T
houghts and prayers. After
years of mass shootings and
gun violence, all the country
has to show for the bloodshed
is a long stream of condolences.
Following shootings in Parkland,
Oxford, UVA and countless other
locations, legislators nationwide
have advocated for strong reform,
only to repeatedly come up short.
Support for legislation curtailing
access to some types of firearms
draws
support
from
71%
of
Americans, yet the drastic measures
proposed by activists on the left
have caused a stalemate with right-
wing lawmakers, preventing any
significant legislation from being
passed.
In order to escape the endless
cycle of carnage and inaction,
it’s time for the left to reevaluate
its
policies
and
focus
on measures that enjoy
higher support from the
American people. Rather
than advocating for assault
rifle bans and mandatory
buyback
programs,
legislators should focus on
measures like red flag laws,
background
checks
and
limits on the sale of high-
capacity magazines, which
have bipartisan support and
a far greater chance of being
implemented. Though these
reforms
certainly
won’t
stop all violence, they’ll go a
long way toward improving
safety in our communities
and breaking decades of deadlock
on gun reform.
Since the Sandy Hook shootings
a decade ago, numerous attempts
to counter gun violence have come
up short. The most successful of
those measures, the Bipartisan
Safer Communities Act, which
was passed in 2022, makes positive
change but leaves many issues
unresolved. Though it supports
funding for red flag laws, closes the
“boyfriend loophole” and provides
significant mental health funding,
the bill fails to mandate red flag
laws nationally and doesn’t close
major background check loopholes
regarding private gun sales and
the unavailability of mental health
histories. In order to improve the
safety of cities nationwide, it’s
paramount that we enact more
measures on the statewide and
national level that make strides
toward rectifying a chaotic system
of gun ownership. Our best hope
to pass tangible legislation lies in
tempered measures that correct
flaws surrounding the current gun
purchase procedures, rather than
banning classes of weapons outright
and uprooting a convoluted system
that has been in place for decades.
One of the most actionable
and popular propositions is the
creation of a national red flag
law. A whopping 48% of mass
shooters inform others of their
plan before their attacks, making
many tragedies preventable. Red
flag laws, which allow courts
to
authorize
the
temporary
confiscation of deadly weapons
from individuals who are a threat to
themselves or others, are a key tool
in foiling attackers. Though only
19 states currently have such laws,
they were used 626 times between
2013 and 2020 to stop individuals
deemed credible mass shooting
threats. By implementing these
laws nationwide and improving
transparency
to
encourage
individuals to report threats, we
can build upon a pre-existing
framework to prevent bad actors
from carrying out their deadly
plans.
Promisingly, Congress passed
$750 million in red flag law funding
in this year’s bipartisan gun reform
bill, demonstrating a willingness to
support such programs. Through
enacting
a
nationwide
law,
lawmakers have the opportunity to
standardize statewide procedures
and provide the infrastructure
necessary for all 50 states to save
lives through the policy.
Another important step that
leaders
must
take
is
closing
loopholes in background checks.
Currently,
there
are
many
egregious loopholes that prevent
the background check system from
functioning as desired. One of
the most prominent ones is called
the “Charleston loophole,” which
allows individuals to purchase guns
if their background checks aren’t
completed within 72 hours. While
only 1% of screens completed in that
time frame are denied, an estimated
5% are denied when that process is
extended beyond three days. This
discrepancy causes many checks
to ignore critical information that
can’t be obtained in time, leading
many individuals’ criminal
records and history of violence
to be ignored.
Even more concerning, gun
purchases administered by
private sellers are often subject
to no background checks
at all. Known as the “gun
show loophole,” unlicensed
dealers selling online or at
gun shows aren’t required to
conduct background checks
on their clients. With 22% of
all gun purchasers undergoing
no
background
checks,
many people who would
be flagged circumvent the
requirement. This loophole
only serves to benefit violent
individuals who seek to obtain
deadly weapons, so there is little
justification for preserving it. With
93% of Americans, including 89% of
Republicans, supporting required
background checks on all gun sales,
closing this loophole would be
widely popular and make a major
impact.
