Category: Gun Control

Introduction

It is always puzzling to see a person released from prison repeat the crime for which he/she was convicted, or any other for that matter. Whether prison for such a person is paradise or not, is the big question whose answer is emphasized here.

Many argue that prisons are not stringent enough, but availability of the means of which these offenders commit the crimes; firearms, is a factor one cannot downplay. Others argue that crime has to do with psychology and the approach to this issue has to be from a psychological point of view.

Moreover, others still suggest genetic makeup of an individual has a role to play. Nevertheless, the degree to which each factor contributes to the whole issue is paramount; hence, the medium by which most of these crimes are committed is a critical issue.

The readily available firearms, which are easily accessible to both first time and repeat offenders arguably, constitute the biggest factor in the prevalence of crime. Lack of good gun control policies increases the prevalence of firearms. As will be illustrated, the rate of gun-related crimes involving repeat offenders and gun control regulations are closely related. Is it then possible to curb repeat offenders by enforcing strict gun control legislations?

Repeat Offenders and Crime

The current statistics in crime give shocking revelations. A tremendously high percentage of crimes are committed by a very small percentage of criminals. In fact, repeat offenders commit up to 90 percent of all crimes. It is a common trend that, over 60 percent of persons released from prison are re-arrested for serious crimes within a period of three years.

The justice system seems to defend the criminal and neglect the victim. Would it not be better for the system to keep a repeat offender off the streets, rather than allowing such an individual back into the society to repeat the same crimes? With a conviction rate of over 95 percent, one then begs the question why they go back to their crimes.

More shocking is the fact that some commit felonies while on probation. This indicates presence of some factors, which encourages such an occurrence. Of all crimes committed in 2008, 67 percent were committed using firearms. Therefore, the concept of their control is of great importance if the government is serious in combating crime.

In 2005 alone, around ten thousand people died of gun related violence with over four hundred and fifty thousand falling victims of crimes of similar nature. Most homicides, where guns are used, are related to arguments and other family issues.

Quite a high number is not preplanned, an indication that a person with poor anger management is more like to commit a crime, whether or not that individual has done it before, provided a gun is within reach. Moreover, homicide is not the only crime ‘easy’ to commit with a firearm; rapes, robberies and assault are more tempting for repeat offenders as long as one is armed.

Gun Control

Politics in states with high crime rates surround the issue of gun control, creating a perception that stricter regulations increase the rates. Nevertheless, Lester and Murrell argue that, “states with stricter handgun laws in 1968 were shown to have lower suicide rates by firearms both in 1960 and 1970” (131).

Gun control needs to be enforced comprehensively if it is going to be of any impact in mitigating crime. This would require an approach from all perspectives. The minimum age at which an individual can posses and own a gun should be specified. In addition, legislations on storage conditions are necessarily to minimize access of firearms to children.

A considerable number of repeat offenders are juveniles and such a step would be helpful. The manner in which the guns are sold is another critical aspect in their regulation. The owners need to be licensed after the issuance of firearms with the period before obtaining them extended. It would even be better if the licenses were to be renewed after a certain period, not long, after the owners profile for the period of possession strictly scrutinized.

This would force gun owners to adhere to such regulations, as it would be mandatory to be responsible in maintaining a firearm. Making records available would make it possible to restrict persons with criminal history from accessing firearms. Over 50 percent of firearms used in gun-related crimes are obtained from friends or family, a clear indication of how unsafe the guns are in the custody of those who legally own them.

This however, would not entirely be the solution since criminals can still access firearms from the black market. The idea is to block all the avenues through which guns can reach the wrong hands, strict regulations being just one of them. Safety training prior to any firearm purchase for the buyer will also come in handy. This would lower the risk of the guns getting on the wrong hands. Specifying who gets what kind of firearm is also vital.

Conclusion

Whether or not gun control would lower crime rates, especially with repeat offenders, is out of question. School shootings need not to escalate any further for all to see the essence of gun control. It is clear that the prevalence of firearms in the society is directly proportional to the crime rates at any given instance.

It would cost less to enforce gun control regulations than to constantly convict repeat offenders and withstanding the worst of their crimes. However, gun control may not be the ultimate solution to reduce gun-related crime, neglecting other factors would obscure its benefits.

