Category: Gun Control

Evaluation Of The Gun Control Argument

The feeling of having that extra bit of safety attached at the hip gives that little bit of extra confidence when out and about. The right to bear arms in the USA is guaranteed by the second amendment to the Constitution (MacDonald v. City of Chicago). This is one of the fundamental rights of a citizen. Right-to-carry laws in the United States allow a person to carry legal weapons hidden even in most public places. Different states have different policies, somewhere the government is obliged to issue permission to any adequate applicant, and somewhere it may require additional checks (Rosen 20). Evaluating the theme of gun control reveals the right to store and carry legal weapons leads to a reduction in the number of willful and unintentional murders, attacks, and robberies, however, some restrictive measures are supported.

In the United States, legal weapons are practically not involved in street crimes and domestic conflicts, especially in terrorist attacks (Rosen 17). The arguments of proponents, like Rosen, of tighter gun control are diverse. It is worthy to note when people talk about the constitutional right of Americans to carry weapons freely, they lose sight of the fact that the law on the sale of firearms and their ammunition varies greatly from state to state (Rosen 20). There is, however, one general law: only people over 21 years of age, without conflict with the law and without psychological deviations can obtain the right to carry a gun. One can buy weapons only after verifying the identity of the buyer (Rosen 16).

Otherwise, one may suppose that permitting the free purchase of firearms does not always have a negative impact on public safety. A weapon does not kill; the person who possesses it kills. In turn, opponents of restrictions on the right to weapons indicate that such restrictions have little effect on the general statistics of deaths and violent crimes. The offender will always get some kind of weapon — not a gun, so a knife; anyone who wants to take one’s own life will easily find some other way. There is, however, a “convincing link between gun availability and gun suicide” (Rosen 17). A gun in the home increases the cases a person will commit suicide. Nevertheless, scientists need more data to state it because there is a factor of mental illnesses concerning suicide (Rosen). Many killings are not done with a firearm at all (Rosen 19), but with a kitchen knife or other improvised items.

There is always the likelihood that one will become a victim of an attack. Thus, one must have the right to protect oneself. It is impossible to imagine that a sane person will give up such a right. If one imagines some of the toughest rules for buying weapons in the country and it would be almost impossible for an ordinary citizen to buy a short barrel there, at the same time, the criminals have any weapon: from revolvers to light machine guns (Rosen 17). Therefore, it may happen that ordinary people cannot protect themselves from deliberately armed intruders. The right to carry a gun is an ongoing argument in preventing massacres.

Moreover, it is easier for police to solve crimes dealing with legal firearms. In such a way, people who used a gun for unknown reasons can be quickly debunked. Though, “Police officers who find a gun at a crime scene can’t always look up the owner’s name on a computer. That’s because there is no national registry — no searchable database of guns and their owners” (Rosen 17). Thus, purchase verification mechanisms are imperfect and need to be reviewed.

To conclude, many analysts and professors in the United States agree that possession of weapons by law-abiding citizens impedes many crimes. Expectedly, criminals fear armed resistance and the armed victim has more chances to defend themselves. It is important to understand that society is threatened not by the owners of legal weapons but by psychopaths, extremists, robbers, and killers. The evidence Rosen presents shows that a ban or serious restriction on the arms trade will not reduce the number of violent crimes, but rather will lead to a substantial increase in them. No one doubts the need for more thorough checks of potential buyers, closer supervision of trades along the right to own property.

Gun Control: Most Of The Mass Shootings Are Committed With Legal Weapons

Gun control is a couple of laws and policies that are used to regulate the sale and possession of firearms to protect civilians. Gun control may sound like a good thing, however, it has great potential to be one of the worst solutions for society. This can be related to Chicago. Chicago has one of the most authoritarian gun laws in American but has one of the highest gun crimes with 4,331 shooting victims. Gun control will only make it tougher for law-abiding citizens to acquire guns for protection, hence giving criminals the upper hand to commit crimes against innocent citizens.

One of the main disagreements is that there needs to be more gun control because there is an abundant amount of people being murdered in mass shootings and no actions are being made. But little do people know is that these mass shootings happen because of gun control, people fail to ask the question, how do teens obtain such weapons? To be granted a permit or license to purchase, possess or carry any firearm you have to be the age of 21 or above, The simple answer is they obtain them illegally, therefore increasing gun control will only hurt law-abiding citizens who are only trying to protect themselves. When these shootings happen the first thing the government does is discuss gun control. Because people are in so much shock when these mass shootings happen they are more drawn in to listen to a plan of action on how to deal with these gun control, plans that will affect the entire future of America.

Yet, many people do not realize that most of the mass shootings are committed with weapons that can be acquired legally. Prohibiting assault rifles will not reduce or solve the crime rate and only a small percent of gun crimes are committed with assault rifles. People are wary of assault rifles because they feel that those weapons are displayed by the military, and are portrayed as too powerful, and should not be used by anyone else. Although the military uses fully automatic weapons which are illegal, the assault rifles that can be purchased are semi-automatic meaning they only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, which is technically more environmentally safe. Another misunderstanding is that assault rifles are way too powerful for citizens to keep in their homes. This is mistaken because assault rifles are only as strong as the amount of ammunition you put in them. Putting a ban on assault rifles would not reduce the crime rate it would just take away protection from the citizens.

stricter gun laws will not stop mass shootings there are more serious issues that have to be looked at, but what people seem to forget is that guns don’t kill people, people do. There are other solutions that can be done to prevent gun crimes and it is not just censoring violent video games, T.V. shows, and movies. People need to be psychologically analyzed, not just for gun owners but for everyone. A physiological evaluation will help benefit not only the health of everyone but it could prevent a lot of crimes in general, not just gun crimes. Most of the time after a crime is committed and the suspect is evaluated, it is usually found that they have a mental illness. It shouldn’t take the crime to occur to then evaluate someone’s mental health. Seeking help for a mental illness has a connotation of being a negative thing, and whoever has to get mental help is apparently an unstable person. This results in people keeping things to themselves and not seeking any form of help, which leads to them keeping all of that person’s problems within themselves contained.

Handguns play a major role when it comes to gun crimes which is why they are harder to obtain than assault rifles, and the reason for that is you can conceal a handgun more efficiently than an assault rifle and this is something a lot of people who believe in gun control will say. However, this is the reason why we should not add more gun laws. The more gun laws the government put will not prevent the criminal from buying and trading guns illegally, adding more laws is just gonna disarm the law-abiding citizens who need to have the gun in order to protect themselves. Even with Chicago’s strict gun laws teens that are under the age of 17 are killed four times more often than the teens in New York, according to NY Times.

Guns should be used to protect and defend, so taking that away will only hinder the public. Being able to own weapons will allow people to protect themselves from a dictatorial government, and with most of the people in the United States, the ideal thing would be to own weapons to protect themselves from a possible Fourth Reich. Instead of removing guns from users or future owners, why doesn’t the government try and educate people about firearms before handing them a gun, for example before becoming eligible to drive and obtain a license you need to take driving classes. So in order to obtain a firearm, you should be required to learn the dangers and possible accidents that can happen.

To conclude guns give people the chance to protect themselves. Putting more restrictions doesn’t help the main problem it would only hinder responsible gun owners. The real criminals aren’t going to follow the updated regulations, that’s why they are labeled criminals, putting more gun control laws will only give criminals the upper hand. If they want to put an extra step into buying a gun to make sure it is in the right hands the better thing to do would be mental health check every once in and while. The problem isn’t the guns, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The best thing to do is find the root of the problem which is believed to be the amount of ammunition that is being distributed and not trying to disarm the people.

School Shootings In The USA: Social And Political Impact

The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac’s Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764. Four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown and killed nine or ten children. Only two children survived.

The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 requires schools in any state receiving certain federal funding to implement a one-year expulsion rule for students who bring a firearm to school. Students found in possession of a firearm must also be referred to the criminal justice or juvenile justice system.

THESIS

School shootings have impacted the world both socially and politically. Depending on how they are viewed, it could either have a positive or negative outcome. The negative side is pretty obvious, since lives are destroyed and communities are left to fear for their lives. On the other hand, school shootings are a way for the government to get new laws and acts passed to help ensure a safer future for Americans no matter where they are.

Political Impact: (Presidents, elections, political parties, military, foreign policy, domestic policy)

School shooting has had a huge impact on politics. It has sparked a lot of debates about gun control and violence. There has been many bill’s trying to get passed for example, Vermont, which until this year had some of the loosest gun laws in the country, passed several measures to tighten its laws, including a ban on guns in K-12 schools, a red-flag law, and a law that expands background checks and bans high-capacity magazines. A red flag law is a gun violence prevention law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. Since Parkland, red flag laws have gained support from lawmakers of both major political parties and groups on both sides of the gun-policy divide. Last year, eight new red flag bills were signed into law.