Finally,
legislators
should
consider limiting the sale of high-
capacity magazines, especially for
those under 21 and with histories of
mental struggles.
With Michigan Democrats
controlling both the
Governor’s mansion and
the Legislature for the first
time since 1984, they have
an opportunity to capitalize
on limited Republican
opposition and pass many
critical measures.
Opinion
Wednesday, January 11, 2023 — 7
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
I
f you’re like me (or not),
you’ve probably used TikTok.
The addictive social media
app is appealing, especially to
Gen Z. There are a variety of
reasons why — content creation
is easier and more accessible
than ever before, videos cover all
sorts of topics (from politics to
nature to music to frogs) and it’s
all user friendly. However, there
is one fundamental reason that
TikTok grasps our attention: the
calculated algorithm that picks up
on users’ interests.
The algorithm has powerful
categorization techniques for the
astronomical number of videos that
get uploaded every day. By sorting
various trends, creators, likes and
comments, the algorithm can then
look at how much time you spend
watching certain kinds of videos.
Then, it will simply feed you more
and more of these videos.
This results in some pros and
cons.
The pros are that in America’s
consumer-oriented culture, this
app provides an infinite amount of
fun (just keep scrolling!). It’s hard
to get bored of TikTok — well, until
you start to get a headache or you
have to get up and interact with the
real world. You can also find some
niche corners of TikTok in which
to interact with creators that are
doing something relevant to your
life. An instance of this is when, for
the periods of time I was away from
home and missed my cat, I indulged
in cat TikTok — the small furballs
kept me entertained for hours.
The cons are that the app is
detrimental to our attention span
and it can drive us into some
dangerous rabbit holes. This creates
echo chambers and polarization
among the masses. In a sense, the
more videos you see that reaffirm
your beliefs, the more likely you
are to perceive these videos as
representative of reality (which is
often not the case).
So, if an algorithm is so
impactful, so fruitful, so targeted,
should we be afraid of it?
Well, substantial claims from
government officials have been
made about TikTok’s threat to
national security. Some claims go
so far as to say that this Chinese
company (and, subsequently, the
Chinese government) can collect
data from the American masses,
posing a threat to American
consumer
privacy.
This
data
includes (but is not limited to) what
pages users spend more time on,
browser tracking and history and
ad preferences.
However, I don’t really think
that the problem lies with security
against potential foreign actors.
We should expect that TikTok,
like other tech giants, collects
this information in an impersonal
and algorithmic manner. Failing
to rid us of this assumption, the
U.S. government has been tight-
lipped when asked to back up its
claims of a conspiracy. TikTok’s
data is collected and distributed
to private companies; the app then
feeds its users these personalized
ads based on the content they’ve
shown interest in. For example, say
you’ve been watching a lot of music
beat-making TikTok videos. Soon
enough, you might come across
online courses that teach users how
to use beat-making software.
In that way, TikTok and other
major social media apps can
derive a digital copy of you: what
you like, what you dislike, who
you follow, how you interact, etc.
Thus, the user is reduced to a
collection of profitable potential
and subsequently sold as a product.
Identities are blurred and fit into
various compartments that are
most convenient for advertising
corporations.
Moreover, in this new age of
technology, surveillance is not
really a means for the government
to watch over its people. Unless
there’s an investigation taking
place,
American
government
agencies can’t legally tap into
people’s personal data. But that
doesn’t mean users are in good
hands with the private sector.
When surveillance is handed off
from a (traditionally) governmental
authority to a distributed web of
corporations, the users’ data is
commodified. In that sense, you
can go on TikTok and bash the
government all you’d like. You
have a sort of “free speech” that’s
maintained by the private company
(which doesn’t necessarily ascribe
to some larger political agenda).
However, there’s a flip side to it.
This data acquisition leads to a lost
sense of digital privacy because
you’re now a product.
TikTok’s data harvesting is not
reminiscent of a centralized “Big
Brother” overseer. It’s lines of code
embedded in statistical models
that slingshot your information to
other algorithms owned by other
companies. Because of that, the
individual’s idiosyncrasy is lost
and turned into data points fed
into a larger machine. (It’s not like
a human being ever personally
handles your information and
looks at it. However, computer or
not, the data is still being collected
and sold.).
