Category: Gun Control

Crime is a phenomenon of organized social life and is the open rebellion of an individual against his social environment (Gabbidon and Greene, 2018). Talking about crime with adolescents in the community is a tough topic to swallow that no parent wants to think about. Your teen may never experience any serious problems first hand but, they’ll most likely have friends and classmates who do. Arming and having more experience with the facts can be the first step in reducing your teen’s risk. Early intervention is the key to helping your teen, ignoring problems that teens go through may get worse. Crime rates take place in many perspectives such as gun violence mental illness, drugs and alcohol, family structure, and nevertheless gun violence. Gun violence is a key topic in today’s society, our youth are getting killed every day due to gun violence.

History Behind Gun Control

Gun Control was not a major issue in the first two centuries in the United States. Gun control helps protect citizens to buy, possess, and use firearms. According to Otfinoski (2014), colonists used muskets and pistols to hunt for food. They also used guns to protect themselves from wild animals and in their conflicts with Native Americans and rival colonists from other European nations. In 1968 the Gun Control Act was passed which stated that it was a federal law in the United States signed by President Lyndon Johnson.

In 1934 Congress passed The National Firearm Act. The Act required makers and sellers of guns to pay a tax fee for each weapon sold (Otfinoski, 2014). President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Federal Firearm Act which was a major piece of gun control legislation. Although a lot of Americans supported these federal gun laws, many others were opposed to them. Many believed that all new laws violated the Second Amendment. Throughout much of American history, gun control measures, like many other laws, were used to oppress African Americans (Winkler, 2011). After the American Civil War, the North allowed soldiers of any color to take their rifles home. Even African Americans, who had not served in the war, could purchase firearms in the North (Winkler, 2011).

The Effect on the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution needs “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (U.S. Constitution). As we know guns were used to protect and to hunt, it was not an overall reason why the 2nd Amendment has become a controversial amendment in recent years. Nelson (2019) stated the Second Amendment was meant to help the people protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Some believed that the Second Amendment does not relate to them, but more so to the military, law enforcement, or trained militia. The militia was a group of local men who could act as a military force in times of emergency.

A “well-regulated” militia was one that was trained organized, and disciplined (Nelson, 2019). There are many Americans who believe that gun control means that citizens have the right to own a handgun. In 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes and protects individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in militia, to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes and as self-defense within the name (District of Columbia V. Heller, 2008).

Crime Rate

Children who roamed the streets needed to be brought under supervision control. For young people, the term crime, deviance, and delinquency collide to attract critical attention to a much wider set of problem behaviors than is usually afforded to adults (Munice, 2009). Running away from home and congregating in groups are usually considered to be problematic when committed by young people (munice, 2009).

Gun Violence

Crime rate and gun violence is an important and controversial issue facing our youths today. Guns have always been a part of the American culture, even before we became the America we know today. Gun violence is a major problem that American citizens tend to lack in today’s society. The increase in youth homicide was predominately due to a significant increase in the use of handguns, which converted ordinary teenage fights and other violent encounters into homicide (Blumstein, 2002). Also, Blumstein (2002) stated the increase in violence in the United States during the late 1980s and early 1990s was due primarily to an increase in violent acts committed by people under age 20.

Brock (2013) stated, that the majority of the youth murdered are killed with a firearm and nearly half of youth suicide deaths involve the use of a gun. Efforts to end youth gun violence must focus on accessibility and prevention. In 2010, there were 2,711 infant, child, and teen firearm deaths. On average there were seven such fatalities daily and 52 weekly. Between 1981 and 2010, 112,375 infants, children, and teens were killed by firearms. This is 25,000 more deaths than the number of soldiers killed in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, combined (Children’s Defense Fund, 2013). Violence using guns doesn’t have any boundaries and now it is a major concern in cities towns and suburbs. People are afraid to walk anywhere because our neighborhoods are becoming more of a “war zone”. Our laws state that they prohibit the sale and possession of minors, and teenagers can still get a hold of guns if they want to. Suicides at School are less than 1% of student homicides and suicides take place at school, on the way to or from school, or at a school-sponsored event (Robers, Zhang, & Truman, 2012).

Years ago, Gun Violence was just something to read about. Gun Violence is usually involved in large cities involving gangs, criminals, or a group of drug dealers. Then, it didn’t touch people’s lives as much but, that is no longer true. The Children’s Defense Fund’s publication, Protect Children, Not Guns 2013, analyzes the latest fatal and nonfatal gun injury data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for children and teens ages 0-19 (Children Defense Fund, 2013). A study conducted by the Children’s Defense Fund and released in June 2006 revealed that in 2003 there were 2,827 gun deaths among children and teens in the United States. Brock (2013) stated the overwhelming majority of Americans agree we can and must do better. Polls show the vast majority of Americans, gun owners and non-gun owners, Republicans, and Democrats support universal background checks as a first step to making American safer for our children and for all of us.

Mental Illness

Underwood and Washington (2016) stated that the Juvenile (detain, probation, youth correction facility, etc.) system is currently faced with the task of providing mental health assessments and treatment services for its youth, as there is greater reliance on the juvenile system to do so. There will always be mentally ill people and there will be a few whom is violent. Estimates reveal that approximately 50 to 75 percent of the 2 million youth encountering the juvenile Justice System meet the criteria for a mental health disorder (Underwood and Washington, 2016). Children and adolescents are usually to respond to threats aggressively and unexpectedly especially with the cause of PTSD.

Teenagers in a rural community are mixed differently than the ones who tend to live in the suburbs. In the community, you will see more teens who believe that they are natural protectors based on the family structure that they live in. The relationship between adolescent depression and adult crime may be influenced by a host of factors, and failing to control for these factors will bias the estimated effect of depression on crime stated Anderson, Cesur, and Tekin (2012). Parental divorce and a father’s involvement have been linked to teen savers’ mental health and youth behavior. Children with favors who have been incarcerated are not only more likely to suffer from depressive symptoms but are themselves more likely to commit when older (Anderson, Cesur and Tekin, 2016).

Otfiniski (2014) states that the new law did not stop two high school students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, from attacking their fellow classmates at Columbine High-school, in Littleton, Colorado, on April 20, 1999. After the shooting, it impacted a lot of lives. The House of Representatives voted down a bill requiring a background check for sales at gun shows and child safety trigger locks on guns. Sources believed that this tragedy took place because they were being bullied but, that was not the case. Harris and Klebold write diaries and first want to set off bombs at the school and kill everyone inside until they discover a malfunctioning issue. These are kids with serious psychological problems and were not ordinary kids who were bullied into retaliation (Langman, 2014).

Guns have been in our society for centuries, which people have been a sensitive topic to talk about but have been subject to discussions. In the recent events of mass shootings, the issue has divided individuals regarding what the best solution is for gun control. One side some people favor is having restrictions placed on guns. On the other hand opposed regulating and having gun control. Guns have the potential to be dangerous and are used for self-defense, law enforcement, hunting, and to protect individuals from others who are trying to harm them. Weapons that are in the wrong hands would lead to catastrophic events, which we have somehow witnessed in the past. Based on the result of these horrific events, guns have been put on a platform and have been labeled as too dangerous for American citizens to handle, and the right to own a firearm discretely should be taken away.

Mass killings and serial shootings have produced their kind of horror. Mass killings are committed within minutes or hours of unexpected suddenness (Briggs, 2017). Serial or spree shootings are prolonged and unpredictable, and they last until the assailants are caught (Briggas, 2017). With this problem, people who are for gun control have believed “the more lax laws are… the more likely one is to face someone with a firearm which has no business owning one'(Holt, 2013); however, criminals are not called criminals for they obeyed by the law (2013). According to Jason Howerton (2013), who was a pro-gun advocate, societies that were against gun control have believed otherwise and considered that a gun ban has a dangerous side effect. It encourages criminals since they would know the law-abiding citizens are unarmed and defend less. There have been studies done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which shows that firearm killings have decreased by 39% percent since 1993. Another study by the Pew Research Center was even more significant based on the result showed an even more remarkable decline to 49% percent (Barrett, 2013). The same research, also showed that the government had reported about 22,000 non-fatal shootings occurring each year from 1993 to 2002 and 2002 to 2011; the number has gone down by close to 50% percent. Even with this dramatic decline, anti-gun supporters still want to establish strict gun regulations making it tougher to own a gun. A good portion of these supporters really would like to see carried arms entirely taken out of society.