Social Impact: (cultural, morality, minorities, women, changes in education, entertainment)

School shootings have a massive impact of the lives of many people, regardless of the role they had in the shooting. Most people in the community surrounding the area where the shooting occurred are left traumatized by the experience and fear for the safety of themselves and their children returning to school. Research has shown that PTSD is very common to develop among the survivors. There is also a mental disease called survivors guilt, which makes the ones who made it out safely question the reason they were not shot or killed during the shooting. In recent news, there has been a series of school shooting survivors who have fallen victim to PTSD or survivors guilt and taken their own life. Some of the people who have taken their life due to those disorders, reported to not being able to move past the event, and the stress or anxiety took over their life. These effects can last for years after the event is over and can form in students, teachers, or emergency responders that were in the building and witnessed horrific scenes. Other people who may be left traumatized could be parents or families in community, people in the surrounding area, or even someone just watching the event on the news.

A red flag law is a gun violence prevention law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. (Denverpost 1)

The federal government later effectively banned bump stocks nationwide, with a regulation signed by acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker requiring most gun owners to destroy or turn in the devices by March 26. (Melendez 1)

New Jersey passed a series of gun legislation banning armor-piercing ammunition, limiting magazine sizes to 10 rounds, allowing guns to be temporarily seized if the owner is deemed dangerous, requiring background checks for private gun sales (Melendez 1)

In the aftermath of the shootings, many schools across America enacted “zero-tolerance” rules regarding disruptive behavior and threats of violence from students.(Denverpost 1)

PTSD can develop in people who have experienced intense trauma as well as in people who have been exposed to someone else’s severe trauma. (Social-Consequences-1)

Any child who experiences a school shooting has a 77% chance of developing PTSD. Other negative effects could include changes in school performance, difficulty with authority or criticism and re-experiencing the trauma through nightmares. (Affect Society 1)

Bystanders who witness a school shooting may witness burned, disfigured, bloody or dead bodies causing the sense of having a lack of control over the situation. That feeling has a very important role in making people feel insecure, terrified or traumatized.

School shootings rarely involve large numbers of victims, but even just a single student getting killed in a shooting has an impact on the lives of people far beyond the ones directly involved. (School-Shootings-1)

After the columbine shooting “On April 20, it took Harris and Klebold about half an hour to ignite a national gun-control debate that has smoldered for a year. Within a week, President Clinton introduced legislation banning private weapons sales at gun shows.”(Denverpost 1) this relates to the thesis because in the thesis we talked about laws created in response to school shooting and debates that started in response and this is evidence of both laws created and debates “the stress of such events on the rest of society. That includes those who survived the shooting; those who were in the vicinity, including the first responders; those who lost someone in the shooting; and those who hear about it via the media.”

This relates to the thesis because the article talks about the negative impact shootings have on the lives of many people no matter what role they had in the shooting. In our thesis, we touched on the negative effects shootings have on people’s lives.

“11 states passed laws in 2018 that restrict gun access to people linked to domestic violence, and eight states, plus the District of Columbia, created ways to temporarily keep guns from dangerous or “at risk” people, according to data from the Giffords Law Center, a gun control advocacy group.”(Melendez 1) This piece of evidence supports the thesis because it shows how laws are being passed faster and more effectively, it also shows how school shooting are effecting states and how they are causing fear.

Laws have been created to help ensure the safety of children at school. People have been made very aware of the topic countrywide because of the increasing rates of shootings

Many peoples lives have been harmed or destroyed by traumatizing events such as school shootings so there is an increasing amount of places for those people to receive the help they need.

Conclusion

School shooting have mostly had a negative effect on the world, because of the loss of lives and fear to go to school but there are some positives as well. Some of the positives include the availability to get gun laws passed much faster than usual and also how communities are now making efforts to ensure safety in schools as well as in the community.

Will Teachers Arming Stop School Shooting?

With the unfortunate boost of mass shootings sprawling across the United States, it has become apparent that places that are supposed to be a safe haven for children are not cleared from the wrath of mass shooters. With the spike of school shootings, it has become a political turmoil. The two sides quarreling about whether to give the United States stricter gun laws or to continue the right to bear arms with little to no restriction. In one of the most recent school shootings that took place in Parkland, Florida where seventeen teachers and students were shot and killed, action was finally taken, but not an action that was necessary. In a National Education Association article “Arming teachers is not the answer.” written by Cindy Long and Tim Walker, they found that Florida lawmakers and the Trump administration see it fit, as a form of protection to place guns in the classroom instead of just placing a restriction altogether. A bill has been currently passed through our legislation stating that teachers would be trained to carry firearms putting 10 armed educators in every school (Long). This bill would arm around roughly 37,000 schools statewide (Long). For children, school is a place where they should feel safe and secure and grudgingly the government feels that fighting fire with fire by arming teachers is the real resolution. With this bill, teachers not only have to worry about actual school shooters, but with being responsible with the guns around children. They also need to be concerned about being held accountable if they are disarmed by a student, cause an accidental fire, and even having to add more chaos to their already hectic schedule.

The Trump administration and the Florida lawmakers passed the bill without acknowledging those who have to deal with it first hand, the teachers. According to CNBC article “73 percent of teachers oppose guns in schools, Gallup finds” created by reporter Annie Nova, that in a Gallup survey of 497 educators, it was discovered that out the amount of educators who teach kindergarten through 12th grade, a massive 73% of the 497 had an opposition to being armed (Nova). Not only did a mass majority of the educators not support the bill, but stated that they would refuse training if the option was made available to them (Nova). Not only are teachers uncomfortable with this bill, but a loaded gun casually strapped on to an educator is an accident waiting to happen and when exposed to students in a small classroom setting, it could be fatal. Shortly after the bill in Florida had been passed, there were already two incidences of accidental fire by firearm in a classroom. Bill Hutchinson in an ABC News story “2 accidental shootings at US schools, one by armed teacher, the other by resource officer” writes the article about the two incidents. The first incident took place in California’s Seaside High School, when Dennis Alexander, an armed teacher at the school and a reserve officer of Sand City, accidentally fired his firearm while in a classroom teaching his students about public safety awareness (Hutchinson). Luckily no one was injured. The second incident took place in Alexandria, Virginia in George Washington Middle School. The incident began when the schools resource officer and five year veteran of the Alexandria Police Department accidentally fired his weapon in his office (Hutchinson). Luckily in this story as well, no one was injured, and did not take place inside a classroom, however having firearms in the classroom not only places all of the responsibilities on the teachers, but on the children as well. Children are young, naive, do not have a grasp on the consequences of their actions, and sometimes their curiosity gets the best of them, which is yet another reason why guns do not have a place in the classroom. In another ABC news article, “Students grabbing guns from officers highlights the dangers of weapons at school” written by Whitney Lloyd, she goes into the details of a case in Minnesota involving a third grade boy who removed a firearm from the resource officer’s holster. Once the boy obtained the gun he accidentally shot into the floor of the gymnasium (Lloyd). Whitney Lloyd also goes into the details of two more stories similar to students grabbing guns from their superiors, but these stories involve older students who instead of having an innocent or naive motive, their intent was to do harm. In Michigan, a high school student was accused of grabbing the sheriff deputy’s holster shortly after assaulting his ex-girlfriend in the hallway. He grabbed the sheriff’s gun so violently that he fired the firearm and the bullet hit the ground and ricocheted off the wall (Lloyd). The other incident took place in Kansas when resource officers were called to calm down a sporadic and unruly student. When the student saw one of the resource officers he quickly began getting violent and tried to retrieve the officer’s gun during an attack (Lloyd). In these three cases of students obtaining firearms, no one was injured, but it is so clearly shown in these five stories all together that shortly occurred after the bill had been passed sets an example that accidents can happen and more importantly, it can happen to highly trained professionals that had firearm training with one even being a police officer veteran. Anyone can get distracted and make a mistake, we are all human, but when it comes to a loaded gun that can lead to a dire situation and can even be the cause of an accidental death of a child, it is not to be taken lightly. Teachers in the school are most likely not trained with firearms like officers are and they are in schools to primarily teach the youth. Educators can easily be taken advantage of by a curiously naive child or a violent teenager.

In today’s events, educators are of course the ones who have the right to decide whether they choose to carry a firearm, or continue to have class without one. While a mass majority of educators do not approve of Trump’s new reform, some educators believe it is the answer and already carry a gun to class. In the CNN article “These schools say arming teachers can be done right’ written by Nicole Chavez, she brings a light on the unpopular side of the argument. After the tragic Sandy Hook shooting where more than twenty children and teachers were killed, a school district in Arkansas decided to take actions into their own hands by training and arming more than a dozen educators and staff members (Chavez). Another school that decided to take action was the Clarksville School District. They have their educators, janitors, and other staff members armed and ready in case of a rampage shooter (Chavez). Jim Krohn, a social studies teacher at Clarksville junior high who decided to be one of the teachers armed, believes that the program in place is an excellent solution. ‘If we didn’t do this and somebody came into this building or any of our school buildings and harmed children, it would be hard to go to sleep that night thinking what else could I have done and at least we’ve done what we think is the best thing to protect the children of Clarksville school district” (Chavez). Not only does this bill make teachers feel more powerful and ready during school shootings, but it also makes their students feel safer. A school about 85 miles north of Dallas decided to add a “guardian program” which is essentially just having armed teachers that have volunteered to carry firearms. (Chavez). This program is praised by the schools superintendent Clugston by stating, ‘We’ll do whatever’s necessary to protect our kids and staff. We don’t want to be at the mercy of someone that’s intent on doing harm” (Chavez). With this program, children feel safer knowing that their teachers are able to protect them if something were to happen (Chavez). Though a small majority of teachers believe that this is the answer, there is still a reason why 73% of them don’t follow through with this bill.