Works Cited

Lester, David, and Murrell Mary. “The Preventive Effect of Strict Gun Control Laws on Suicide and Homicide.” Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior 12.3 (1986): 131-40. Print.

Gun control is a complex issue that should be addressed to professionals and the government to provide citizenship with safety. It is known that the arbitrary usage of the weapon brings irrecoverable losses and undermines the confidence in safe living. Misuse of firearms is a frequent problem in many areas of the U.S., and it might require strict control (Furlong & Kraft, 2020). Two think tank positions aim to figure out the situation with gun control. It is essential to examine the most persuasive standpoint, which is theoretically and practically compatible.

The first strategy of the Heritage Foundation involves a chain of subsequent actions. It states that there is a necessity to identify specific problems to address; these issues should include safety in schools, weapon misuse, and psychological struggles (Furlong & Kraft, 2020). It is known that many crimes are committed in schools and universities of the U.S., and offenders often have mental issues. Weapon crimes might happen because of improper provision of information about gun misuse. Moreover, students and underage people may not realize the consequences of using the gun; they can perceive it as a game. Furthermore, schools and universities often lack proper safety systems that protect people from terrorist acts. This standpoint strives to determine possible solutions when specific issues are identified. Counting costs and losses is crucial, as a theoretical strategy might not correlate with the actual actions needed (Furlong & Kraft, 2020). Therefore, the approach makes it more realistic to ensure actual financial costs for safety provision. Finally, the think tank will involve solutions following the U.S. law system and the Constitution to avoid legal struggles.

The second point of view of the Center for American Progress involves actual statistics about weapon misuse in the U.S. There are more than 30,000 crimes with fatal endings that happen annually in America (Furlong & Kraft, 2020, p. 126). The Center for American Progress offers to identify potentially dangerous people and confiscate the gun in them. Indeed, it is relatively hard to complete in the existing reality. It is doubtful whether the professionals will come to the house of the potential offender and take the gun away. Instead, the investigation would start after the criminal committed the offense. The standpoint also strives to determine domestic abusers and people with complicated or criminal backgrounds, including gun owners. In general, victims of domestic abuse do not address the police or governmental structures, as they are scared of the following violence. Probably, it is necessary to identify whether the person has mental issues or psychological trauma and prove it in a specialized place. However, the think tank position does not refer to any subsequent and accurate actions to identify potential offenders and make the life of the citizenship safer.

Overall, the Heritage Foundation’s stance is more persuasive for several reasons. It offers precise measures to recognize criminal offenders and matches its actions with the criminal law of the U.S. Moreover, the estimation of costs and losses makes the strategy more reliable. Accordingly, the determination of young offenders is crucial, as the first think tank point offers. Juvenile crimes take a special place in the criminal law, and it is necessary to prevent children from doing offenses as soon as possible through the legal system and psychological consultations. Therefore, the strategy of the Heritage Foundation seems to be solid due to the abovementioned factors.

Reference

Furlong, S. R., & Kraft, M. E. (2020). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives (7th ed.). CQ Press.

Written by Benjamin Domenech, the article, “The truth about a mass shooting and the gun control”, unravels the mysteries behind mass shootings and the ever-controversial topic of gun control. Gun control defines the regulation of who can sale, own, and/or use a gun. Domenech strongly opposes the killing that happened at Sandy Hook Elementary school; however, he does not support the gun control campaign.

He is opposed to the politicking of the issue to bring back the gun-control movement that existed in the 1990s. He further points out the ruling of the Supreme Court in the District of Colombia, which gave the right to individuals to own arms. The changing of the Second Amendment according to the author will deny the American people the right to own arms for the purpose of self-defense.

He feels that politicians take advantage of the current situation to voice their opinions; for instance, Obama used the issue during the 2012 presidential elections. The media has been blamed at large for exaggerating the occurrence and coverage of mass murder events, thus overstepping their rights to report. Christopher Uggen compares mass execution to a deadly disease that is much feared, but the effects are not so devastating.

Domenech also blames politicians due to their role in blowing the debate on gun control out of proportion. Domenech strongly believes that crimes involving guns have decreased while there is an increase in gun ownership. Using statistical data, he points out that crime rates involving guns have dropped drastically even with increase private gun ownership. Critique

The article is well balanced, and even though the author is against gun control, he is indifferent in his arguments. The route to mass slaying typically involves geezer hood of disappointment and nonstarter, which produce a “mixture of profound hopelessness and deep-seated resentment. Socially or psychologically isolated, mass murderers lack emotional support and encouragement from any person” (Domenech 26).