Guns have been part of U.S. history from the arming of patriots and the mustering of militia during the Revolutionary War. It leads to the disarming of slaves and freedmen tracing back to the Jim Crow Laws that were enacted back in the early 1800s (Briggs, 2017 ). During the 18th and 19th centuries, guns were tools that were used for survival purposes and for defending against any foreign enemy. As time went on and American grew and expanded to the West, guns were used for defending against hostile Indians and other potential dangers in the unexplored territory. Guns were a vital part of American history; since the 1920s mob violence increased, and Congress began its quest for gun control measures. In 1927, mail-order gun sales were declared illegal including concealed firearms. As mob violence increased in 1934 with the use of the ‘Tommy Gun’, Congress approved the National Firearms Act of 1934, taxing firearms and requiring gun registration. This became the first federal gun-control law however it does not end there. In 1938 President Roosevelt was able to pass the National Firearms Act 1938 which required the licensing of interstate gun dealers and prohibiting the sales of guns to individuals under indictment or convicted of crimes of violence (Kim,2013).

Gun control seemed to be minor until the 1960s which was an unsettled time of the 60s killing of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 including Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968. These assassinations kick-started Congress to enact the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act has prohibited the sale of guns to felons, drug users, and those deemed to have considered being mentally ill, including firearm dealers to get licensed and enforced interstate restrictions on gun sales. The act even required a person to be twenty-one years old to legally purchase a handgun. There were some attempts to pass gun control bills that have failed including some that were relaxed or repealed. In 1981, an assassination attempt on President Reagan resulted in the almost killing of Press Secretary James Brady who had taken a bullet wound to the head. For 12 years after that occurrence, Sarah and James Brady led the fight for better gun control. With the support of NRA members and ex-President Ronal Reagan, the Brady organization succeeded in getting “The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” approved in 1993. The important agenda of this law was to create a system for checking the background of the individual gun buyers which was under the control of the FBI. Even though this NICS system prohibited criminals and other possible violent people from buying handguns. The Brady Bills were unable to control private sales from one person to another. Interestingly enough, a survey done in 1993 by the Pew Research Center showed that 57% of the people said gun control is more important than defending Second Amendment gun rights. In 2012, the same survey was done that showed the percentage had declined to 47% (Kim, 2013).

Laws regarding gun control are introduced with the intent to control the sale of guns including their uses. While the important concern is based on the issue in the U.S. let us just take a look at a situation where gun control is harmed. In 2001, American Rifleman, the magazine of the NRA, published an article by Dr. Halbrook explaining the utilization of firearms registration lists that resulted in the seizure of firearms, and ammunition, including the killing of firearm owners. Dr. Halbrook (2001) made an interesting observation about this control; ‘Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and to make a prey of its subject.” The author was referring to Hitler and how he was able to take guns out of the hands of German citizens. All over the world gun control, legislation by the government has made it easy for those in power to do whatever pleases their people. There are those in the U.S. that believe that if the government continues to pursue gun control laws the citizens will be vulnerable to all sorts of criminal activities.

Over the last 40 years, gun control activist has tried to ban handgun or attempted to create restricting reform in the U.S. and have not done so very well. Including, some of the reforms that have surfaced are not reforms at all rather than just an attempt to satisfy people. In 2013, Senator Rand Paul who is a pro-gun advocate implied to the new proposals and said to Obama, “Call me if any of your reform would save those kids at Sandy Hook” (“Sen. Rand Paul Talks About His Career, 2013”). Senator Paul does not believe that any new law on gun control would even prevent another tragedy, such as what happened to Sandy Hook, it only affects law-abiding citizens. After a week of what happened at Sandy Hook, Wayne LaPierre, Vice President of the NRA, stated that schools that posted Gun-free Zones would only attract the criminals who mean to do real harm. He then challenged Congress to fund all schools so that they could hire armed police officers. On another note, there are schools within the same district that should have police officers presented while Sandy Hook had none. Had Asam Lanza known of this fact or was Sandy Hook somehow randomly chosen? Those who have disregarded the law would not have paid attention to a sign that is harmless to them. The sign would not sound an alarm or flashy bright lights if someone with bad intentions is coming near one of these zones and would not stop mass shootings such as Sandy Hook. With these areas in mind, they have the most restrictive gun regulations (Gucciardi, 2013).

A society that is pro-gun control believes that gun control legislation is a necessity for the well-being of our nation. Advocates feel that many of the deaths caused by guns could have been prevented by contorting the ownership of guns within the U.S. Based on the BusinessWeek article, Paul Barrett (2013) states that the focus of gun control advocates for years has been more severe restrictions on firearms are required to cut crime. This was proven wrong; the states with the highest amount of murder rates by guns had some of the strict gun control laws. An FBI Uniform Crime Report in 2011 showed that California was the number one in gun-related murders in the country while maintaining the strongest gun control law. The District of Columbia, having very strict gun laws, had the highest gun-related murder rate of around 100,000 in the U.S. (Howerton, 2013). To support the statistics, a group called Slate has tracked gun deaths since the Sandy Hook incident. From January up to July 2013, studies have shown California, has the most gun deaths starting at 677. In the same time frame, 10 states had severe gun laws with 2,0002 gun deaths while the other 10 states with the least gun laws totaled 696 gun deaths (Gucciardi, 2013).

Upon reviewing these studies and reports, states have the toughest gun laws and do not show a relationship with the idea that having fewer guns equals less crime, in reality, it is just the opposite. An article published on TheBlaze.com stated ‘Guns in the right hands help public safety. Huns in the wrong hands harm public safety’ (Holt, 2013). This fact seems true however societies with strong gun control laws have a hard time with this argument except for those with mental illness who should not be able to obtain a gun.

Gun control and pro-gun advocates have looked at and interpreted the Second Amendment to try to justify their cause. As a result, the founding fathers of our nation created the Bill of Rights with 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As we know the Second Amendment gave the citizens the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates have sometimes said the Second Amendment was added due to a need for an American armed force to be able to defend America in a time of need and for that reason it does not justify the individual’s ownership of numerous guns. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted that the Second Amendment is the law of the land which allows the people to bear arms and it would not be infringed upon (Fetzer, 2013). Mostly, banning guns would take away the individual rights that are given in the U.S. Constitution and therefore illegal.

The Supreme Court has not stepped in on the issue of gun control issue. If the case ever happens to be accepted into the Court, then the judges would have to interpret it according to the law of the land. This is exactly what happened in 1939 in the case of U.S. vs. Miller wherein the Supreme Court decided that the regulations in the National Firearms Act did not in any way violate the Second Amendment. Along with the ruling, the court even ruled that the Second Amendment concerns only a citizen who is in service in a government-organized and regulated armed force (Gucciardi, 2013). This would have been an interpretation that would have made gun control advocates happy since the Supreme Court, in the ruling, viewed the bearing of arms as the right armed force and not as an individual. After seventy years, the Supreme Court did not openly address the Second Amendment. Based on the analysis the Amendments were solely for the protection of state armed forces which was the basis for many states affecting legislation that has imposed gun restrictions.

Believing guns are the reason there is a lot of crime rather than there are just violent people in the world which just seems a bit ridiculous. Take into consideration the fact that human beings are the ones that control objects, such as guns, not the other way around. If that was the case, why not ban weapons? With the theory, Gucciardi (2013) offered statistic from a 2009 FBI report showing homicides committed with firearms and non-firearm source that adds up to 9,146 firearm death.

With that said and done in any case ignoring the Second Amendment and banning guns would create chaos with many pro-gun citizens of the U.S. Though with gin control it is a good idea with a background check and at least someone 21 years of age to purchase a gun, there should not be aby reasons to put any more laws into the effect. As said in the paper above criminals would get their hands on a weapon one way or another. If it is not a gun, then it could be something else that might harm someone else.