While it is noble for some educators and staff to feel that they need to battle the shooter head- on, it is not likely that this is the reality. Other than the examples of accidental fire and students disarming officers with ease, a Vox article, “The case against arming teachers” with statistics, German Lopez refutes the arguments on more guns means more safety. The policy of having more guns in schools is alarming based on the fact that there is little to no valuable research on if this bill would actually benefit schools and the children. This in itself is odd, a policy with this much girth can impact the lives of parents, teachers, and even students has no graspable research and evidence. The research and evidence that is currently available is that more guns equals more violence. The United States has the highest number of firearms owned in the world. With a 2007 study showing the amount of firearms owned by civilians was 88.8 per 100 people and out of all the developed countries in this world, the United States has the highest number of death by firearm cases with the death percentage also including mass shooting victims (Lopez). Though mass shootings only make up 2% of deaths by firearm according to CNN, “the United States only makes up 5% of the population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters’ (Lopez). The percentage regardless if it looks small, still packs a huge punch. It says a lot about the United states where mass shootings are a normal occurrence, but only makes up 2% of firearm deaths. With the spike of guns and violence from these weapons in the United States, statistics clearly shows that putting more guns, especially in schools on top of a already present gun issue will not resolve, but instead boost the issue. In the last argument pro armed teachers make is that teachers will have the ability to protect students with the weapons that are provided by the government. Not only does that place the life and responsibility of a child’s life in the hands of a school teacher, but it also isn’t likely. There has been multiple simulations conducted and it has been found that most people that are placed in the way of a rampage shooter not only fail at protecting the children, they also get themselves killed in the process (Lopez). Even Coby Briehn, a senior instructor at advanced law enforcement rapid response training, claims that teachers can never get enough training to be completely ready for the case of a school shooter. Officers will even lose their lives trying to engage a shooter to get them to back down with a percentage of 46.7 suffering from injuries or dying by trying. (Lopez). Officers are people that risk their lives, train and prepare their entire careers to engage with armed perpetrators and the percentage of them dying from this is huge. To imagine a teacher trying to stop a rampage shooter successfully is extremely unlikely and could end up with them suffering from injuries or dying in the process.

Regardless if you are pro-arming teachers or anti-arming teachers one thing is certain, we all want to take our children to school knowing that while they are there they will be safe and secure. In present times, we cannot do that anymore. We never know when or where the next rampage schooling will take place; however, in this time of fear and anxiety we must not fight fire with fire. Arming teachers does not solve the issue of gun violence against children, but instead can make it worse. Teachers even with proper training have no reason or place to have the responsibility of risking their lives trying to stop a rampage shooter with a firearm when it has been proven that the outcome of them surviving is unlikely. Children who have an overwhelming sense of curiosity should not be in the position that if they were to disarm an educator they could accidentally kill a classmate, and teenagers who are already not mentally sane should not have easier access already in a school to grab the gun of a resource officer and start shooting. People with a passion for education are not put on this earth to have a part time job as a bodyguard, but they are here to teach the youth and they are here to show kindness and caring. Arm teachers with higher wages, supplies, and support, not guns.

School Shooting: Analysis Of The Article The Righteous Anger Of The Parkland Shooting’s Teen Survivors

In America, the right to bear arms delivered a phenomenon called the “gun culture”. The title was founded by historian, Richard Hofstadter in which he describes America’s heritage and affection for weapons. Gun culture has not only become an inseparable part of American democracy but also considered to be equivalent to independence and freedom, which are important values for the society in America. Although this so-called gun culture plays an important role in today’s politics, schools in the country has become perilous places in the 20th century. Mass shootings have been taking place all over America and these incidents are leading to one or more deaths.

Many of us as individuals when we think of school shootings, our minds would immediately go back to the Columbine high school shooting. Why? According to encyclopaedia, the occurrence was one of the deadliest mass shootings in United States history. 13 people were killed and more than 20 were wounded until the Parkland shooting occurred and is now known to be the deadliest high school shooting in which 17 people were killed. In the article published by The Atlantic on 2017, “The Righteous Anger of the Parkland Shooting’s Teen Survivors” written by Robinson Meyer, we see how juveniles in today’s society are becoming more knowledgeable of the real issues in USA and explores political activism in response to gun control issues.

Robinson Meyer is the writer of the article “The Righteous Anger of the Parkland Shooting’s Teen Survivors”, whom is a part of the staff at the American magazine, The Atlantic, we can assure that the main readers of the magazine are Americans. However, the text is also available online and that makes it accessible for all English-speaking readers international. The piece is not a news article as it does not report on the shooting that took place, still, Meyer follows the typical structure of a modern feature article to which he analyses survivor’s reactions towards the school shooting. The tone used in the article is serious and sad, which can be seen in some of the chosen words used in the article that tends to be dramatic and negative, this will be discussed later on.

In the article, the writer points out how young people are becoming activists for gun control and uses the recent deadliest school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. “Those students understand that they live in a country that they have very little power to change – a country where, several times a year, a school for children becomes a charnel house.” Throughout the whole article, it investigates topics such as political activism among adolescents in the context of school shootings and gun control issues in America including how juveniles participate in political activism using social media in subject to cruel events. “Something was different about this mass shooting this week in Parkland, Florida…” Robinson Meyer begins his text by arguing that the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High was different and unique from others not only because it was the deadliest high school shooting but also because it was widely spread on social media by student survivors. “Tweets that were widely reported as coming from the students expressed grief for the victims, pushed against false reports, and demanded accountability.” His article also consists of survivor’s reaction towards the traumatic experience through social media such as Twitter where they argue that lack of gun control leads to higher death rate caused by mass shootings, hence advocating for stricter gun control law in the country. But unlike the style of language used by Meyer, most of the Tweets are informal and some are typically written with slangs. For instance, the first Tweet contains a single sentence in which the person who has tweeted it expresses grief and regret without actually mentioning the incident. “OMG, teen from #MarjoryStonemanDouglas on @npr just now…” Some of the following Tweets were written with slangs such as “OMG” and includes some hashtags. One of the Tweets is a respond to POTUS, Donald Trump tweeting his condolences to the victims, “I don’t want your condolences you fucking price of shit…” The language used here expresses aggressiveness. The person who tweeted this calls Trump a ‘fucking price of shit’, misspelling the word ‘piece’, but even though she is responding to the president, she takes advantage of her freedom of speech and expresses her emotions.

“The Righteous Anger of the Parkland Shooting’s Teen Survivors” shows perfect examples of how high school students used and are using social medias as a tool for political activism by expressing their outrage and frustration. “High-school students – the survivors of the calamity themselves – became the voice of the tragedy…” This illustrates how media can be a powerful tool for everyone specially for the students in this case and use it to be heard by the people in power. In spite of the dilemma whether students have enough knowledge and information to become political activists, Meyer advocates that they do, “… adolescents, who can discuss and understand the tragedy as adults but who are as blameless for it as children.” He claims that American juveniles have enough political awareness because they grew up in the media age, and proposes that in the case of gun control and mass shooting, students were well informed and prepared for becoming political activists. “…And they will not be the last victims to face a loaded assault rifle and think: This is preventable. I must politicize this.” Although teenagers use social media in form of debate, not all of them will be heard specially the ones who comes from an underprivilege family or ethnic minorities, they might be overlooked by the public and media even if they participate in any form of activism.

To give an example on how students have chosen to make changes in society, three of the Parkland survivors talk with Ellen DeGeneres about the March on Washington they have helped organised, which is later called “March for Our Lives” and will include nationwide demonstrations. These teenagers argue that this march is a respond to people who have told them now is not the time to talk about gun control. They believe that this march will be a good time to finally talk and advocate about gun control. The video shows how coherently spoken these teenagers are in regard to gun control, showing maturity but at the same time emotionally affected and traumatized by the incident. On top of that, the video presents having endorsement from the media can help students promote the cause.

