Should the consequnces be harsher?

There are many topics that are important now in America, but one topic that intrigued me was about drinking and driving. I personally lost a dear friend of mine in a drinking and driving accident about a week ago.  On Monday, March 25, 2013 Statesman.com, published an article called “Woman killed inhit-and-run crash” This article talks about how Christina Lopez, who works in the ACC Northridge college in Simons café, was killed in a drinking and driving accident. The article states that “Lopez was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash at Springdale Road near Pecan Brook Drive in East Austin after police arrived at about 11:45 p.m., according to an arrest affidavit.” When I read this part of the article it brought me to tears to know that she died right there on the spot.  But it made me mad to know that the person that killed her didn’t even go to help her, he just ran away.

Now my question is, should the consequences for drinking and driving crimes be harsher? After much thinking I thought to myself that yes, we should be harsher.  Statistics in the organization called MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) show that “Every day in America, another 27 people dieas a result of drunk driving crashes”. Imagine how many people’s lives are lost. A person could be dying now as we speak. Not only are the people that are in the car affected but also their loved ones.  I personally knew who Christina was. She was a great friend and an amazing mother to her two young children.  It makes me sad to know that many adults or children are dying because of the irresponsible actions of people that cause this tragedy. This is why I believe we should make the consequences harsher so people will not be tempted to drink and drive. Sure people will still drink but we could decrease the numbers of people drinking and driving.

               In the website called DrivingLaws.org say that if you are caught in your first offenseyou get minimum jail time for 3 to 180 days, fine up to $2,000, and a licensesuspension for 90 to 365 days. Now I don’t know about you but I don’t think it is enough. Many say it’s there first time but the first time could also kill someone. I believe that they should get sent to jail for 2 years and pay a fine of $10,000. When we put more of a harsher consequence for people to know they will think twice when drinking and driving. I don’t believe that it is being unfair and mean because many people’s lives are lost because of these actions and it isn’t fair for the family members that have to go through losing someone they love. Drinking and driving is bad and we should spread the word for people to know what they are getting themselves into.

Sources:
-http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crime-law/woman-killed-in-hit-and-run-crash-identified/nW3sC/
-http://www.madd.org/statistics/
-http://dui.drivinglaws.org/texas.php

White House muzzled down gun control groups?

        On Friday, March 8, 2013 John Aravois, posted on AmericaBlog, about how the White House did a negotiation with the gun control groups. John Aravois states that “The White House reportedly got the gun control groups to agree to hold their fire, as it were, in exchange for the groups being permitted a seat at the negotiating table”.  Now the question is, was this a good idea or a bad one? I believe and also John Aravois, that it was a bad idea. It makes it seem that the White House has all power. This shouldn’t be like that way because people have the right to speak and should be “muzzled” down. People from the gun control groups will believe that they don’t have a word in anything. Sure they might be in the meeting but there are not allowed to speak, just hear the conversation and agree to it. Further into the article, we see that Aravois used examples as to why it was a bad idea in the past. One of the examples that John Aravois states is “ Fast forward to 2009, the first year of the administration. Again, the Obama administration made clear to outside groups that they’d better toe the line, or they wouldn’t be welcome in the Obama White House. Groups like SLDN, then the lead gays in the military group, were cut off by the White House for daring to speak up against the President’s seeming-reticence about moving forward on his promise to repeal DADT.

         Now with all that said, gun controls have been one of the main topics lately in America, after many shootings that happened in the last couple of months. It’s obvious that the author’s audience is anybody that is concerned with the gun control topic. He uses past examples of groups that have made an agreement with the white house, to lure the audience. It’s his credibility and evidence that how the white house is being unfair with all of these groups. He argues that it isn’t fair and that there should be something done about it. John says “I’m all for working with the Obama administration and Democrats generally, and a number of us have proven our ability to do just that, time and again, all the way back to when Barack Obama was still battling Hillary Clinton in the primaries. But that doesn’t mean we’re always going to be on the same page with the administration, and it doesn’t always mean that the White House is going to be doing what they should be doing on any given issue.” I agree with what the author is saying. They should recognize that the people’s voice matters as well. At least they are taking accounted for that the people should have a vote about the back ground check.