No other gun control legislation can have prevented the disaster that had to happen in Connecticut or Colorado. Each event had a mentally incomplete person involved in the massacres, and we have laws for these types of people. Also, more gun regulations would stop violent crimes in the U.S. It is how we use our resources to stop these people from creating even more violent events, and that is letting citizens have the right to own their guns. Gun control is not going to save lives as many pro-gun control advocates believe. The only thing that would save lives is educating students who know nothing about guns including providing knowledge to the widespread nation. There are so many who have never held a gun, and even be in the same room as a gun to decide for or against gun control. The only way people would understand the information is to inform, rather than going off other opinions. History has shown when disarming citizens, the government would gain too much power leaving the citizens defenseless and unable to protect themselves or their families. It is highly unsure that the U.S. would ever come to that point and take the people of basic rights; however, it is always better to prepare than not prepare. Based on a quote by Thomas Jefferson on the opinion of gun rights, “No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government” (“Quotes on Firearms Right”)

References

1. Barret, P.M. (2013). Good News on Gun Violence Could Shape Gun Control Debate. Businessweek.
2. Briggs, W. (2017). How America got its guns: a history of the gun violence crisis. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
3. Cooper, T. L. (2017). Are Unlimited Gun Rights Constitutionally Protected? Public Integrity, 19(2), 101–103. doi: 10.1080/10999922.2016.1254489
4. Fetzer, J.H. (2013). Why gun control is bad for America. Veterans Today. Retrieved December 5, 2019 from https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/08/16/guns-and-chips-and-irony/
5. Fetzer, J. H. (2014). Why gun control is bad for America? Press TV. Retrieved December 10, 2019
6. Halbrook, S. (2001) Registration: The Nazi Paradigm. American Rifleman, 149, 52.
7. Holt, M. (2013). Do Strict Gun Laws Really Stop Gun Crime? TheBlaze.com
8. Howerton, J. (2018). The Firearms Statistics That Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want to See. TheBlaze.com https://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/05/06/the-firearms-statisticsthat-gun-control-advocates-dont-want-to-see
9. Gucciardi, A. (2015). Disarmed: A History of Gun Control Documentary Film (Video File). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7b4I1HLCsk
10. Kim, C. (2013). A look back at gun control history. Retrieved December 11, 2019, from http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/look-back-gun-control-history.
11. Sen. Rand Paul Talks About His Career. (2013). Retrieved December 8, 2019, from https://www.c-span.org/video/?312196-1/sen-rand-paul-talks-career.
12. Quotes on Firearms Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, from http://catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html

There are so many issues that are going on around this world. We have littering, high taxes, horrible pay, climate change, and poverty. The problem I feel that has been the worst is gun violence. All I hear on the news all the time nowadays is shooting here and shooting there. “Gun violence is real. People don’t come back,” by Stevie Wonder. People need to start thinking about this quote and actually think about it. Some people think it’s a game or just mad at the world, so they take it out on other people. Gun violence needs to stop, and we need to try our hardest to end it or make it happen way less than it is now.

It’s a little crazy when more than 500 people die every day from gun violence. Then 44% of gun violence is homicides. Between the years 2012 and 2016, there were 1.4 million firearm-related deaths. We shouldn’t have 500 people dying a day over gun violence. Some people don’t think with their heads anymore. There’s an estimate, about 2,000 people are injured by gunshots a day, and at least 2 million people have firearm injuries. The first thing that pops into my mind when I think of gun violence is when Jason Aldean had a concert in Las Vegas, and then a man started shooting out of the hotel windows. I remember watching and listening to some of the stories of people who were there on the news. It’s just a sad thing to listen to. We also have had four of our presidents die from guns. Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy were all assassinated. Imagine what those presidents could have done if they weren’t killed. Like what laws we would have now or wouldn’t have now if they weren’t killed.

There are so many ways to help reduce gun violence, but it feels like we don’t even use half the things to reduce it. One thing is to reduce easy access to dangerous weapons. I definitely know that hasn’t happened. I know people who can go to malls and literally buy a gun without a background check or anything. There are also gun stores all over Iowa. Some people say that buying a gun should be like buying a car. When they made strong laws like Safer cars, stronger seat belt laws, and fewer teenage drivers, it helped, reduce the deaths by vehicles. We have these laws on guns and how you can only do this with guns. But it doesn’t work, so we should actually make gun laws that reduce gun violence. We should have background checks for every person that wants a gun. Like if someone has a criminal background, they shouldn’t be able to lay their hands on a gun. People still find their ways of getting guns illegally. We need to try and figure out all the ways people can get them illegally and find ways for it to stop. We have groups like ISIS and gangs who get ahold of those illegal guns and hurt a lot of people.

We have also had gun violence that isn’t shooting, and it’s hurting ourselves. Over 22,000 Americans every year, including over 1,000 children and teens, have injured themselves with firearms. About two-thirds of the U.S. gun deaths are due to suicides. We need to start watching people more and making sure if they need help, we help them. We shouldn’t have over 22,000 people dying a year of suicide with a gun. In 2017 there were 47,173 suicides, and 22,000 of them are from firearms. That is almost half of 47,173. Some people think it’s funny to tell people to go kill themselves and they don’t think they would do it, and they end up doing it. There are friends and family who know that people are going through depression and suicidal thoughts and don’t care. But when they actually end up hurting themselves, they care. In school, they have all these banners that say talk to us or help someone out. But no one listens to it, I feel the way we could reduce suicides with guns is by making school a fun place to be, so if they don’t have a fun home environment, they can have at least some happiness in them. We can have game days or field trips for every grade. Having fun at school could help them forget about the hard that’s going on in their life and have fun. We all need to have teachers be more active in this and talk to kids and see how they’re doing and how they can help. I have my own story with this. One of my friends was very suicidal and hurt herself a lot for about four years. This year she ended up downing a whole bunch of pills and was very close to dying. Teachers, her parents, and her friends all knew she was suicidal, and we did nothing. The teachers just told her to stop and threatened to tell her parents. Her parents didn’t really care, when she ended up going into the hospital when she almost died, her dad sat at home and did nothing. Suicide is a real thing, and guns aren’t helping it. If people have guns at home, they need to be in a case with a code or lock on it that no one knows except the gun owner.

Some gun violence is due to people not knowing how to use a gun. If someone is actually healthy and not a threat with firearms and they have a gun they need to learn the right way to use a gun. There was one guy I knew that didn’t even put his gun back on safety and he ended up dropping his gun, and it fired and shot him. Thank heavens it didn’t kill him, it just shot throw his arm and almost into his heart. We also have all these hunters and my dad’s one. Us kids, aka me and my siblings, like to hunt too. There are hunter safety courses for kids to help them learn about guns and how to use them the right way, and that helps out a lot. But there are also a lot of kids that don’t take that class and go out and shoot and hurt themselves.

Gun wounds can end very badly; they can lead to death, being paralyzed, and just bad injuries. Some people who have been shot with a gun and have injuries can have issues in the future because of that gunshot. If you shoot in the spinal cord, it can make you paralyzed. There are all these ways you can get hurt by guns, but it keeps happening.

There are some people who have their opinions on gun violence and my dad’s one. When I told my dad I was doing an essay on gun violence, he rolled his eyes and didn’t say anything. My dad feels gun violence only happens because a whole bunch of stupid people get ahold of guns and don’t use their brains and think they’re cool, so they go kill people. My opinion on gun violence is that it needs to stop and that people need to start taking guns away from people. I sort of feel that some people do it just to get attention. Or they aim towards the big schools and famous places because they know it will be on the news and all over the place. (Margo Greenbaum a senior at the Marlboro high school said “I write to today not as a Democrat, not as a Republican, but as an American citizen as one who never again wants to get the notification that a school shooting happened; as one who never again wants to hear that notification that 17 innocent people died at a school at a safe haven. I call for all politicians to put their petty differences aside and to stop playing the blame game, to stop being so one-sided, and to start putting action into your words. I ask that you, in honor of all the people who died by a gun at a school, to make meaningful changes to our gun laws.” )All of these opinions are probably true and need to be heard and listened to.

Gun violence needs to be talked about and needs to end. We need to stop worrying about all the little things and worry about the big things. We need to start making more enforced laws with guns and if we have to make more. We also need to watch people who have guns or are in reach of guns who have depression and suicidal thoughts. People need to stand up to gun violence and help end it. The lives that are taken away from gun violence should still be living today. Like how Stevie Wonder’s quote says “Gun violence is real. People don’t come back.”

The School Shootings Epidemic in the United States

Throughout the previous 20 years our students, teachers, and parents have lived with the fact that acts of mass violence could potentially happen in any school. America’s weapon brutality presence, whether it be mass shootings, murders, ambushes, or gun suicides, has been tainting America’s schools. The failure of our leaders to address the main drivers of school weapon brutality from all aspects is having intense consequences for many American children. We need significant action to protect our schools that tend to what we think about gun violence in America’s schools and keep it from happening in any case. It’s the ideal opportunity for our leaders to embrace a multi-faceted methodology that gives the school network the tools it needs to mediate and anticipate school-based gun violence.

This report is focused on the different steps that the government could take to end this growing problem of gun violence in schools. The solutions are primarily focused on tending to students’ mental health, enabling teachers and law enforcement to intervene when students give indications they could be a threat to themselves or others, improving our schools’ physical security, and keeping firearms out of the hands of individuals who shouldn’t have them.