Throughout the article, the writer’s tone is serious and concerned. Meyer’s style of writing is formal and some of his chosen words helps us understand his expressions towards the shooting: for instance, the article’s title, “The Righteous Anger of the Parkland Shooting’s Teen Survivors”. ‘Righteous anger’ is a term to describe anger that is not sinful, and in this case, we can see Meyer takes on the survivor’s side. In addition to this, some of the chosen words such as “deadliest high-school shooting” , “tragedy” , “violence” , “an inexplicable catastrophe, not as an unforeseeable tragedy” also shows us that the writer himself sees the shooting as a terrible event and decries the people in power for failing to solve this issue earlier, which could have prevented it. “These assorted Florida teenagers knew the contours of the gun debate so well that they were rebutting NRA…” Meyer also works with pathos and ethos to show empathy for the survivors, and when combining the two, not only does it illustrates the teenagers as honest and trustworthy young people but also shows the writer’s opinion and support of them. “This is what astonished and confronted me while watching the Stoneman Douglas High’s speakers for the dead…” In these specific lines, Meyer’s usage of the first person-statement is clear and is directly expressing his feelings and thoughts towards the whole situation.

When all is said and done, after the school shooting at Parkland, young people have become the new voice of the American society today. Many has put a label on them as teen activists but how about, people who has simply had enough? Robinson Meyer’s article promotes the cause and illustrates perfect examples of how young people have taken action to this matter. These young people have started to lead a movement to stamp out of horrific massacres that has taken thousands of children’s lives in the country using social media to draw the world’s focus on what has been ignored for far too long. We had a choice where to put our efforts, whether into peace or war when we felt the fear of others. So, guns were made and called them piece when it was anything but. But did that give us our peace of removing a piece of someone else’s? How many more massacres before the people in power decides to take action?

Causes Of School Shooting

In 2018 alone, there were 82 school shootings around the world, in today’s society as dishearting as it may sound school shootings have become more and more abundant. There have been many cases around the world causing students to be scared to attend school and arising fear in many faculty and staff to attend work. Many times the shooters typically try to target a specific person or persons, or their goal is to just cause mass hysteria among all of whom attend the facilities. Creating an anxiety-filled environment, it almost seems as if every day there is another headline about a school shooting. Approximately 311 deaths have occurred because of school shootings(The K-12 School Shooting Statistics Everyone Should Know), that’s not even counting injuries Many people react to these devastating situations differently and among the people, some have taken action in regards to making school safer for everyone that attends. School shooting numbers have risen. Schools aren’t as safe as they should be shootings numbers are at a high.

There have been school shootings that have happened all around the world and different time periods causing mass chaos among those affected and that of those that are sympathetic for persons involved in these tragic events. It has seemed that the numbers have been rising “2018 had the greatest number of incidents since 1970, with 82 recorded incidents. The next highest year was 2006 with 59 incidents” (The K-12 School Shooting Statistics Everyone Should Know).Thus showing that since 1970 these horrific events have begun increasing a major problem in our society and our global school’s safety efforts. Since 1970 there have been about 1300 shootings on or around school property including afterschool events and other meetings(The K-12 School Shooting Statistics Everyone Should Know). This is crazy to think about due to the fact that school is a place for students to learn and to help achieve their goals in life, not to sit in the classroom anxiety-filled hoping that the code red alarm doesn’t go off. The sad thing about that is how much society as a whole has changed for better and for worse. In-classroom today more often than before there are lockdown drills and practice barricading the door at least once a month, in fact, we had to carry out these tasks. Along with getting us prepared for the worst possible scenario it also can strike fear among the youth and alter their outlooks on society. But at least it’s a step in the right direction for the safety of everyone at schools.

Some schools are trying to and apply their best efforts to protect not only the students but faculty and staff as well. For example, schools in Georgia are trying to improve their overall school security as stated by Bibb County Schools Chief of Staff Keith Simmons “ We want to be able to use those funds to improve safety and security at the school, but I don’t want to have to spend $50,000 to use $30,000” elaborating on that they are trying to push for a safer environment for those that attend those facilities. He is showing that in order to get the money approved for use to make the schools safer he would have to spend near $20,000 which is incredible on the government’s part. The government seems to be an advocate for safe schools yet they are making it harder for people, like Keith Simmons to take action on the schools’ behalf and make a safer environment for all that attend. All in all, schools are already pretty safe but just like the world around us, they seem to be always changing sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad. According to SCHOOL SHOOTINGS What We Know, What We Can Do “implementing threat assessment as common practice” can increase the overall safety of the school over internal attacks it can also provide the school with more insight about its students. If making schools as safe as possible was easy this type of stuff wouldn’t happen.

Even after works of schools they still aren’t a complete lockdown like a prison because the so-called attacker can be inside the whole time during lockdowns and through all the precautionary steps taken by the school. They would be able to see the whole “defense plan” from the inside and determine how they are going to carry out their morbid plan. Whereas having the lockdown drills would hinder or compromise the safety of other students. As stated in SCHOOL SHOOTINGS What We Know, What We Can Do “School shootings are difficult to predict, but educators aren’t powerless to prevent such tragedies” their are many tell-tell signs to have more insight in the way to predict who will carry out these tragedies by just having instructors paying closer attention to there students mental health/ mental disorders and or their behavior taking a shift to a more aggressive and depressed outlook on life. Even though accurately predicting the exact day and type of attack on the school is not in the realm of possibility, having teachers attend a type of class where behavioral study is taught would be a step in the right direction it wouldn’t eliminate the problem. Some teachers don’t fully care about there job as well and are just chasing there chack and couldn’t care less about background monitoring their students’ behavioral changes for the betterment of there school. With two of the most deadly school shootings in history occurring at two different high schools which were attended by there shooter even though predicting those shootings are impossible, and the shooters showed very little signs of remorse, doesn’t mean that monitoring your students may or may not help the situations for near or far future.

As for what triggers someone to shift behavioral morals there is a lot that rides on that aspect of the spectrum. First of all discrimination/bullying from peers plays a major role in whether the behavior of a minor switches and becomes more aggressive outlook upon the world around him/her. School systems as a whole have already been working to combat the issue of bullying by having signs of it around campus and have a controversial “zero-tolerance policy” surrounding the matter. There is also the separation aspect, “Removal from the classroom may be especially problematic for students with disabilities”(SCHOOL SHOOTINGS: What We Know, What We Can Do) this shows that the removal of students with disabilities form normal classrooms over to segregated classrooms may elevate the problem to an uncontrollable level. Lastly, there is the off-campus viewpoint of parenting and family life, For instance the Parkland Shooting the gunman had a messed up family life even though that still has no justifications for his actions it dives into the world of just how severe a messed up family life can influence the situation along with some other psychological aspects. All of the factors play a major role in behavioral variations within our school systems.

After most school shooting an activist party advocates for the banishment of the most popular AR-15 assault rifle due to its automatic capabilities even though most of the school shooting is done with some type of handgun and in fact is the most abundant murder weapon around the United States. There are many measures put in place by states that help reduce shootings as stated by Mark Gius “states with background checks had lower incidents of school shootings” back round checks aid in the aspect of reducing guns in the wrong peoples’ hands yea in our world today if you want to do something terrible there always away. for example, the Saugus High School shooting the gunman was using a “ghost gun” which is a D.I.Y firearm with no serial number that is usually made with a 3D printer. Has been tested to inflict the same amount of damage as a real metal gun to human flesh. Making these guns increasingly dangerous to situations to school shootings because they are un-traceable through most metal detectors. All guns in the wrong hands pose a threat to everyone’s gun control laws might serve to lower the goal amount of school shooting to zero but there is no telling. For instance “1,300 children aged 1–17 died from gunshot wounds in the United States” “shootings in school settings accounted for 117 fatalities” (SCHOOL SHOOTINGS: What We Know, What We Can Do) showing that even though it is rare in schools it still happens In a place of learning.

Even though school shooting numbers are at a high over the last few years they are still relatively rare as a school shooting is 130 times less likely over a regular shooting of a minor outside of school. The threat in school is still viable yet people are trying to combat it in different ways along with the ideas of monitoring student’s mental health and trying to combat threating possibilities before they arise at full strength. To eventually lower the number of school shootings to zero and bring learning back to schools, but we are not quite there yet.

Works Cited

1. Gius, Mark. “The Effects of State and Federal Gun Control Laws on School Shootings.” Applied Economics Letters, vol. 25, no. 5, Mar. 2018, pp. 317–320. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/13504851.2017.1319555. Accessed 21 Nov. 2019.
2. H., Spencer Aisha, and Farrell Ryan P. “Putting Violence in Perspective: How Safe Are America’s Educators in the Workplace?” Monthly Labor Review, 2016. Edsjsr, EBSCOhost, db07.linccweb.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.monthlylaborrev.2016.08.007&site=eds-live. Accessed 20 Nov. 2019.
3. “How Are Central Georgia Schools Using Governor Kemp’s Security Grant?” WMAZ, 13 Nov. 2019, www.13wmaz.com/article/news/education/central-georgia-schools-use-school-security-grant/93-e895457b-c958-4cb1-b0b3-d37bb4123c09.
4. Landrum, Timothy J.1, t.landrum@louisville.edu, et al. “SCHOOL SHOOTINGS: What We Know, What We Can Do.” Educational Leadership, vol. 77, no. 2, Oct. 2019, pp. 36–41. Eue, EBSCOhost, db07.linccweb.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=139039752&site=eds-live. Accessed 20 Nov. 2019.
5. Staff, CS. “The K-12 School Shooting Statistics Everyone Should Know.” Campus Safety Magazine, Campus Safety, 26 Apr. 2019, www.campussafetymagazine.com/safety/k-12-school-shooting-statistics-everyone-should-know/.

