Gun control is a series of laws and regulations that limit the sale and manufacturing of firearms. This term is loosely written as the laws could limit certain weapons or all guns in the nation. This variety makes the topic of gun control very controversial in the US. The US second amendment states that the people of America have the right to own weapons for protection. This can positively be seen in the book as Maverick protects his store from the rioters as they raid garden heights in protest for Khalil. Moreover, the roof Koreans during the riots is a real life example of a positive impact of weapons. These Koreans protected their block from rioters by scaring off these people with their guns. However, many shootings and mass killings is a very known example of how gun control must be limited. 

In the novel, the rioters use guns and violence to rob stores and take what they want where the store owners use guns to protect them. Reading these chapters of the book influence my question, “How would gun control effect the public and is it constitutional?”. If full gun control was enforced in the United States, the rioters and/or criminals might have access to guns on the black market although the store owners would follow the law and not be  able to defend themselves. Gun control might pose a greater threat to the store owners in the book rather than stopping violence all together. Would it be unconstitutional to take a store owners gun away so he cannot protect his own life? I personally do not think so which is why my partner and I chose to talk about the restrictions the government can make on the use, sale, and manufacturing of weapons.

           On the opposite side, I feel like everybody deserves a second chance. Just because a person got in trouble with the law does not mean they are a bad person. Many people make bad choices in the moment and learn from the punishment. This allows the person to grow to a better person from their choices. If a person is restricted because of one choice they made maybe way in the past, there is no possible way the person can be successful if the choice they made was severe enough. This upsets me because a person might need a second chance just to get on their feet and start again.

          Back to the book, officer 115 made a mistake in the moment. This moment needs to be seen from both sides of the spectrum to make a decision. On one hand this choice was bad, he needs to be punished but not enough to take away his job or family. Starr thinks that 115 needs justice and should not be a cop anymore. That punishment would severely impact his career and life, which would not be a good punishment. I think Starr is wrong for wishing a bad thing upon the cop for revenge. The officer should be punished enough to learn his lesson but not enough to shape who he is and define his life.

Tupac’s poem brings an interesting perspective on the idea of American ghettos, portraying them to seem more like a fenced-off prison than a low-income neighborhood. Relating it to the soul sucking and cultural suppression often enforced in prisons. Along with high violence, crime, and drug use rates that also occurs in prison. However, instead of all of this being caused by guards and wardens, it’s enforced by the people inside it. Each trying to keep each other in and dragging them away from success in anyway possible. Causing a nearly unbreakable cycle where people are kept prisoner by their own peers and themselves.

I agree with Tupac’s perspective on the idea. They could have very much been kings and queens, in every right and risen themselves out or even improved the ghetto from the inside. However, they seemed to be constantly stuck there, through one way or the other. Getting to a point where even Tupac had given up hope. Seeing that he would’ve been trapped and in there were it not for his luck. Ending with his last lines “4 I would rather be stricken blind | than 2 live without expression of mind”. Where he says he would give up his sight than lose his ability to think and fight.