First, we need to focus on who are school shooters, What qualities, assuming any, do school shooters all have in common? Do we lump all of them into one group of remorseless, vicious, depressed people, or do they each demonstrate such evil for their own reasons? Despite the fact that the media makes it look like school shootings are turning into a regular occurrence, these acts are actually extremely uncommon. While no two culprits are identical, this raises the question of what causes these people to carry out these vicious acts of violence.

To generalize, school shooters are generally students or former students and teenagers to young adults. The majority of shooters have gone through traumas during childhood such as physical or emotional abuse, and unstable families, with abusive, absent, or alcoholic parents or siblings. These people have lived troubled and stressful lives and all of them suffer from mental illness, whether it’s previously diagnosed or not. Most of the mental health issues demonstrated by school shooters are something treatable that was never treated. In the NPR publication, School Shooters: What’s Their Path To Violence? Experts who have heavily researched the topic of school shootings discuss what they believe causes these people to conduct these vicious acts. Peter Langman, a clinical psychologist in Allentown, Pa., and the author of two books and several studies about school shootings expresses that nearly half of the shooters that he’s studied have died by suicide during their attacks. So school shooters are generally suicidal but what makes these suicidal people homicidal? Langman believes that because these people struggle with their mental problems alone and lack a support system they start to feel like outcasts of society. This loneliness can turn into anger towards society and these people feel that they want to lash out against others in some sort of revenge act. These mentally ill, angry, and homicidal then turn to violence in the easiest way possible through firearms that are too easily available to mentally unstable people and people with the intent to harm others.

To adequately address gun violence in our schools, it should be recognized that there is a gun violence issue. There have been many ‘thorough’ school safety plans proposed in the course of the past 20 years. Few have successfully tended to the issue basic in all acts of mass violence: simple access to firearms by those who pose a threat. In Keeping Our Schools Safe: A Plan to Stop Mass Shootings and End Gun Violence in American Schools, Everytown, AFT, and NEA have all stated that they believe “any effective school safety plan must involve a proactive effort to enact meaningful gun violence prevention policies that enable intervention before a prospective shooter can get his or her hands on a gun”. These gun violence counteractive action arrangements work closely with school-based intercession strategies to intercede before a shooter ever gets to the school.

Typically, with most active shooter incidents in schools, there are red flags before the shooting ever takes place. For example, the Parkland shooting perpetrator exhibited many warning signs that he could, potentially, be dangerous. Almost 30 individuals were aware of the shooter’s dangerous behavior and law enforcement had been called to situations including the shooter on more than 20 occasions. Nevertheless, the shooter legally purchased the firearm he utilized during the shooting. He had never been charged with a crime and his mental health history didn’t lawfully restrict him from purchasing or having firearms. Records of the shooting show that law implementation and the shooter’s family had no legitimate system to address the shooter’s simple access to firearms. This is a prime example of why the United States is in desperate need of gun law reforms to keep guns out of the wrong people’s hands. I believe that policies and laws should be enacted to restrict semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and handguns which are some of the most commonly used weapons in mass shootings. In order to purchase a semi-automatic rifle and a handgun buyers should be required to take a psych evaluation and a thorough universal background check should be executed. This will positively affect the avoidance of school shootings as the restrictions would deter potential shooters from attempting to purchase these firearms. If someone fails and raises red flags on the psych evaluation they could be reported to the appropriate authorities and actions could then be taken to prevent any possible threat and the person could then receive the help that they need. There also needs to be bands on high-capacity magazines which serve little purpose to civilian uses of firearms. Nearly every mass shooting that has resulted in a high death toll was due to the help of high-capacity magazines that allow the shooter to fire dozens of rounds before having to reload. Without high-capacity magazines easily available shooters would have to reload more often which could give bystanders chances to escape or intervene. This lack of high-capacity magazines could also deter shooters from carrying out a shooting in the first place.

Red Flag Laws are an important intervention tool that can be utilized to avoid potentially dangerous situations. At the point when family or law enforcement is made aware that a student or someone else is a threat to themselves or others, and that the individual owns firearms, they can go to a court and request from the judge a civil restraining order. These Red Flag orders, usually known as extreme risk protection orders, must be given after a particular legal determination is made that an individual represents a danger to themselves or others. They also contain solid due process protection to guarantee that an individual’s rights are accounted for while also considering the safety of the public. When a request is granted, an individual is required to give up any weapons they have and is denied from purchasing new firearms. This restriction is temporary, typically lasting one year.

This still leaves the massive mental health issue found in school shooters that causes them to purchase these weapons with intent to harm. To help solve this issue teachers should be trained to be able to identify students who are struggling mentally or might be having trouble at home so they can help the student or alert the appropriate authorities that this student is having issues so that the student can receive the help they need via Red Flag laws. This will hopefully end the possible threat that the person faces to themselves and others. All schools should also implement a tip line so that if students believe that another student is struggling or is a potential threat they can be reported and the possible problem can be addressed and handled properly before anything bad happens. In Ellen Cranley’s article, How to Stop Shootings in America: 10 Strategies Proposed to Stop Gun Violence, and How Likely They Are to Work, Cranley cites a program implemented in Germany after a spike in school shootings that trained teachers and students to look out for what they call ‘leaking’ behaviors that might indicate that a student is planning a violent attack. After seven months of the program being in action at least 19 high-risk cases were identified across the country, Such activities may have anticipated assaults like the Parkland mass shooting by Nikolas Cruz, who had posted compromising messages on his Instagram account about murdering himself as well as other people before the assault.

We have covered measures that we believe would be effective in preventing and minimizing school shootings and now will list some measures that would not be effective.

The idea of arming teachers to prevent mass shootings would not work. Studies have shown that more guns result in more gun violence. Although teachers who carry firearms would be required to take safety courses it cannot be expected of teachers to put their lives on the line like law enforcement officers and be able to perform under that much stress. Also, the liability if a teacher happened to be mentally unstable and was able to inflict harm on students or others with a school-issued firearm would be too high. There is also the possibility that if a student knew where a teacher kept their firearm this could raise the risk of a school shooting where a student literally acquired the weapon from the school.

Utilizing the extensive arrangement laid out in this report, lawmakers and schools can avoid an active shooter situation—and gun violence in general—in their schools. These solutions have proven to be powerful and exhibit thorough techniques that work by giving a point of intervention at all levels of a shooter’s escalation to violence and by creating a system where people with dangerous histories can’t easily access guns. Directed gun violence anticipation arrangements can predetermine when a shooter is planning on getting their hands on a weapon. The school-based procedures work to predict when a shooter is showing indications that they may become violent. In conclusion, these security strategies have proven themselves to be the final opportunity for law enforcement and members of the community to intervene and guarantee that schools are properly prepared to deal with any students who may become violent.

It is also important to consider the government strategies that have not proven successful. For example, arming teachers serves just to place children in greater danger. these methodologies are broadly bolstered by specialists and upheld by proof. Our pioneers must make mindful moves to guard our schools—and this report offers them a structure for doing so.

1. Chatterjee, Rhitu. “School Shooters: What’s Their Path To Violence?” NPR, NPR, 10 Feb. 2019, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/02/10/690372199/school-shooters-whats-their-path-to-violence.
2. Cranley, Ellen. “How to Stop Shootings in America: 10 Strategies Proposed to Stop Gun Violence, and How Likely They Are to Work.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 5 Aug. 2019, https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-stop-gun-school-shooting-america-2018-11#banning-violent-video-games-9.

In the United States, Violence has a big impact in today’s society due to the control that we have as a country on our gun laws. Gun violence is a global issue for contemporary human rights. Gun-related violence, violates our universal right to life, the most fundamental human right. For many years now, this has become a big problem with most cases, such as School shootings and just overall people in a different mind state. Gun violence is a multi-faceted, complex, and urgent issue. It needs multifaceted, evidence-based solutions. Psychology may make significant improvements to gun violence prevention policies. This has been going on for years, but in the United States and as President Donald Trump said Chicago is comparable to Afghanistan today.

Gun violence is a constant occurrence that affects people around the world’s lives. More than 500 people die every day as a result of gun abuse. The risk and protective factors make people more or less likely to use a firearm against others or themselves. There’s literally nobody who will know if someone were to cause this accident unless it’s been a rumor around the community or social media. That’s when the government already is alerted or some type of action has been taken. Development issues are all around and very complex in these situations. In most cases, it has to do with the combination of person, family, school, peer, culture, and socio-cultural risk factors that interact over time during childhood and adolescence and are correlated with gun violence.