Gun Control And Gun Violence In The USA

Gun violence previously was, and still currently is, a massive global issue that deserves more attention in order to be rectified. The rate of gun violence in the U.S. remains greater than almost every other country in the world and is at the minimum, seven times larger than countries such as Australia, Canada and France (Alpers & Wilson, 2013). In March 2018, the surviving student victims of the mass shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, established a gun violence prevention campaign to raise awareness for the founding causes of gun violence. The organisers of the campaign (also known as ‘Never Again MSD’), ‘March for Our Lives’ support and encourage a mandatory government takeover as well as the eradication of “assault weapons” in hopes to lower the quantity of guns in use by 30%. The country’s biggest gun control groups have also made substantial efforts to express themselves as supporters of “gun safety” rather than being anti-gun. They consistently promote themselves as adherents of America’s second amendment, the right to bear arms. The ‘March for Our Live’s campaign drastically changed the mindsets of people all over the world. The dangers of gun violence were finally being taken into serious consideration. It pushed individuals to realise that enough was enough and that it was time for a change.

Gun violence attributes to over 31,000 deaths and 78,000 non-lethal bodily injuries per year, and 1,000 people per day. There are 875 million known small arms in the world, of which 75% belong to the common, civil population (Alpers, P., & Wilson, M., 2013). Americans account for the majority of gun holders in the world, and through a general community poll it was indicated that the main reasons concerning their gun ownership was protection or self-defence (Stroebe, W., Leander, N. P., & Kruglanski, A. W., 2017).

This essay will examine the reasons supporting and opposing gun control from a psychological perspective by focusing on the Belief in a Dangerous World Theory (BDW) and will explore the effects of violent video games on aggressive behaviour. This essay will be used to examine how mental health is important when reasoning with factors that support/ oppose gun control.

Theoretical Background

The theory that has been chosen to focus on for this essay is the ‘Belief in a Dangerous World Theory (BDW)’. The BDW theory was chosen because from a psychological perspective, the possibility of defensive gun ownership is influenced by prejudiced aspects, such as the assumed risk of victimization, rather than a person’s unprejudiced risk of attack (Stroebe, Leander, Kruglanski, 2017). The BDW theory is a mindset about the fundamental aspects of reality, and there is a general belief that the world and mainstream society are unsafe, e.g. “There are many dangerous people in our population, who will attack someone out of pure meanness, for no reason at all”. “Any day now, chaos and anarchy could erupt around us. All signs are pointing to it” (Duckitt, 2001). The ‘Belief in a Dangerous World Theory’ however, is disproportionate to fearing general crime, violence, etc. This will of course depend on determinants such as your location, what time it is during the day, along with other relevant factors (O’Brien, 2019).

Two key concepts that have consistently been found under the BDW theory are: the authoritarian personality and the social dominance orientation. An authoritarian personality indicates that some traits such as “personality or enduring beliefs” (Duckitt, 2011) lead them to “hold prejudiced and ethnocentric attitudes” (Duckitt, 2011). The social dominance orientation was developed in 1993 and it promoted the idea that societies could decrease group conflict by encouraging “consensual ideologies that legitimize social and intergroup inequality and discrimination” (Duckitt, 2011).

Gun Use in a ‘Dangerous World’

In a study done by Cook et al. which studied the findings of the relationship between BDW and attitudes towards groups perceived to pose threats to safety, there was another follow up study done which had been extended through measuring specific prejudicial emotions and responses toward groups posing safety or other threats. Factors such as “social distancing, perceptions of safety threat, and as an associated affective response; fear”. (Cook et al). A procedure called the threat activation procedure was used and it helped solidify that the reported results could be linked back to group stereotypes.

The participants were presented with groups (chosen randomly) that were affiliated with threats to safety: Muslims and illegal immigrants, threats to health: obese individuals and people perceived as non-threatening: Europeans and Americans. They were required to “list five things that immediately come to mind” when they thought about said group, which would automatically prompt any prevailing stereotypes. After the list, they were asking to mark on a 6-point scale (lowest number to highest meant strongly disagree to strongly agree, respectively) their support towards “three face-valid” items from Crandall’s (1991) Social Distancing Scale (SDS). Using the scale, the affective fear toward the group was measured, implying that they felt nervous and/ or afraid about certain members of the group. The results showed that effects of BDW on social distancing was not true for Americans but contradicted the hypothesis made for Europeans which showed social distancing.

In making predictions about the risk for mass shootings, there are no consistent psychological profiles or indicative signs of warnings that are reliable enough to be able to identify those specific individuals in a civil population. A more reliable approach is the strategy of behavioural threat assessment, which is concerned with identifying and mediating with people who have disclosed violent threats or engaged in behaviour that clearly indicated planning or preparation to commit a violent act. The issue of gun violence calls for a thorough study and analysis of a variety of key psychological components, behavioural pathways, social circumstances, and cultural factors that lead to gun violence (Cornell, D & Guerra, G.N, 2013).

In a 2010 study conducted by Anderson et al., a meta-analytic technique was used to test the impact of violence in video games on characteristics such as “aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, empathy/desensitization, and prosocial behaviour”. The results strongly supported their hypothesis and showed a positive correlation between the presentation to/ of violence in video games and “increased aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behaviour” (Anderson et al. 2010). Further analysis for the 2010 Anderson et al. study showed substantial research design effects and a poor indication of cultural differences in predisposition and type of impact on measurement. It also revealed no proof in the differences of gender susceptibility. Evidence from a range of reviews revealed these effects to be persistent, with barely any proof of “selection bias” (Anderson et al. 2010).

Previous research by Anderson et. al (2003) indicated that violent television, movies, video games and music reveal indisputable evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behaviour in both short and long-term contexts. However, these studies had also indicated that the impact of media violence on aggression have been exaggerated as a result of bias due to prior disclosure of information. This ultimately led to an absence of evidence for aggression being a causal risk factor due to violent video games (Anderson et. al, 2003). A limitation quite frequently presented by the Japanese supporters of the idea that increased aggressive behaviour is not affected by media violence, is that it has greater amounts of violence on media but a weaker amount of violent crime. (Anderson et. al, 2003). Japan distinguishes itself from countries such as America and other Western countries on some standard risk factors for aggression and violence such as: acquiring firearms/ small arms trouble-free.

Rather than argue about if people kill people or guns kill people, a better approach to simplify the prevention of gun violence is the philosophy that people with guns kill people (Cornell, D & Guerra, G.N 2013) or themselves. In 1970, a meta evaluation by Guze and Robins was released which showed that patients with chronic mental health illnesses had an increased risk of suicide by 15%. 17 studies of suicide in patients with “primary affective disorder” and finalised their study with the fact that 15% of depressed patients would die by self-annihilation.

20 years later, in 1990, Goodwin and Jamison added 13 more studies to duplicate Guze and Robin’s results, however they concluded that the rate of suicide in patients with depression had increased by 3.9% making the total of suicide 18.9%. The methods used by both reviews were equal in that they both had the same predictions and biases; these include: the patients used were both almost customised to have been patients who had been hospitalised. Another similarity was that most of their studies had the risk of suicide, follow-up timing of just a couple of years. These two problems as well as more, deformed and misrepresented the genuine risk of suicide in patients who suffered and experienced affective mental health disorders/ illnesses.

Another point to be made when talking about gun violence and mental health issues is the increased risk of mass shootings. Referring back to the media article for the mass shooting in Florida, the ‘March for Our Lives’ campaign, it would be appropriate to predict that people with mental health issues/ disorders could be the reason behind more mass shootings as such. Guns are quite easily accessible, especially in the country of the United States of America, therefore there is an acquired increased risk of more mass shootings if someone with a mental health disorder got access to the weapon. A breakdown of any kind is inevitable when suffering from a mental health issue, if guns were to be in the hands of someone so vulnerable, then anything or anyone could potentially trigger them and lead to that patient impulsively using the gun and causing a lot of bodily harm and bloodshed.

Conclusion

Based on a variety of studies done years apart, it is clear to conclude that violent video games do lead to an increase in unideal behaviour such as aggression in terms of “aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, empathy/ desensitization, and prosocial behaviour” (Anderson et al. 2010). Almost each method had the same aim and hypothesis, which was that violence displayed in video games would lead to increased aggressive behaviour in real life and majority of them were proved to be correct. However there were some limitations that were found, although they were impacted by a statement previously mentioned through the ‘Belief in a Dangerous World Theory’, that general crime will be determined on elements such as your location, what time it is during the day, along with other relevant factors (O’Brien, 2019).