AMMAR AHMAD
Opinion Columnist
No more thoughts and prayers: A
bipartisan path to gun control
W
ith
an
increasingly
competitive
applicant
pool for U.S. medical
schools, accepting the call to
become a physician requires a great
deal of altruism, philanthropy and
patient advocacy — at least on paper.
An article from the Association
of American Medical Colleges
illustrates that in 2020, first-year
medical students averaged 644
hours of volunteering. Of those 644
hours, students first encountered
harsh medical disparities in clinical
environments. Patients unable to
afford medication, women denied
abortions, diseases brought about
by food insecurity, children dying of
COVID-19 and predatory insurance
companies are a few of the many
injustices that leave a sour taste in
the mouths of aspiring clinicians.
Navigating the tangled web of
healthcare
inequity
politicizes
physicians. Combined with the
increase in female physicians,
student
loan
debt,
a
broken
healthcare system and metropolitan
clustering,
the
profession
is
beginning to turn incredibly blue.
35% of physicians identify as
Democrats and nearly two-thirds of
physician campaign contributions
go to Democratic candidates.
Given the fact that physicians
must
interact
with
both
the
physical and socioeconomic sides of
sickness, it is concerning that 27% of
physicians identify as Republicans
— a party ardently against crucial
pieces of health provisions such
as abortion, mask mandates and
universal healthcare. What’s more,
it comes as no surprise that political
affiliation
ultimately
influences
treatment given to patients. Yale
researchers found that Republican
physicians were more likely to
discuss the negative effects of
marijuana usage and abortions,
while
Democratic
physicians
were more concerned with the
presence of a gun in the house when
presented with identical patient
vignettes.
In
government,
the
same
phenomenon persists. There are
currently 10 Republican doctors
in the House of Representatives
and four Republican doctors in the
Senate, as opposed to just three
Democratic doctors in the two
chambers combined. Dr. Mehmet
Oz, a former cardiothoracic surgeon
and host of “The Dr. Oz Show,”
was one member of the cadre of
conservative physicians running to
join their ranks this past midterm
election cycle. Oz has a lengthy track
record of promoting pseudoscience,
gun rights, the abolishment of the
ACA and abortion bans. He was
the Republican party’s perfect
pawn to proliferate post-lockdown
healthcare policy that only a
medical degree holder like Oz could
get away with legislating.
Had
he
won
the
2022
Pennsylvania
Senate
race,
Oz
could’ve
easily
twisted
bad
proposals on the Senate floor
with
flowery
medical
jargon,
patient stories and mention of his
credentials — much like he had done
on his TV show when promoting the
“medicinal benefits” of astrology,
raspberry ketones and umckaloabo
root. While Oz’s ultimate loss to Lt.
Gov. John Fetterman was a step in
the right direction, the negative
impact his campaign had on both
physician credibility and reliability
is unforgivable.
NIKHIL SHARMA
Opinion Columnist
TikTok: What is surveillance today?
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
SHANNON STOCKING
AND KATE WEILAND
Editor in Chiefs
QUIN ZAPOLI AND
JULIAN BARNARD
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
Ammar Ahmad
Julian Barnard
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Shubhum Giroti
Devon Hesano
Sophia Lehrbaum
Olivia Mouradian
Siddharth Parmar
Rushabh Shah
Zhane Yamin
Nikhil Sharma
Lindsey Spencer
Evan Stern
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky
Alex Yee
Quin Zapoli
JULIA VERKLAN
MALONEY AND ZOE
STORER
Managing Editors
Conservative doctors make terrible
politicians, but great pawns
NAMRATHA NELAPUDI
Opinion Columnist
VIEW THE FULL DEI 1.0 EVALUATION REPORT AT
DIVERSITY.UMICH.EDU
#UMichDEI @UMichDiversity
DEI 1.0
EVALUATION REPORT
Learn about the progress made and challenges discovered
through U-M’s initial DEI Five-Year Strategic Plan, DEI 1.0, and
how these lessons will help guide our next strategic plan, DEI 2.0.
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Read more at MichiganDaily.com