Prevention efforts driven by developmental hazard research may reduce the likelihood of bringing weapons into disputes or criminal activity in the community and family. Prevention efforts can also minimize the relatively rare instances that severe mental illness leads to murder or the more common conditions that lead to suicide through depression or other mental illnesses. Reducing gun violence events arising from criminal misconduct and suicide is an important objective in wider approaches for primary and secondary prevention and intervention. As parents, they should always be on the lookout for how their kids are doing and see any strange activities or who they hang out with most of the time. If the parents have weapons at home, they have to make sure they are in a secure spot and nobody has access to them but the guardian.

Regardless, it’s never the youth that are making damage with this type of hazardous. It can be anyone with a mental disorder but that’s why they have to be monitored. Doesn’t matter how old they are. People with a bad background should be seen by someone all the time. Although it is important to recognize that most people suffering from a mental illness are not dangerous, for those persons at risk for violence due to mental illness, suicidal thoughts, or feelings of desperation, mental health treatment can often prevent gun violence. Policies and programs that classify and support all mentally ill individuals should be a national priority. The current level of access to mental health care in the United States must be given urgent attention. begins in early childhood with programs to help parents raise emotionally healthy children and ends with efforts to identify and intervene with troubled individuals who are threatening violence. Violence prevention takes place along a continuum that starts with interventions in early childhood to help parents raise emotionally healthy children and concludes with attempts to locate and deal with unstable people who threaten abuse.

In advocating community-based collaborative problem-solving models to address the prevention of gun violence, the mental health community must take the lead. These models must incorporate preventive approaches to address the propensity to function within many community service programs but it is never seen to be taken care of in most cases. That’s why everyone as a whole should be paying to their loved ones.

Gender has become a big peak for this type of accident. It’s always been the males making this mistake. Any account of gun violence in the United States must be able to explain both why men commit the vast majority of gun violence and why the vast majority of men never commit gun violence. As a result, this article says “Evidence suggests that changing perceptions among males of social norms about behaviors and characteristics associated with masculinity may reduce the prevalence of intimate partner and sexual violence” (American Association). Psychologists ‘ skills and knowledge are needed to develop and assess interventions and environments in classrooms, workplaces, jails, communities, hospitals, and other related contexts aimed at changing male gender attitudes that emphasize self-sufficiency, resilience, and abuse, including gun violence. All of these should be monitored and be a state law for citizens’ well-being all across America.

Just like I said before, having a bad background can lead to many different things. It can either be good or bad. Recently it has been reduced to the control of firearms among high-risk groups such as domestic violence suspects, people convicted of violent misdemeanor offenses, and individuals with mental illness who have been adjudicated as a threat to themselves or others. Licensing purchasers of handguns, background checking standards for all gun sales, and close supervision of retail gun sellers may reduce gun diversion to criminals. Nowadays it is very easy to get a gun but Reducing the frequency of gun violence would require multiple initiatives, including constitutional, public health, public safety, culture, and wellness.

Being aware of your surroundings should be optional because citizens shouldn’t be worried about someone shooting the community up or in general releasing their feelings to the public. I always say “When people are afraid of gun violence, it can also have a detrimental impact on people’s right to education and health care if they are too scared to attend schools and health facilities or if these programs are not working fully in their community due to firearm violence” (Eric Saucedo). Understanding people’s feelings is very important, sometimes you can’t control them or manage them in any form whatsoever.

Not only is it a problem in our country but the statistics on this worldwide problem are very crucial, “More than 500 people die every day from gun violence, 44% of all homicides globally involve gun violence, there were 1.4 million firearm-related deaths globally between 2012 and 2016” (Amnesty International). Any state should have a responsibility to optimize human rights security, ensuring the safest possible atmosphere for most citizens, particularly those deemed at the greatest risk. Faced with ongoing gun violence, if a state does not maintain effective control over the possession and use of weapons, this could amount to a breach of its obligations under international human rights law. Even if it’s international or not, this should be a main priority for any citizen to keep the peace. Campaigns for the use of common-sense gun reform by governments to stop gun violence and protect the right to life of people. When our politicians struggle to combat and prevent gun violence and gun deaths, our human rights are not secured. Gunshots kill an estimated 2,000 people every day, At least 2 million people around the globe are dealing with gun injuries. Everyone is aware that access to guns is fairly easy but can be manageable to protect its people as a country if the effort is there. Millions of people are suffering from the serious and long-term psychological effects that gun violence or the risk of gun violence brings to individuals, families, and their wider community. In the United States in 2017, almost 134,000 people were shot or injured by firearms, and from there it has been growing at a steady rate. Not only is there killing people but it’s also damaging individuals’ health in a matter where they don’t understand and are in a whole different world. Life-changing shooting wounds often have an indelible effect on the long-term mental and physical health of the victims. Some need permanent, lifelong treatment, and many others, particularly in physically demanding jobs, lose their ability to work. In today’s world, you can’t determine what an individual is going through unless they are being seen by someone with the good purpose of helping them improve their thoughts. Family should be the main resource of help when it comes down to this.

The contribution of these deadly weapons is growing and the production is increasing as well. Based on my information there are 8 million new small arms and an annual production of up to 15 billion rounds of ammunition. The small arms trade is worth an estimated US$8.5 billion per year. But it also becomes a human rights issue with all the citizens, Gun violence can lead to the most fundamental human right, the right to life, being violated. States have an obligation to combat actual or predictable life threats and should therefore take action to protect individuals from gun violence. Even though it’s fairly easy to get access to these weapons, they should have control of what’s going on. With this being said, a tracker on every firearm should be necessary and the government in control should be alerted.

Living in the suburbs of Chicago, we still know what’s going on in Chicago. It’s been steady with the crime violence but recently it has decreased by a lot. Based on Sun-Times they said “The 1,633 shootings and 382 murders in Chicago between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30 this year are the fewest the city has seen in that period since 2015, Chicago police said” (Suntimes). It’s very important to keep that in mind because the president of the United States has said that we are comparable to Afghanistan. Not true at all, The police force in the city of Chicago had strived for lower rates and they show. As well as they mentioned “We’re proud of the progress that we’re making,” Chicago Police First Deputy Supt. Anthony Riccio said at a media briefing Tuesday. “It is progress. No one’s spiking the ball, no one’s declaring victory, but it is progress. We’ll continue to build on this, it’s been about three years of steady declines in violent crime. (Suntimes). All these factors became very important because as a whole and people contributing their thoughts, the effort is always there for the city of Chicago. In September, officers seized more than 1,000 weapons from city streets, police said. By the end of 2019, the police department is on target to seize more than 10,000 weapons, with about 8,600 being seized so far this year which is a big impact because that means they are stopping the bad from doing the worst in today’s society.

Overall, gun violence should be a main priority to be in control in not just the United States but worldwide because if nobody takes action then it’ll be a free-for-all. This information is very updated and I will continue to acknowledge what the improvements are as well as how my city Chicago is improving as a whole.

Citations

1. International, amnesty. “Key Facts about Gun Violence Worldwide.” Amnesty International, 2014, www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/arms-control/gun-violence/.
2. protection, violence. “Violence Protection .” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, 2015, www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.
3. Wire, Sun-Times. “Decrease in Chicago Gun Violence Continues through End of September: Police.” Times, Chicago Sun-Times, 1 Oct. 2019, chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2019/10/1/20892977/decrease-chicago-gun-violence-september-police-crime-stats.
4. Jimenez, Omar. “The Decreasing Crime Numbers in Chicago Are Little Comfort to Families Impacted by Violence.” CNN, Cable News Network, 3 Oct. 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/us/chicago-gun-violence-stats-and-families/index.html.
5. Ali, Safia Samee. “For Some in Chicago, Gun Violence Is a Daily Reality, Leaving the Same Trauma as Mass Shootings.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 8 Aug. 2019, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/some-chicago-gun-violence-daily-reality-leaving-same-trauma-mass-n1040231.

The debate over anti-gun laws has become a highly controversial and widely deliberated topic in multiple countries worldwide in the last few years. With the occurrence of mass shootings and gun violence on the rise, how could it not? The more restrictions there are on the consumption and inadequate use of guns in the general public the lower the rates of gun violence will be. The American Government could take some pointers from the Brazilian Government on this topic in particular. School shootings and mass shootings in general in America have become such a regular occurrence, that people have forgotten the magnitude of their impact.

It is a true statement that stricter gun regulation will result in lower death rates across America. Incidents such as school shootings, accidental shootings, and domestic violence shootings, will greatly decrease with the execution of stricter gun control laws. On the matter of domestic violence shootings, there are nearly one million women alive today who have been shot or shot at by their partner and every sixteen hours a woman in the United States is fatally shot by their current or past romantic partner. This number of women in the United States is an incredibly high number, compared to many countries around the world. For example, in Canada, the number of deaths is significantly lower, “approximately every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner”. This could easily be reduced if the abusive or unstable partner didn’t have access to a firearm.