Reflection

Prior to this assignment, I had already known that gun control and gun violence was, and is, a serious issue, especially in the United States of America. What I did not know was how serious of an issue it was. The ‘Belief in a Dangerous World Theory’ is something new that I had learnt through this unit, and it is something I can agree with as I share the unsettling belief that there are people out there in the world who will harm an individual/ individuals with no reasoning or vengeful motive behind their actions. It’s hard not to think that way when you hear and read about news around the U.S that report mass shootings at schools and other random acts of gun violence.

I think the problem requires extensive and deep observation and analysis of the different psychological components, and social and cultural situations and backgrounds, that eventually bring forth acts of aggression and violence via gun use.

My media article talks about a plan to raise the standards for gun ownership in America and decreasing the number of guns being operated. The article reports that many people describe themselves as pro- “gun safety”, instead of anti-gun. They present themselves as supporters of America’s second amendments, the right to bear arms. I find this this hard to believe, because if people were safe with guns then so many acts of violence and deaths would not occur. I think most gun owners use their guns more as a need for self-protection and self-confidence, however there is a thin line that exists between protecting themselves and using their weapons impulsively. Hence, reflecting the misunderstanding the concept from a psychological perspective.

References

1. Alpers, P., & Wilson, M. (2013, August 14). Global impact of gun violence: Firearms, public health and safety. Retrieved from http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region
2. Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Linz, D., . . . Wartella, E. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(3), 81–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2003.pspi_1433.x
3. Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., . . . Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151–173. doi:10.1037/a0018251
4. Bostwick, J. M., & Pankratz, V. S. (2000). Affective disorders and suicide risk: A reexamination. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(12), 1925–1932. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.157.12.1925
5. Brockmyer, J. (2015). Playing Violent Video Games and Desensitization to Violence. Child And Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics Of North America, 24(1), 65-77. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2014.08.001
6. Cook, C. L., Li, Y. J., Newell, S. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Neel, R. (2018). The world is a scary place: Individual differences in belief in a dangerous world predict specific intergroup prejudices. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(4), 584–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216670024
7. Coyne, S., Warburton, W., Essig, L., & Stockdale, L. (2018). Violent video games, externalizing behavior, and prosocial behavior: A five-year longitudinal study during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 54(10), 1868-1880. doi: 10.1037/dev0000574
8. Gentile, D., Anderson, C., Yukawa, S., Ihori, N., Saleem, M., & Lim Kam Ming et al. (2009). The Effects of Prosocial Video Games on Prosocial Behaviors: International Evidence From Correlational, Longitudinal, and Experimental Studies. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 752-763. doi: 10.1177/0146167209333045
9. Gitter, S., Ewell, P., Guadagno, R., Stillman, T., & Baumeister, R. (2013). Virtually justifiable homicide: The effects of prosocial contexts on the link between violent video games, aggression, and prosocial and hostile cognition. Aggressive Behavior, 39(5), 346-354. doi: 10.1002/ab.21487
10. Greitemeyer, T., & Mügge, D. (2014). Video Games Do Affect Social Outcomes. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(5), 578-589. doi: 10.1177/0146167213520459
11. Huesmann, L. (2010). Nailing the coffin shut on doubts that violent video games stimulate aggression: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 179-181. doi: 10.1037/a0018567
12. Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408–419. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408
13. Miller, S. L., Zielaskowski, K., & Plant, E. A. (2012). The Basis of Shooter Biases: Beyond Cultural Stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(10), 1358–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212450516
14. O’Brien, K. (2019). Gun Violence and Gun Control [Lecture Notes]. Retrieved from https://lms.monash.edu/course/view.php?id=54374§ion=4
15. Reich, K., Culross, P. L., & Behrman, R. E. (2002, Summer-Fall). Children, youth, and gun violence: analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 12(2), 5+. Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/apps/doc/A91086471/AONE?u=monash&sid=AONE&xid=1cc08ddd
16. Saleem, M., Anderson, C., & Gentile, D. (2012). Effects of Prosocial, Neutral, and Violent Video Games on College Students’ Affect. Aggressive Behavior, 38(4), 263-271. doi: 10.1002/ab.21427
17. Stroebe, W., Leander, N. P., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2017). Is It a Dangerous World Out There? The Motivational Bases of American Gun Ownership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(8), 1071–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217703952
18. Vernick, J. S., Teret, S. P., & Webster, D. W. (1997). Regulating firearm advertisements that promise home protection: A public health intervention. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(17), 1391–1397. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540410069033

Gun Control: The Wrong Approach To Decrease Gun Violence

I was born into a family where guns were prevalent. As expected, I grew up shooting firearms regularly. It became a game to see who was the best shot with the air rifle in the backyard and then eventually transfer to a competition at the shooting range. We would see who could shoot the farthest and who could hit the most targets, see who could shoot the fastest and the most accurate. Shooting was always fun, but before I ever even held a firearm I learned safety. I learned where the muzzle should always be pointing: down range. Also I learned about the safety on the firearm itself, and to never trust that it should work, but to always use it regardless if the gun is loaded or not. Shooting is and was a big part of my life. I did not grow up in fear of guns. I learned that inanimate objects did not have the capability to harm you by themselves. I still always use precaution, however, when using them. I understand that accidents can happen, but most can be avoided. For instance my dad and I would hear about stories of people accidentally shooting their friends while putting on a deer drive. Accidents like these are easily avoidable. We make sure that every shot we take is a good shot, meaning that we know exactly what animal and exactly where we are hit that animal. Whether it be shooting for competition or hunting deer in the late fall, firearms are engraved into my life. A countless number of memories have been and will be made with firearms. Not only do I myself have a personal connection with firearms. Many more prior to me have had this same connection, and many more to come will have that same connection. Without firearms I would not be the same person I am today, and restricting law abiding citizens, like myself, from owning and using them is the wrong approach to decreasing gun violence.

In recent times many disputes have occured, one being guns. Media conveys their views on guns by providing their customers with all of the horrifying things done with guns, like school shootings, rather than showing a dad and son making lasting memories while competing at a shooting range. A hate for firearms has erupted due to this. Consequently, people are pushing for more gun control without being aware of the current gun laws, and the people creating these laws are not educated in how firearms work or on the benefits the have. Gun control is an ineffective way to attempt and reduce gun violence within a community. A more effective way to deal with gun violence would be gun safety.

Laws can be put into place and then can just as easily be broken. Firearms, legal and non legal, are prevalent throughout this entire nation and to even think that it would be possible to rid the United States of all firearms is foolish. To put guns into perspective, we can simple look at something widespread in this country: alcohol. Although the problem with alcohol is, in itself, it’s own problem, there are many comparisons to be made between alcohol and firearms due to the prevalence of both of them. As you may recall from history the government attempted to fix the problem of alcohol embedded within our country by prohibiting alcohol. You may also recall that this failed horribly (O’Neill). With guns being extremely common, much like alcohol, increasing gun control would increase the problem of gun violence. Also, just like there is illegal alcohol, there are illegal guns on the streets, and they are also prevalent (O’Neill). No matter what laws are put into place, they are bound to fail when dealing with a major topic, especially something as big as guns.

Getting rid of guns or enacting laws to prohibit law abiding citizens from obtaining them is not a viable solution to the violence within the United States. However teaching society about gun safety is a much better approach. With increasing suicide rates gun safety would work to decrease these rates. For example, “About two-thirds of these gun-related deaths are suicides¨ (“Gun Control”). One may be questioning why so many of these people have access to guns, but the real problem is that some of these people did not have the understanding of gun safety and they were clearly in need of help. If perhaps these people had been educated with the consequences that a gun can pose, then maybe some would still be here today.

Gun safety can be and should be applied to all aspects of life. Classes on gun safety could teach students to be aware of the fact that there is no respawning in life, unlike in violent video games. Students should also be educated by their family about gun safety. While “more gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths” (ProCon). Accidental deaths are, perhaps, one of the easiest to avoid, but gun control will not fix these accidents. Distributing gun safety would actually decrease a number problems associated with guns.

Gun safety could decrease the amount of crime that occurs with guns. Rather than gun control, addressing “… the educational, employment and family problems that are the root causes of crime¨ would be a much more effective program to decrease gun violence (Polsby). Addressing the causes of the crime rather than what is used in that crime will decrease gun violence (Polsby). This would be a major component of gun safety because people could be deterred from committing violent crimes if aware of gun safety.

Crime prevention is a key component in decreasing gun violence within a community. Gun ownership actually can deter criminals from committing crimes (LaCourse). For instance, when questioned, sixty percent of criminals stated that they feared an armed civilian over the police, and also fifty seven percent of criminals questioned said that they were scared off by an armed citizen (O’Neill). Gun ownership plays a significant role in crime prevention.