In most instances, mass shooters are very specific to their targets. Sometimes their grudge is directed to a class of masses such as “feminists, minorities, or immigrants who are believed to be stealing all the good job opportunities” (Domenech 26). If mass shootings were viewed through the lenses of a breakdown in relation to thought or emotion, then one would expect to find extreme mental illness in many mass murder cases.

Had these people been successful in their educational or career pursuits or “benefited from a strong support network comprised of family and close friends, then their professed mental illness would have been manifested in far less violent ways” (Domenech 27).

It would be unfortunate if people were to draw conclusions based on mass shootings due to mental sicknesses and the breakdown between thought, as such is a significant risk of exposure for such acts of fury. The situation would deteriorate further if the society became worried about the mentally challenged individuals. On the contrary, society should be worried about losers and lone wolfs.

Showing affection and understanding to such people may significantly assist these undeniable sociopaths to come to terms with reality and live normal lives, and perhaps avert other shooting sprees in the future. Risks by the writer

Domenech takes a risk by choosing to talk on a controversial topic like mass shooting and gun control. This topic is litigious as liberals and conservatives create sharp divisions in terms of handling the situation. In addition, the author chooses risky words like the “truth”. Conventionally, topics like this one do not have “one-fits-all” answer, but Domenech chooses to take this risk in a bid to win the attention of the potential audience to his abstract thinking.

He starts by lambasting both liberals and conservatives by noting that none of their suggestions towards curbing the issue of mass shooting has hitherto worked. He also berates the general population by noting that anytime an incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting happens, people come out raging that “something” has to be done, only to fizzle out immediately after their emotions wane.

In addition, the writer risks by noting that politicians politicize incidences like ‘Sandy Hook’s shooting’ in a bid to appeal to the masses’ emotions and thus win elections without seriously considering the outcome of such emotional appeals.

Domenech, just like McGinty, Webster, and Barry (499), chides the media by noting that it makes unnecessary noise concerning mass shootings without hard evidence on the current trends, which is a critical risk for such an article.

As aforementioned, Domenech’s article is risky due to the controversy surrounding the topic of choice. In addition, the author spurs the controversy further by using provocative language with deliberately chosen words to kindle the audience. Throughout the paper, Domenech uses “unconventional” words, which would not fit in traditional genres of writing.

For instance, he notes that the call to impose gun control is normally based on “emotion not reason” and this stance might provoke the audience, especially conservatives who push for such policies.

Domenech further likens the calls on gun control to “choruses” promoted by leftists, who in their minds think that such refrains will override constitutional provisions for people to have guns for self-defense. He uses words like “comic loophole” to underscore how absurd some suggestions can become like Feinstein’s proposal to rename firearms in a bid to fit the ‘illegal’ definition.

Also, Domenech takes a different approach to the way he addresses those that support gun control. He speaks plainly when reacting to Piers Morgan’s allegations that mass shootings are rampart in the US due to the Americans’ gun compulsions. Domenech forthrightly tells Morgan to “turn an eye” towards his country, the United Kingdom, and see the mess that gun control has created.

Traditionally, writers generalized arguments and a conventional writer would not have remonstrated Morgan for his seemingly misinformed opinions on the American matters. Domenech raises issues with the presumption that all murders happening across the United States involve a gun. Finally, the author uses tone as a risky element in his article.

Right from the beginning, it is clear that Domenech does not support the issue of gun control and the reader can tell that from the start of the paper.

This aspect is risky because a pro-gun control reader is likely to dismiss the article as a ‘liberal’ piece trying to propagate the seemingly inexcusable ‘license’ to kill more Americans by liberalizing the ownership of guns. Nevertheless, as explained in the next section, Domenech is quick to counter any risk posed by his stand on the gun ownership issue.

The writer manages his risks by presenting facts. For instance, he notes that those chorusing for the resurrection of the 1990s gun restrictions always forget the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling, which quoted the Second Amendment’s provision for individuals to own guns. In addition, Domenech quotes opinion polls that highlight the American’s skepticism on the calls to control gun usage and ownership.