Fifty-eight percent of American adults surveyed reported that they or someone they care about have experienced some type of gun violence in their lifetimes (SurveyUSA Market Research Study, 2018). This is an absurdly large amount of people. These people could be spared the trauma by simply having stricter regulations when it comes to firearms. Every year there are three million American children who witness gun violence themselves. This type of experience can be traumatic for the child. Trauma can result in deteriorating mental health as they begin to age and develop while trying to figure out the world. Firearms are the second leading cause of death in children every year in the United States. Research over the last five years has shown that stricter gun laws lead to fewer child-related shootings and deaths. Using a points system, it was found that with every ten-point increase in firearm legislation, there was a four percent decrease in pediatric mortalities due to firearms (Bortz, K., & Carter, P., M.D., 2019).

However, the gun bans in Brazil are effectively decreasing mortality rates by the day. In 2003, it was reported that 70 percent of homicides were committed by the use of firearms in Brazil. In late 2003, a gun law was passed restricting gun purchasers to be 25 and older, have proof of a steady job and residence, have no evidence of criminal history, have gun training, and pass a psychological test. In 2004, the new gun law seemed to be effective as gun-related homicides decreased by 8.9 percent from 2003 to 2004. The total number of the decreased homicides is 3,200 between the previous year and 2004. Beginning in the first months of 2004, the past increase in firearm homicides came to a stop; firearm homicides actually decreased by 8.2 percent from 2003. Values were 15.4 percent lower than expected levels for the same period.

National legislation inflicted new penalties, including fines and tougher prison sentences for people in violation of these laws. In July 2004, additional measures took place, including a countrywide voluntary disarmament program. These programs are still going on to this day. The United States should conduct something similar to these laws and regulations in an effort to lower gun violence crimes.

The idea of having stricter regulations with firearms isn’t as far-fetched as some would believe. The United States has a mass shooting rate of about six times the amount of twenty-four other global comparisons to similar countries. The correlation between gun ownership and mass shootings increases due to the easy access for everyone, including dangerous people who will be the gunmen in these mass shootings. In a study done for the British Medical Journal it was found that with every ten-unit increase in permissiveness in each state when it comes to regulating firearms, there was an eleven-and-a-half percent higher mass shooting rate. With a ten percent increase in gun ownership, there was a thirty-five-point one percent increase in mass shootings.

In a survey done by a group of researchers at John Hopkins School of Public Health and John Hopkins School of Medicine for the American Journal of Public Health, it was found that a majority of Americans, both gun owners and non-gun owners, believe stricter regulations are necessary. The researchers proposed twenty-four regulations and of the twenty-four there were twenty-three with a majority vote in favor of these regulations from both groups. It has been shown that the states with more firearm regulations experience fewer annual mass shootings compared to those that have more permissive gun laws. Over the course of seventeen years, there has been a positive correlation in the number of mass shootings decreasing when states adopted stricter gun regulations. The idea of regulating firearms is supported by both gun owners and non-gun owners, so what’s to keep from implementing firearm regulations into the law?

Many pro-gun, anti-regulation, gun owners believe that they have the right to collect guns or that gun regulations will leave them helpless in the face of danger. Recently there was a mother whose home was invaded by armed robbers. The robbers attacked the woman’s husband and grabbed her child. This woman then ran to her room to grab her AR-15 that she kept in there to then shoot the armed robbers as they ran out of her back door. Stories like these are often what is displayed on the news as the only outcome of a situation like this. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to a regular civilian helping with a dangerous situation, the civilian is more likely to cause harm to innocent bystanders rather than stop the danger. The woman said she only clipped the robber with her shot fired. This could easily have missed the target hitting nothing or hitting one of her family members.

Overall the negative impacts caused by unregulated or loosely regulated firearms will always outweigh the rare benefits that come from them. The lives of American citizens should be the top priority of a nation and by creating more regulated gun laws there is the potential to relieve these gun-related tragedies that occur so often due to the lack of regulations. With regulations, it’s possible to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of bad people or at least make it more unlikely for that to occur. Whether someone would rather prioritize their gun collection over the lives of other living humans will always be a part of that person’s identity.

After seeing a deadly abundance of mass shootings increase over the years in the United States there is a need for new and strong gun control policies. Whenever mass shootings happen one of the most frequently asked questions is how could such tragedy have been prevented. Innocent people have died and until this day there has not been an effective law to prevent the existence of these tragedies. Additionally, states have the obligation to protect human rights by exercising control over the possession and use of firearms. Stricter gun control laws will establish protection for society and an overall safer environment. Gun control laws will also make it difficult for terrorists, the mentally ill, and criminals to obtain weapons easily because they will have to go through background checks and more security systems. In view of firearms being easy to acquire this creates a sense of fear in the safety of each individual. These days no place is considered highly safe as a result of past experiences Americans have already experienced. There have been a number of mass shootings in schools, churches, concerts, and food stores, just to mention a few. Moreover, guns used in most mass shootings have been legally purchased unfortunately the current laws that the state has oftentimes allow people who shouldn’t have the ability to legally buy guns. However, something important to take into consideration is whether the Second Amendment is as valid today as it was when the Constitution was written many believe this is a very important right in the United States. Many have the idea that criminals will continue to have access to guns regardless of the existence of stricter gun control laws. The implementation of these laws will only give the government a higher level of power over the people and citizens will be unable to protect themselves from criminals. Gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution. Implementing new gun control laws will potentially violate American’s right to bear arms.

Firearm Death Rates and Association with Gun Control Purchase Background Check. The experiment used local agencies to execute firearm background checks and was directly associated with the reduction rates of firearm homicide and suicide. In addition, The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act will be an important component of this study. This act orders background checks on those who purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers. A background check can disqualify a person from having the ability to purchase a firearm if they have been convicted of a crime, are a fugitive from justice, are convicted of domestic violence, and others. While the procedure was being done there was an important action that is done every time an individual wants to purchase a gun from a federally licensed dealer, there has to be contact with an agency. This agency could be the FBI or local law enforcement department that was created with the purpose of taking responsibility for conducting firearm background checks. The rates that were calculated for this research were only for individuals age 21 or older due to the federal law that prohibits federally licensed dealers from selling a handgun to any individual under age 21. Moreover, for the analysis, states were matched with their background check agency which was reported in the Bureau of Justice Statistics Publication. The results from the different methods used in this study indicate that rates of firearm suicide illustrate a significant reduction “Classifications were 11.64, 8.45, and 5.74 per 100,000 population.”(Sumner et al, 2008) Furthermore, the rates for firearm homicide demonstrated a trend of reduced rates of “4.28, 4.02, and 2.81 per 100,000 population, respectively.” (Sumner et al, 2008) This study is reliable because the information used in the measures was from the government and the methods used were straightforward. Also, there was a different set of data tables that illustrated the methods that were being conducted. The researchers of this study also provided different graphs to illustrate information better.

Gun control laws are needed to take guns from the hands of those with mental illness to prevent a greater number of mass shootings in the upcoming years. There was a case in the year 2018 regarding a 19-year-old young man who killed over seventeen people and another fourteen were wounded in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. In the aftermath of the scene, it was discussed that the 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz had previously been expelled from school as a result of disciplinary reasons. Also, it was mentioned that Cruz had a history of violent behavior law enforcement had noted Nikolas’s behavior involving domestic violence and abuse. One of the main problems was the fact that Nikolas had never been referred for mental counseling. Having weak gun control laws allowed the young man “under current federal and state laws, to legally obtain ten guns, including the AR-15 style assault rifle used in the school shooting.”(Philpott-Jones, 2018) If there would have been a background check when Cruz bought the guns this could have potentially been prevented. During 2018 the current federal laws allowed almost anyone who was 18 years old to purchase a gun with very few restrictions. One way to prevent these events from happening is expanding the authority of law enforcement to arrest those who are suspected of having a mental illness. In previous studies, it has been proven that there is a much higher chance of people with a mental disorder committing an act of violence than those without a mental disorder. Nevertheless, data has shown that half of about 200 mass shootings that have taken place in the United States since 1900 were committed by those with a diagnosed or mental disorder. The Gun Control Act and Brady Law do not restrict those who have a serious mental illness they are still able to pass background checks and obtain a legal gun. In today’s society, issues like gun ownership have become a very serious health crisis poorly addressed.