Gun control will not prevent crime and could, in turn, have damaging effects on criminal deterrence. Gun control would decrease the availability of guns to the public which would decrease the amount of crime deterrence (Polsby). Opposite to decreasing gun availability, areas with allowance of gun permits have “…a very strong relationship between issuing more permits and a further drop in violent crime” (O’Neill). With an increase of guns within a community there will actually be a decrease of violent crimes within that community. During the twentieth century gun ownership more than doubled and inversely the amount of murders decreased shortly after the increase in guns (Polsby). Gun control is again an ineffective way to deal with gun violence.

Regardless of any attempts to end violence from occurring, there will always be some people that will break the law. These people are called criminals, and for good reason. Criminals commit crimes, and laws do not mean anything to them. Criminals will break the laws of gun control, because laws do not apply to them (O’Neill). No matter the laws, there will always be criminals, and that is something we have to accept. Just like how gun control laws fail to deter crime they also “… will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws ¨ (ProCon). Laws affect law abiding citizens, and do not affect criminals. Therefor gun control laws will only hurt the good people of the community.

Gun control laws have failed to prevent crime and also deter criminals, and a perfect example of this failure would be Chicago. Chicago is a city known for crime, but what makes it unique are the gun control laws in place. Not only do they have laws on guns, but they actually banned things like “…gun shops, shooting ranges, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines” (ProCon). Many people would find this a beneficial law added to decrease crime rates in Chicago, however it does not work. For instance, “… in 2014 Chicago had 2,089 shooting victims” (ProCon). Gun control is proven to have failed and Chicago is just one example of its’ failure. Another region that would surprise most people to have have strict gun laws is Mexico. In fact Mexico has one the most rigid set of gun control laws in the world, but like Chicago these gun control laws fail. Just in one year alone Mexico had over eleven thousand murders involving guns (Rogers). Gun control laws are an ineffective way to decrease gun violence and areas with strict gun control laws still have gun violence.

In contrary to areas that have strict gun laws, there are places with much less laws and with more gun ownership but have less crime. These areas are clearly handling the issue of gun violence much better than others. One area in the world that is like this is Israel. Unlike Mexico, Israel has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. They actually have forty percent less murder than that of Canada, and Canada has a very low gun ownership (O’Neill). By observing multiple areas with and without gun control it can be concluded that gun control is ineffective in reducing gun violence.The difference between places like Chicago and places like Israel is simple: less gun control and more gun ownership.

The Reasons And Solutions For Mass Violence In Public Schools

Why do we have school shootings? What can we do to prevent it from happening? One of the first mass school shootings that happened on April 9,1891, at St. Mary’s Parochial School, Newburgh, New York., 1891. When James Foster fired a gunshot at a group of students causing minor injuries to several of the students. School shootings are known to happen when someone wants to get back at whomever hurt them, Otherwise, if a kid gets picked on, make fun of, or bully on will make a kid feel as if they’re no value to life.

In the United State, on April 20,1999, Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, two students killed 12 classmates and one teacher. The State and federal governments responded as quickly as they can for the Columbine shooting they ended up investing in visible security measures such as school resource officers, metal detectors, and surveillance equipment. Having school officers helps substantially because it lets kids know that there will always be someone there to help immediately if something was to ever happen. Having Metal Detectors is a controversial move. The Metal Detectors is there to keep schools safe “…stationary metal detectors used on a daily basis are typically limited to large urban school districts with a chronic history of weapons-related offenses.”(National School Safety and Security Services), This fact shows that their a lot of problems concerning large urban school districts and their safety. Students come from different backgrounds, and end up mix into one committee, and they all have adapted to each other, and some students has a hard time doing that and that’s why schools need mental health servers within the school system so children can have someone to talk to when they need it. Mental health, matters in school because “…1 in 5 children and youth have a diagnosable emotional, behavioral or mental health disorder and 1 in 10 young people have a mental health challenge that is severe enough to impair how they function at home, school or in the community.” Mental health starts at home as the child grows up. Only 40 percent of students with emotional behavioral problem graduates from high school and children with behavioral disabilities ages 14 and older dropout of high school. This is one of the main reasons we need Mental health services. Kids need to have someone to talk to that they trust, so they don’t need up doing someone with anger like cutting their self or shooting up their schools. Students with positive constraints incorporate academic success has peers and adult relationships, adults that support them. As for Student that don’t have support in there live develop patterns of aggressive behavior due to anger or resentment towards others.

The National Education Association, focus on mental health within the school setting and mental health counselors. Throughout their process they recognize that the majority of people struggling with a mental illness is not dangerous, mental health treatment can help prevent gun violence for many individuals. The United State’s plan is to first address a gun violence problem. There has been “comprehensive” school safety plans that happened over the last 20 years. Some has effectively and thoroughly addressed the issue common in all school shootings but not all. The gun violence prevention solutions work hand in hand with school to ensure that school shootings do not happen. In schools before a school shooting occurs, students usually know who will shoot up the school because of the behavior of that student. Students in America, today wants to stop this problem by making sure teams are not alone. On the PBS News Hours Extra teens talk about what they would do to prevent school shootings happening and one that really popped out to me was by Aaron a 12th grade in Alexandria, Indiana. This young man talks about how he is a proud supporter to own a firearm but then goes back and say firearm, not weapon. He’s reason for saying that is because he feels unsafe knowing that someone can walk into his school at any time and let off there forearmed. The question should schools allow having an armed policemen on school property to help prevent school shootings from happening? From my point of view it do not help prevent school shootings because students come from different backgrounds as stated before and that could lead to having lots of problems in the school community. Not every child thinks that Cops keeps them safe and that’s one of the main reasons why policeman’s should not be allowed to be armed on school property. According to The Trace “ The only thing that storms a bad guy with guns is a good guy with a gun.’’ I disagree with the statement because this idea telling students that the only thing that can stop violence is with violence. And is telling students that if they want to feel safe, they have to bring a gun or any form of weapon to stop a bad guy and this is not helping prevent school shooting . “In 2003, more than $350 million in funding was made available for public K-12 schools to purchase security technology through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after schools were identified as potential sites for terrorist attacks.” and after that “Another senseless tragedy occurred on December 14, 2012, when a gunman entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 26 children and educators. Soon after, the Connecticut Legislature passed new safety laws that appropriated $42 million for security grants to Connecticut schools.” The United State is focused on hiring security for schools but, what they need to focus on are the children mental health because that’s where violence begin. Children don’t need officers to feel safe they need somebody to talk to, they need to know that someone’s on their side and that their here for them when they need help, someone they can go just to talk about there day and that’s what schools should be focused on having concealer for students to talk to when they need to. President Trump says he’s determined to put an end to school shootings in the U.S. but what are his plans. Trump allowed school teachers to carry concealed weapons in the classroom. Now, this idea is a bad move just like students, teachers could easily pull out a gun if they feel treated in any sort of way. Just because a teacher is older and more muchier does no mean that they won’t pull out a gun if they feel threatened in any sort of way. “Most law enforcement experts argue that teachers should not carry guns. Civilians may be able to hit a bull’s-eye at the shooting range, but they lack the tactical knowledge of handling weapons that trained law enforcement personnel get. Accidents happen. Guns can fall out of holsters, be taken from the classroom or accidentally discharge.

“You don’t want to have a gun that’s available to a student or another worker who may have mental health issues,” said Maureen S. Rush, vice president for public safety and superintendent of the Police Department at the University of Pennsylvania.”(The New York Times In The Headlines School Shootings How Can We Stop Them? Page 145). This is a great fact because it’s tell the truth. If we allow teachers with mental health issues to have a gun in schools there would be a greater risk of have a shooting happen at school. Naomi Wadler organized a walk out on March 14, to impact her city after the Stoneman shooting the first time she asked the principal he turned her down because she needed parental supervision and that did not stop her from making her movement Naomi Wadler fought for what she believed in and the walkout happened Wadler ended up get over 2,500 students and teachers across America to participate in the national school walkout. (Glimmer of Hope by the founders of Marsh for our Lives page 141). This shows that students wants to make a change within the school system to make it safe for students but they need help to do so and that’s where the concealer will come in. After one of the deadliest school shooting in at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, got an email from Shane Jimerson, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara and email was about preventing gun violence in the United States. Their message was “Don’t harden schools. Make them softer, by improving social and emotional health.” This was a start of a plan to prevent gun violence in schools. The first step was “School climate may sound fuzzy or abstract.” and that means that the schools community has to be strong when it comes to relationships with the students and the adults in a school. Then second step is to cut down on violence. “The role of the witness.” If you see something do something don’t let it grow into a fight when you have to power to stop it from happening and, after that all you would need is in emergency mode if someone brings a weapon to school or talking about violence. The Call For Action To Prevent Gun Violence in the United States Of America was created by Shane Jimerson the steps that she came up with are “A national requirement for all schools to assess school climate and maintain physically and emotionally safe conditions and positive school environments that protect all students and adults from bullying, discrimination, harassment, and assault;” I believe that this is one of the first step that the United States should take because not only its focus on there safety they focus on the emotion of the students and the staff.

