My assigned topic for the blog is: “Should women be allowed to do combat roles in the military?” My assigned stance for the debate is (Pro). This stance on the issue is not my personal stance. I do not think that it is necessary, nor should women play a combat role in the military. Why I think this is because having women playing a combat role would be too much of a problem for the entire unit of soldiers in a combat situation. For example, in a firefight, a male soldier may be worried about his female accomplice and it could serve as a distraction. Also, a male soldier may be more inclined to help the female soldier endangering more people than necessary. I also believe that because of the strength disadvantages of women, a situation such as carrying someone could hurt a squad and put lives at more risk than just have a male counter-part. Another thing that could be a factor is the emotional aspect. Yes, I understand that a male could be susceptible to emotional trauma as well, but generally speaking, as a society we raise our males to cry less, “suck it up”, “be a man”, etc. So, men tend to be less emotional, and would handle a high stress, highly emotional instance better. And in a firefight or active combat situation, being emotional and forgetting your training means you and your fellow soldiers could be killed.
When I did a basic Google search on the issue, the results that I got were a lot of articles talking about the US opening up combat jobs to women. There is an article put out by CNN about a woman who was in a close quarters firefight in Iraq. She killed at least three insurgents and received the Silver Star award. Most “top result” articles seem to be supportive of women in combat roles.
The approach I plan on taking to the debate is arguing equality. Women are equal among men so they should have an equal role in the military. I feel this is the strongest argument I have. That and arguing that if women want to fight for our country and our freedom than let them.
The only ethical issue I can think of within this topic would be that not letting women fight for our country is ethically wrong. If they want to do it, then let them. This is not an ethical issue for my stance on the issue, rather the con side of the argument.
Emotions that can be brought into my argument would be freedom. The freedom, and the right to fight for the country. Patriotism can also be placed into the argument as an effective emotion.
Article- Should Gun Control Be Tougher? (Con)
Main Arguments made by the con side of the argument:
– “Enacting more gun control laws would be the most ineffective and irrelevant reaction.”
– Foreign countries such as France have tougher gun laws but in France 130 people were killed during a terrorist attack, and most of the guns were illegal.
– The NRA is not a scape goat to push through a political agenda.
– The Second Amendment
I disagree with this argument strongly. Gun control is a serious issue in the United States and will be unless we have change. Too many people die to gun violence all too often. This article shows the heartlessness of people who are second amendment advocates and clueless gun owners. In order to save lives in the future, and prevent gun violence, something must be done. As Americans we cannot sit back and allow evil to do evil acts without hesitation, and complication. The gun rights activists not even considering banning these modifications and assault rifles shows how little they care for human life other than their own.
As of now, it is too easy for people to obtain a firearm. Especially an assault rifle. You can walk in to any gun shop, even Walmart, and walk out within a few minutes with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammo. But these are not the only things that threaten innocent by-standers. Modifications for weapons are far too easy to get and turn a deadly weapon into a weapon of mass-destruction. For example, a bumper stock. These were used on the assault rifles during the Vegas shooting. The bumper stock turns a semi-automatic rifle into a full-auto killing machine.
These assault rifles and modifications are not necessary. They are designed to kill more, and kill quicker. So why sell them and the parts to build them? Because the NRA makes money off the sale of firearms and the mod. products.
The NRA is a huge lobbyist for the Republican party so they have a strong voice in government. This grants protection from gun laws that would lessen the sales for the NRA. So anytime a mass shooting occurs, and the government calls for gun law reform, it is immediately shot down by the Republican Party. “It’s not the right time to talk about gun control.” After a mass shooting. So no gun reform ever comes from an unfortunate situation. So we have a continuous cycle within the United States and terrorism won’t be stopped.
Admitting that terrorism will never be completely eliminated is an important step in the road to gun control reform. But the point of having tougher gun laws in the United States is to decrease terrorism and save as many lives as possible. There are many ways this could be done, but sitting back and doing nothing is not one of them. And if banning assault rifles saves but one life, isn’t that enough to sacrifice your assault rifles for that.
The argument that foreign countries having tougher gun laws and the example of a single terrorist attack is not a valid argument. The circumstances of the US are completely different for one, but here is a 2014 statistical survey.
USA vs UK
Pop. 321 million Pop. 64 million
270 legally owned firearms 4.6 million legally owned firearms
88.8 firearms/ 100 people 6.2 firearms/ 100 people
12,570 killed in gun related incidents 30 people killed in gun related incidents
The Second Amendment is the strongest argument gun activists have. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed.” Though most people who want gun reform do not want to take away all guns. However the sale of bumper stocks, pistol grips, large capacity magazines, etc. should be looked at more in depth. I believe that gun reform is needed to prevent future terrorist attacks. And the article in which I oppose needs to open up to a compromise that will save lives.