The United States is a country with a culture of gun ownership, although the type of weaponry that can be accessed such as for sports, hunting, clipped, military assault rifles, and small arms. This varies depending on the state or county that has the margin to regulate guns and requires buyer requirements of gun control, mental health tests, and others. Having stricter gun control laws makes no sense to expect criminals to abide by the laws, precisely what assailants, rapists, and murderers do is always illegal. Prohibiting the carrying of weapons is thus facilitating the work of criminals, leaving society defenseless against any attack. The only ones who will be disarmed when a law is passed against the ability to carry a gun are decent citizens, those who comply with the law. People seem to not realize that allowing the free carrying of weapons benefits the most defenseless: the elderly, the disabled, women, physically weak people, and people with limited resources who live in dangerous places. But of course, it turns out that those who issue these laws do not suffer from the problems that ordinary people suffer. Politicians live surrounded by bodyguards and from their security, they impose rules on ordinary citizens. Weapons should be prohibited for everyone except them, they can enjoy the natural right to defend themselves. In addition, there is a misconception of those who are mentally ill and their ability to own a gun “Recent gun control legislation aimed at removing guns from the hands of the mentally ill in order to reduce violence is misguided. In fact, this only contributes to the mistaken belief that there is a direct link between mental illness and violence. “( Wolf & Rosen, 2015) Instead of working on stricter gun control there should be attention given to mental health laws and funding for mental health services. Individuals in the category of mentally ill only account for a small portion of all violent conduct; they are not the problem but there should be a higher level of mental health awareness. There is no need for stricter gun control laws in the United States.

Taking everything into account with the help of experimental evidence, it could be said that in the United States, an immediate implementation of laws is needed to control firearms. Many misfortunes have happened over the years, and current law changes have not been strong enough to prevent mass shootings or other acts of gun violence from happening. It can also be observed that attention is needed to those with mental problems to avoid the constant damage that has been carried out in recent years with guns obtained legally in the hands of mentally ill individuals. Verification of the buyer’s background and mental health status has to be inescapable. There is so much that a gun can cause therefore only those who can manage to use a weapon responsibly and correctly should have the ability to own a gun. The government has the responsibility to provide citizens with safety and the power to regulate gun ownership. Implementing strict gun control laws will give individuals the peace and security they seek in a country that has caused fear to many due to the ease of obtaining a firearm. Also controlling access to firearms can help reduce the number of suicides in the country. For instance, if your neighbor has a gun, your safety may be reduced rather than improved. An armed and untrained person, who also shoots down the anguish of trying to neutralize an intruder, is a danger to the neighborhood. One cannot let more innocent people die. Demanding stricter gun control laws is a way of wanting a change for the benefit of many who worry about how much guns have come to damage the country. The Second Amendment to the Constitution establishes the right of Americans to have weapons but does not prohibit the establishment of regulations and controls. In memory of the victims of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, and the victims of the other massacres, and to prevent the horror from happening again, much stricter measures must be taken into consideration.

Firearms have been utilized since the beginning of the war. They have been a piece of American culture from its underlying foundations. One article explains, “The origin of firearms began with gunpowder and its invention, mostly likely in China, more than 1,000 years ago”. It took many years before firearms would grow and expand throughout the globe. However, as time passed a new design of firearms was introduced by American inventor, Samuel Colt.” His new design was a handheld pistol that featured a multi-firing system with multiple chambers that could fire bullets through a lock and spring design” (History.com Editors). In fact, later on, his name would be used for a common revolver called the Colt .45. Although this was one of the first firearms new ones and better ones came. The AR-15 was introduced to the civilian world and many people loved it. This firearm would become popular among the U.S. military, gun sports enthusiasts, as well as mass shooters (History.com Editors). A mass shooting is described as an incident where at minimum four people are shot not including the shooter. According to an article,” The number of mass shootings have outpaced this puts 2019 on pace to be the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day. These mass shootings have occurred in public places such as schools, shopping areas, and outdoor environments. Many people question if they should ban firearms because of this situation. Well honestly if you take into consideration that it’s not the gun itself that is doing the killing it is the person behind the gun that does the damage. Therefore firearms should not be banned.

First, Banning firearms won’t stop mass shootings. Why are there mass killings now? Why not generations ago when the U.S. had more than enough weapons, impoverished teenagers, dysfunctional families, poor and rural neighborhoods, racism, and nearly any other cause typically blamed for this kind of tragedy? Mass killings seem to be a social plague, basically an issue of behavior. This trend reflects other social phenomena, for example, suicides sometimes rise after high-profile figures kill themselves. Pretty much mass killers are motivated by older killers. They could have witnessed a coverage of older massacres, but they seem to catch the ill idea of committing their own massacre. And well if that person wants to commit an act of harm they will find a way to do it regardless of having a firearm or not. It’s all in the person’s intention and thoughts that drive them to do what they do. Another topic related to killings is suicide. A restriction on firearms won’t do anything to deaths from suicide. The vast majority of gun accidents is suicide, and there is no legitimate argument that the greatest impact on suicide is a ban on firearms. Modern society’s problem isn’t guns, it’s people. Many individuals believe that guns are inherently evil. No, they’re not. They are inanimate objects that can be used for both good and harmful purposes. To build a house, you could use a hammer but you could also beat someone to death with it. The hammer is the device alone. The real problem is the one behind it who swings it. Guns are not wicked, the people are. As one article approaches the problem they explain, “getting rid of guns won’t stop or get rid of murder”(karanswiki 1). This is a very forward approach and a very true statement. One problem is that people fear the idea of guns mainly because they don’t really understand them. In fact, instead of banning firearms, they could find new approaches like doing background research on a person before they are able to buy a firearm. They could also expand efforts to guarantee that individuals who act fiercely and misuse guns are immediately prosecuted and deprived of their weapons. Without these efforts, most mass shooters will simply have all the earmarks of being ‘well-behaved residents’ and are allowed to purchase and have their weapons lawfully until they slaughter somebody. The result of banning firearms might even have a negative impact if people really want one they will find a way to obtain one. If they are not available they could turn to the black market and purchase one causing a fall in the economy.

Another reason to not ban firearms is that it takes an individual’s ability to protect themselves. Firearms are a source of protection every year. It may appear very obvious to ensure an individual’s protection by forbidding firearms in different areas. But the well-behaved residents, not those who commit violent acts, comply with these bans. Rather than making places more secure, incapacitating decent residents leaves them as exposed targets. Protesting against semi-automatic firearms based on their appearance and not the way they function doesn’t make much sense. If you want semi-automatic firearms to be restricted, the government might as well ban all firearms. However, the idea is not that of banning them, it’s to protect individuals and save their lives by owning a semi-automatic firearm. Small caliber handguns in which you have to refill the weapon manually might not do a great deal of good for civilians. Firearms are used as a defense tool against criminals. For example, a gun’s presence could scare off a suspect, potentially reducing the risk of property loss, damage, or death. The police cannot protect everyone all the time and banning firearms would limit the defense of an individual. It would make it hard for people to protect their homes and loved ones. In fact, the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms, banning them would be taking one’s right away. As the NRA quotes, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”(“Think Progress”). Also, a national survey explains,” that nearly half of gun owners (48%) volunteer that the main reason they own a gun is for protection” (“Why Own A Gun ?”). This proves that firearms should not be banned since it will limit citizens to protect themselves from criminals and home invaders. All states have some sort of defense policies that determine when you could use deadly force such as a weapon to protect yourself or someone else. If you are one of the few who like to carry or keep a gun for defensive purposes, you should follow the gun laws of your state all the time to make sure you break the law.

Next, the act of banning firearms won’t stop crime as many people think it would. While pepper spray can be used in minor cases, when an armed criminal comes after you or the people you love, a person needs to be able to protect himself. Even if you don’t kill the enemy, you’re going to have time to flee and find help. Passing a ban on guns and magazines will not prevent criminals from accessing and misusing them. The Law prevents anybody under the age of 21 from buying a firearm, although young people can acquire and fire at others with a firearm. The cops find criminals usually after a crime is committed. The ‘normal’ people are the ones who have to face the crime first on their own and without backup. Sure, a police officer may pull someone over and eventually catch a dangerous criminal. However, the only reason an officer would know they have stumbled across a dangerous individual is because the certain individual is running away from the crime and doesn’t want to get caught. The most popular firearms sold in this country today are modern semi-automatic sports rifles. Millions of modern sporting rifles have been sold across the country to individuals since 1994, with in fact no increase in crime. It wouldn’t be smart at all to allow the government to take away firearms it’s just not a logical approach. As one article approaches the topic they explain, “Criminals are the source of crime. Proscribing things simply does not work”(James 1). Criminals will find a way to commit their crimes regardless of having a firearm or not. In fact, a website explains that “more crimes are prevented by lawful citizens lawfully protecting themselves with firearms than are prevented by the police” (Shiller 1 ). This statement proves logically that banning them would even make things easier for criminals. Why do you think mass shootings are most common in “gun-free zones” because criminals prefer to be in a place where individuals are unarmed? Criminals would still have easy access to firearms while an individual would be selfless and unable to protect their valuables.