On May 21, 2018, Chip Grabow and Lisa Rose from CNN made a chart on what countries has the most a less school shootings and America came out to having the most worldwide but why what is the difference between other countries like The United States, Canada, Brazil and Japan.

Seen 2009 to 2018 the United States had over 288 school shootings as for Canada they had 2 school shootings over that time period. Why is that? Canada’s government is uninterested in finding innovative solutions to gun violence because they believed that it will help decrease school shootings. The way Canada prevent school shooting is by the local level and things that can be done by the Federal Government. At the Local level mass school shootings could have been prevented because the warning signs were obvious but no one stopped them and at the Federal level they could have help with stricter gun control laws but they made it clear that they would not help.

Brazil also has 2 school shootings over the timeline between 2009 and 2018. In 2003 a disarmament law effectively prevented most Brazilians from buying guns and is was the first action to prevent school shootings. The disarmament law was a requires citizens who want to purchase a gun to prove that they need it and to get the police to agree. After two former pupils killed five teenagers. Brazilian wanted the country’s firearms laws to be relaxed. The Brazilian are debating on getting rid of the gun laws but they think it’s going to keep them safe but they have to realize that if they get rid of the gun laws there allowing cicaplast the permission to have a gun. That would be putting kids in harm way. There mother or father will have to be afraid for their children every time they leave the house. Today Brazil Government Doubles Down on Pro-Gun Stance After School Shooting and this happened because of one of the worst school shooting that they had.

Japan has a one school shooting within the time 2009 to 2018 and this is how. “Japan has a long list of tests that applicants must pass before gaining access to a small pool of guns.” this shows that Japan is very serious when it comes to guns. In Japan the law no one can get a gun or a sword without passing the test. Because of those law japan see about 10 gun death throw out each year. “If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test.” this is a good idea because before someone own a gun they need to know how to use it. Japan also has a role of trust that can’t be broken.

Mass violence in public schools needs to stop. Every time theres a school shooting we lose a dear friend or someone that we love. When we look back at the countries they all have to do it laws and the government. Which means those are the things that we need to fix in order to stop mass violence in schools. Just like in Canada one of the steps should be demanding what you want to the government. The thing that we should demand of people to take classes on guns if they want to owner a gun. Although people have a right to own a gun that’s also what’s putting people in danger. People think you can fight guns with guns but what is the point of killing people when you can use your words and talk it out. The only reason someone would need a gun is if someone is on the run from someone whos trying to kill them. When that law passed there would be no reason for the police to have guns because there would be no guns in the street which makes America a better place to live because its getting rid of police portaddly. The only reason a police officer should have a gun on them is if they got a call that something is dangerous.

The Relation Of Gun Ownership And Violence

If indeed guns do not kill, then why do mass killers have to arm themselves with guns? As a mother and concerned citizen, I feel that the government ought to take action to end the unnecessary loss of innocent lives we tragically lose every day. Gun ownership and violence has been a controversial issue in the US for centuries. Approximately 40% of Americans own guns or live in households with deadly weapons (Legault, Hendrix, and Lizotte, 2019). The US is the leading country globally in civilian gun ownership. The number Americans who own guns is twice the number of Yemenis who own firearms, yet Yemen comes second globally in the list of countries with the most civilian-owned guns (Luca, Malhotra and Poliquin, 2019). Although almost half the number of homesteads in the US have access to firearms most of them buy weapons for protection. Cases of manslaughter and murder by firearms are highest in the country. Currently, 73% of gun-related killings in the US are homicides and since 1982, there have been more than 110 mass shootings in the US (Luca, Malhotra and Poliquin, 2019). The issue of gun violence is no longer an ordinary discussion but an epidemic we must put a stop to.

Gun violence and ownership has been one of the greatest challenges in the US (Legault, Hendrix, and Lizotte, 2019). In 2015, there were 36,252 gun related deaths in the US (Legault, Hendrix, and Lizotte, 2019). In 2016, the number increased to 37,200 while in 2017, 39,773 people lost their lives from gun related injuries (Legault, Hendrix, and Lizotte, 2019). The number of firearm deaths has been increasing gradually in the US. Texans comprise millions of Americans who suffer greatly from gun violence. Two-thirds of the total number of homicides in the state are committed with guns (Luca, Malhotra and Poliquin, 2019). In 2016, Texas ranked twenty seventh in the US regarding gun related deaths (Luca, Malhotra and Poliquin, 2019). The state recorded 3,353 firearm deaths. Unfortunately, 85% of the guns which were used to commit the crimes came from within the state. In 2017, the number of firearm deaths in the state increased to 3,513 (Luca, Malhotra and Poliquin, 2019). Of course, there are other states like Alaska, Louisiana, and Alabama with higher rates of firearm violence than Texas. Nevertheless, every American life matters.

Honorable Vela, everyone is tired of watching too many people dying in Texas. The status quo in the state is a despicable one. Unfortunately, the situation continues to deteriorate, and the government ought to act. I believe the deadly shooting rampage which occurred on September 1st, 2019 ought to be an eye opener to the seriousness of gun violence in the state of Texas. The mass shooting in Midland-Odessa in which a man in his 30s shot dead seven people and left 21 others with serious injuries has raised a lot of questions (Newman and Hartman, 2019). Texans feel that the state and the local government have failed in their task to protect the people of Texas from harm. What disheartens even more is the fact that the September 1st shooting came exactly one month after another deadlier shooting. The August 3rd mass shooting inside Walmart in El Paso Texas in which 20 people died while 26 others survived with serious injuries remains one of the most fatal in the history of Texas and the US (Newman and Hartman, 2019). For how long will the state and local government continue watching irresponsible gun handlers end Texans’ lives so immaturely?

I understand that the Second Amendment of the US constitution constitutes the nation’s Bill of Rights which protects every American right to hold and bear arms (Luca, Malhotra and Poliquin, 2019). Of course, nothing cements the unity of any country’s citizens like the laws which protect their rights (Newman and Hartman, 2019). Even so, the open-ended nature of Amendment II makes it one of the most contested ordinances in the US Bill of Rights. What makes Americans situation even more unfortunate is that even the Fifth Amendment to the US constitution which also constitutes the Bill of Rights has failed to curb the menace of gun violence in the US. The bill which enumerates key personal liberties protects people from answering for capital or other forms of infamous crimes, unless in an accusation of a Grand Jury (Luca, Malhotra and Poliquin, 2019). The two bills which ought to protect American lives from harm have exposed them to more danger. Surprisingly, most legislators contribute to the failure of constituents’ security. They show strange laxity in enacting laws that can protect Texans for such unnecessary deaths. For instance, Texan legislators passed Senate Bill 535 which allows residents of the state to carry protective guns to places of worship like churches and synagogues almost two years after the mass shooting in Sutherland Springs Church on November 5th, 2017 (Luca, Malhotra and Poliquin, 2019). Texan legislators showed negligence even though 26 people died, and 20 others survived with wounds. Besides, there are occasions when Texan legislators have passed bills which subtly promote gun violence instead of curbing the menace. The Texan Senate Bill 741 which prohibits associations of property owners from banning the storage of guns in rental houses is such an example.

Congressman Vela, I have been one of your greatest supporters since 2013. I believe in your potential and your willingness to work for the people of Texas, for the betterment of the state. There is a need for you to push for the review of gun control laws in Texas. I humbly request that you advocate for the enactment of the Universal Background Checks law. I hope you understand that there is a dangerous loophole in the federal laws which still pardons unlicensed gun sellers from running background checks on potential gun buyers before issuing firearms (Legault, Hendrix, and Lizotte, 2019). It is as a result of such laws that the number of homicide cases have dramatically increased in our state. Therefore, I feel it would be unthoughtful for us to seek solution from the federal government. Maybe we could begin by passing the Universal Background Check bill or come up with another bill which approximates it. I believe the federal government would join us in bettering the situation after they see our efforts. Moreover, elections are nearing, and I believe that if you make a move to pass laws which can end gun violence in Texas, your efforts will no doubt work in your favor. Already, 90% of Americans, support the Universal Background Checks bill (Legault, Hendrix, and Lizotte, 2019). It is your time to show your potential by advocating for the enactment of the bill in Texas. I feel it is one of the most reliable approaches which if implemented, can keep firearms away from dangerous hands? Yes, we can. Majority of Republican legislators have been skeptical about the bill (Luca, Malhotra and Poliquin, 2019). Nevertheless, be your people’s mouthpiece. Make the legislators who oppose the matter understand that the issue is not about politics but the safety of Texans.

References

1. Legault, R. L., Hendrix, N., & Lizotte, A. J. (2019). Caught in a crossfire: Legal and illegal gun ownership in America. In Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 533-554). Springer, Cham.
2. Luca, M., Malhotra, D., & Poliquin, C. (2019). The impact of mass shootings on gun policy (No. w26187). National Bureau of Economic Research.
3. Newman, B. J., & Hartman, T. K. (2019). Mass shootings and public support for gun control. British Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 1527-1553.