million Arabs can very well
determine which group (Jews
or Arabs) will be the majority
demographic in the land.
On a final note, censuses
are not inherently a bad
thing.
They
are
still
an
important
tool
to
create
an accurate measure of a
population for governmental
policies. So next time you get
a government survey in the
mail there’s no need to burn
it or put on your tinfoil hat.
Instead, do your research and
identify how the census is
taken and which groups are
likely to be misrepresented.
Who knows, you may find
that you too are a victim of
the census’s vanishing act.
Want to be invisible? Try a census
ALEX HARRIS | OP-ED
Alex Harris is an LSA Junior.
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
SARAH NEFF | CONTACT AT SANE@UMICH.EDU.
Contrary to
popular belief,
censuses are far
from neutral.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
Walls are a failed
concept as they
only offer a
temporary relief
to a problem that
lies much deeper.