In conclusion, firearms are very important in today’s society. The act of banning them won’t be very beneficial or effective. The ban on them would not decrease mass shootings because mass killers always find a way to kill regardless if they have a gun or not. They give individuals a way of protecting themselves or loved ones without them they are limited to their safety. The invisible magnet that attracts people to our borders is the freedom to bear arms. If you Take away or limit guns what it’s basically doing is taking away personal freedom and restricting it. Finally, logically speaking, firearms won’t reduce deaths or crime rates. Criminals will continue to pursue what they do. Everyone is more safe and protected with firearms available: it might just be the difference between you being cozy in your home and being shot to you being the one with a gun and defending yourself.

The Green Party, known for its emphasis on environmental sustainability, social justice, and grassroots democracy, presents a distinct perspective on a wide range of issues, including gun control. The party’s stance on gun control reflects its commitment to both public safety and individual rights. This essay critically examines the Green Party’s views on gun control, analyzing its distinct approach and the potential implications of its policies.

Thesis Statement

The Green Party’s stance on gun control, while prioritizing public safety and addressing root causes of violence, may be viewed as idealistic, yet potentially disregarding the practical challenges of gun regulation.

Emphasis on Root Causes

The Green Party’s approach to gun control is centered on addressing the root causes of violence rather than solely focusing on firearm regulations. The party recognizes that violence is often a symptom of deeper societal issues, including poverty, inequality, and lack of access to mental health care. While other political parties predominantly concentrate on gun regulations, the Green Party aims to create comprehensive solutions that address these underlying factors, striving for a safer society holistically.

Balancing Public Safety and Individual Rights

The Green Party acknowledges the need for stricter gun control measures, such as universal background checks and bans on assault weapons, to ensure public safety. However, the party also places significant emphasis on preserving individual rights, which distinguishes its stance from more stringent gun control advocates. The Green Party aims to strike a balance between preventing gun violence and respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.

Challenges and Practicality

Critics argue that the Green Party’s focus on root causes and comprehensive solutions might overlook the practical challenges of implementing such measures. While addressing underlying societal issues is undoubtedly crucial, the urgency of curbing gun violence necessitates immediate action. Some question whether the party’s approach could be more effective if paired with practical gun control measures that address the current reality of firearm availability and misuse.

Impact on Rural and Urban Communities

The Green Party’s emphasis on individual rights while advocating for stricter gun control may have different implications for rural and urban communities. While urban areas often require tighter gun regulations to address crime, rural communities may rely on firearms for self-defense and sustenance. The Green Party’s challenge lies in devising policies that respect the distinct needs of both demographics while achieving a balance between public safety and individual liberties.

A Holistic Approach

Despite potential criticisms, the Green Party’s approach to gun control offers a holistic vision for a safer society. By recognizing the interconnectedness of societal issues, the party aims to prevent violence at its roots. However, the success of this approach relies on addressing deeply ingrained problems like poverty and mental health disparities, which may take time to achieve tangible results. It is crucial to consider whether the party’s emphasis on long-term solutions adequately addresses the immediate threats posed by gun violence.

Conclusion: A Thought-Provoking Perspective

In conclusion, the Green Party’s views on gun control present a thought-provoking alternative to traditional approaches. By prioritizing root causes and advocating for a balance between public safety and individual rights, the party offers a unique framework for addressing gun violence. However, critics may question the practicality of this approach in the face of urgent challenges. As the discourse on gun control continues, it is essential to evaluate the Green Party’s stance in the context of its commitment to holistic solutions and the potential trade-offs between immediate action and long-term change.

These gatherings frequently can’t help contradicting the translation of firearm-related laws and techniques, and the effect of weapon control on wrongdoing and open security. It is evaluated that US regular citizens possess 393 million guns and that 35% to 42% of families in the nation have in any event one weapon. The United States has the most elevated evaluated number of weapons per capita, with 120.5 weapons per 100 individuals.

The accessibility of guns in the United States has been described by worry about the option to carry weapons, as found in the second alteration to the United States Constitution, and the US government’s obligation to serve the necessities of residents and to forestall wrongdoing and passing. Supporters of gun guidelines state that subjective or boundless weapons rights keep the administration from satisfying this obligation and causing a security issue. Weapon rights advocates advance guns for self-protection, including protection from oppression, just as chasing and brandishing exercises. Guns attorneys manage terms that confine and track access to guns would bring about more secure networks, while weapon rights advocates state that expanded weapon ownership by decent residents diminishes wrongdoing and cases that hoodlums have consistently had simple access to guns.

Through the legitimate translation of the Constitution, US firearm laws or nonlegislation have been reinforced. The United States embraced the Second Amendment in 1791 and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The result of these two changes to firearm strategy was the subject of a milestone choice by the US Supreme Court in 2008. Just because the Supreme Court insisted that the subsequent alteration ensures people the option to have weapons that serve and use autonomously of state civilian army and use rights. Guns are utilized for conventional genuine purposes, including home resistance. Simultaneously, it upheld the supposed ‘singular rights’ hypothesis of the importance of the subsequent revision and dismissed an opposing translation, the ‘aggregate rights’ hypothesis, that this correction shielded the state from keeping up the volunteer army or aggregate rights. Singular rights to hold and convey weapons for the volunteer army.

Firearm brutality demands a huge cost for Americans, guaranteeing countless lives every year. Powerless weapon laws and liberated access to guns have made it very simple for individuals to end their own lives and the lives of others. Weapon brutality shapes the texture of our general public, damaging millions and forcing considerable money-related weights that we as a whole offer. The underlying insights spread out the staggering extent of this particular American emergency.

The cost of American firearm savagery is awful, and it is on the ascent. Over 1.2 million Americans have been shot in the previous decade, millions more have seen weapon brutality firsthand, and several million, almost every American, will know in any event one casualty of firearm viciousness in the course of their life. 36,000 Americans are killed by firearms every year, a normal of 100 every day. 100,000 Americans are shot and harmed every year. In 2017, firearm passings arrived at their most elevated level at any rate in 40 years, with 39,773 passings in 2017 alone. Weapon passings expanded by 16% from 2014 to 2017.

Weapon viciousness takes various structures, adding to suicides, murders, unexpected passing, and law authorization killings, just as genuine wounds. Any push to spare lives must incorporate arrangements that address the one-of-a-kind parts of every one of these classes of firearm brutality. The 36,383 are Americans murdered with firearms every year, 22,274 are Americans who have killed themselves with weapon suicides (61%), 12,830 are weapon crimes (35%), 496 are law implementation shootings (1.4%), and 487 are accidental shootings (1.3%). All things considered, 100,000 Americans are injured with firearms every year, regularly with life-changing results. About seventy-five percent of nonfatal shootings are firearm attacks. About a fifth are accidental shootings. Not many nonfatal shootings are suicide endeavors, under 5%, and somewhere in the range of 1 and 2% are shootings by law requirement.

In an examination initially distributed by Mother Jones, over 75% of the occurrences of mass shootings that occurred more than 30 years of research had the firearms included bought lawfully here and there. Gun control is straightforward here. On the off chance that you take the capacity to possess weapons that are conceivably perilous from individuals who are probably going to utilize them, at that point it offers the chance of making society more secure.

At the point when the insights of firearm savagery are cited in the media or content this way, it is indispensable to recollect that most sources join manslaughter and suicide numbers as an approach to commuting home the point that weapons offer deadly results. On the off chance that somebody chooses to end their own life, it is unmistakably a disaster. Something someplace bombed that individual, making gunfire the main way out. About 25% of the effective suicide endeavors in the U.S. in 2012 included hanging or suffocation. Another 17% of individuals picked harming as the favored method to take their life. On the off chance that you join these two activities, more beyond words causes not identified with guns right now. Distinguishing individuals who are thinking about this activity is the progression we should take to furnish them with the assistance they require. If we just spotlight firearm control, at that point different techniques for suicide will see a flood of intrigue.

The gun has great and fiendish sides that it is difficult to tell who is on which side. Weapon Control banter despite everything going on in Congress, since using firearms in great ways can spare our lives, using them terribly can decimate our lives. The weapon control approach impacts numerous brutality every year, even though many programs help us to utilize firearms in the right manner, individuals despite everything use them as an execute apparatus. We should weapons just when our lives are in danger.