The author also tracks the history of mass shooting from the 1930s to the present time and notes that the incidences have reduced significantly. Domenech also manages his risks by giving real examples of new legislations, which are bound to fail due to ‘comical loopholes’; for instance, Senator Diane Feinstein’s bill, which proposes the outright banning of 120 noted small-arms.

This bill will violate the Fifth and the Fourth Amendments, which would undoubtedly tarnish the courts if it sails through.

Therefore, the author manages his risks carefully by using facts to back his arguments and providing alternatives to the conventional approaches to the issue at hand. He first presents the dominant issues before offering alternatives by being impartial. Therefore, he takes a balanced approach in presenting the dominant and alternative perspectives.

Once more, the writer uses his evidence-based arguments to control the risky path that he adopts in dealing with Piers Morgan’s sentiments. As opposed to Morgan who uses generalized data on mass shootings in the US, Domenech uses data from scholarly materials for comparative studies on mass shootings and violent crimes in the US and the UK.

He quotes Joyce Lee Malcolm, a distinguished law professor and the author of the masterpiece, Guns, and Violence – the English Experience. Domenech also uses numerous databased arguments and examples to underscore his thesis that private gun ownership somehow helped in curbing crime incidences in the US, for when more people acquired guns, crime rates dropped.

In a bid to counter the presumption that all murderers in the US use guns, Domenech notes that the discussion surrounding gun control outstandingly fails to address the nature of weapons involved in these crimes. He then goes into details to unlock the myths surrounding “assault weapons” by giving diverse descriptions of the different weapons available in the market.

The reader decides whether the writer’s choices are risky or not. In this case, being the reader, I decided that the writer made risky choices as aforementioned. The choice of words and the tone coupled with the outright approach to issues underscore the risks taken in this article.

However, the overall effect of risk-taking in this article is positive, and it works as the writer provokes the audience to think critically on the raised issues by using indifferent approaches to the argument. The risks were taken in this article point the audience to a data-based way of thinking, as opposed to emotional jitters, which normally erupt every time a mass shooting incident occurs in the US.

The hard evidence that gun control probably leads to higher crime rates with the case study of the UK should make pro-gun control activists rethink their agenda, which is one of the outstanding positive results of the risks taken in this paper.

Finally, the risk is worth taking as readers learn of a different way of addressing the issues surrounding mass shooting and gun control, as opposed to reacting emotionally whenever an incident occurs. The writer is trying to contribute to a new way of thinking concerning the highlighted issues by taking the aforementioned risks in this paper.

Works Cited

Domenech, Benjamin. “The truth about mass shootings and gun control.” Commentary 135.2 (2013): 25-29. Print.

McGinty, Emma, Daniel Webster, and Coleen Barry. “Effects of news media messages about mass shootings on attitudes toward persons with serious mental illness and public support for gun control policies.” American Journal of Psychiatry 170.1 (2013): 494-501. Print.

Present Appropriate and Effective Voice/Image/Ethos to Audience

When discussing gun control in Pennsylvania, I need to present myself in a way that would elicit trust from the readers. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge both points of view on the topic and provide evidence from reliable sources to support the thesis. For example, when arguing that there is a necessity for stricter firearm control in the state, I would offer the latest gun violence statistics. Specifically, I would note that the number of gun deaths in the state is still high, with 69 mass shootings taking place from 2014 through 2018 (Center for American Progress, 2019). Using these facts would allow me to depict myself as a knowledgeable writer who is familiar with the topic and has performed extensive research on it.

Use Effective Tone for Audience and Goals

It is also vital to ensure that after reading the article, the readers develop a feeling that gun violence is unfavorable and should be prevented. To evoke the needed emotions from the audience, I would emphasize the effect of lax gun control measures on children and families. I would use the official statistics to demonstrate how many young people under the age of 21 are killed with firearms and show the number of women killed by an intimate partner (Center for American Progress, 2019). Revealing the impact gun violence has on vulnerable populations is highly likely to elicit the desired emotional response.

Use Effective Style for Audience and Goals

For this paper, a persuasive style of writing is required. Therefore, I would employ several stylistic techniques to help persuade the readers and prompt a reaction from them. For example, I would use anaphora or epiphora for specific keywords, including the words “violence,” “death,” “kill,” and “gun.” As the first and last words of a sentence are more notable than those used in the middle, this would provoke the needed response from the audience.

Reference

Center for American Progress. (2019). Pennsylvania gun violence. Web.