Category: Gun Control

While considering the pro-gun side, one must take note that even though crime will always exist no matter where we go or what kind of laws a place may have, the least our country can do is try to show effort and concern by taking action in this problematic occurrence going on in the United States. Countries with restrictive gun control laws obtain lower homicide and suicide rates. We can use Finland as an example, which has the most gun ownership but they have extremely strict laws in order to get one, whereas in the United States we have an easy route in order to hold possession of a weapon. With stricter gun laws, provides a safer environment and regulates the distribution of guns and who holds possession of them. Even though there is always a chance that the gun may be placed in the wrong hand, with gun laws the chances will decrease and not everyone will be able to obtain a hand weapon. Adding on, it is important to take into counter the extreme fear that has come across Americans with the amount of gun violence occurring from state to state. Many people have developed anxiety whenever they go somewhere with a large number of crowds, or even simply just being in a classroom or dining in somewhere. The number of shootings we see taking place all throughout the country from news outlets and on social media begins to evoke emotional distress. It is hard not to think about the nearest exit around, or exactly where one should hide if someone walks in with a gun; these things should be the last thing on one’s mind, especially in a school setting. According to Liam Stack, “ More than 5,000 readers wrote to tell us about the anxiety they felt while riding the subway, going to the movies, dropping their children off at school and attending religious services”. In addition, according to a newspaper article by Susan Paige and Marilyn Iceman, “Now nearly one in five, 19%, say they don’t feel safe at their school. One in four, 25%, say it’s very or somewhat likely that a classmate will bring a gun to school. Nearly one in seven, 15%, say it’s likely there will be shooting at their school”. In the article, the writers also incorporated quotes from students that express their feelings when they attend school. One of the students they have interviewed explained that “ ‘I watch over my shoulder because you never know,’ ” says Justin McDonnall, 17, a sophomore at North Central High School in Hymera, Ind”. It is truly unfortunate that the tolerant gun system that the United States has, has caused so many traumatic experiences that people feel unsafe just living their daily lives. One should not feel like they are not able to proceed in life with feeling unprotected and having anxiety when they go places; this takes emphasis on students attending school. As for parents, they should be able to drop their kids off at school, knowing they are in a safe place and not have to worry about whether their child is going to make it home or not. In order to come to terms with all that has occurred, both sides of the argument should come together and find the medium- gun control.

The lack of gun control that has caused serious and fatal effects to the United States, it has been due to the underlying issue of gun regulation. Just about anyone can purchase a gun despite the legal age laws. Just because the law requires one to be at least “at least 18 years of age to purchase shotguns or rifles and ammunition” does not mean that it is still safe for them to be purchasing a weapon. Adding on, today in America, buying a gun is way too easy for the damage that it can cause. Background checks here in America are too lenient to surpass and ultimately make the process of passing them extremely doable, even with those who have a criminal record. In selling guns, it is important to take into consideration who you are selling the guns to because “it isn’t only the guns, it’s the people who use them to commit the murders” according to Connors and Kelly as they write an article on gun reform. With the resistance of gun reform that America continues to dismiss “There is widespread support among Americans — Democrats, Republicans and gun owners alike — for a number of initiatives to curb gun violence they would like to see Congress pass” which is why gun control can be portrayed as one of the solutions to pleasing those who want some form of change to occur.

Adding on to the fight for gun control, many tourists normally do not feel that it is safe to travel to the U.S. in fear of a massive shooting taking place because of our gun laws. With news outlets portraying all the criminal violence going on that stems from gun accessibility, many people second guess about visiting the United States. Sadly, because we have so many massive shootings that happen per year, it becomes associated with the United States; this makes people scared to come and visit the U.S. because of the gun violence that we are known for. In an article, Nomadic Matt addresses the issue about the refinement people have in visiting the United States due to the excessive amount of violence arousing from the U.S. In the article, the writer proclaims that we have “The US has the highest rate of death by guns in the developed world (outside of war zones, of course), we have nearly the highest incarceration rate in the world, hate crimes have gone up since the election, and we average roughly one mass shooting five out of every six days (and 90% of the mass shootings in the world happen here)…And when these incidents and attitudes are projected around the world in conjunction with our recent political strife, it creates the perception of the United States as a dangerous and unwelcoming place”. Through this article, it is evident to say that because of the excessive amount of gun violence happening around the country, many people have adapted a nervous and frightful feeling in coming to the United States. Movements such as the “March for our Lives” protest, it has sparked great publicity in the violence occurring in America because of violent gun usage. The outrage of gun violence, it has created an unfortunate image for America. People should be able to come and visit our country without feeling unsafe and on edge due to the lack of regulation we have for guns.

For those who are opposed to the idea of Gun control, they must understand that it is not taking away all of their guns or diminishing the second amendment, but it is rather the efficient way of balancing out the possession of guns and how one must obtain them. Politico Magazine addresses that “High-mindedly, Americans see themselves as locked into a perpetual stalemate over the meaning and limits of the Constitution’s guarantee of a right to bear arms”. Gun control can be seen as an effective way of understanding both sides of the aisle; giving those on one side the security they need, but also still letting those on the other side keep their freedom to bear arms. In doing so, those on the pro-gun side would just have to go through certain procedures in order to obtain their weapon, by the ability to have a gun would not be entirely diminished.

Aristotle, believed that to pursue happiness meant that if one is morally good then they are “striking a balance between two vices. You could have a vice of excess or one of the deficiencies”. Gun control can play an essential role between the two vices of lienantley having guns and taking away all possession of guns. With support from both vices, in order to obtain a moderate country and please each side gun control can be the ultimate solution to that by making sure that all steps are taken up properly to responsibly earn the ownership of a gun. Steps must include the proper age it takes to own a gun, and enhance careful observation by conducting in-depth background checks in order to ensure stable gun ownership.

Conclusion

As the recurring violence of guns causes deaths and massive shootings, it is our job as a country to help find a solution to the problem. With both sides of the argument being excessive, it is important to find the “Golden Mean” between the two as Aristotle would refer to it. In order to please both sides, but also find a cure to the problem, we must meet in the middle as a country and find the equilibrium between the two vices- gun control.

Although gun control seems positive and morally attractive at first glance, I assure you that when you look at the facts and solid evidence, you’ll see why it is logical not to implement US arms control laws. There are many reliable studies and real-world examples that show why arms control is not a much better alternative to strict weapon control. Strict rules on arms control take more people than they save, which is why it is so important. If you go beyond popular beliefs and prejudices and take the time to thoroughly examine gun control and find facts and evidence, you’ll see why gun control is not a good solution.

According to the New York Times, around 23% of people living in cities in the United States own a gun and about 56% of those living in rural areas. The actual number is estimated to be much higher because many states do not require the possession of a specific type of weapon. Which means there are many unregistered weapons. In fact, around 270 to 300 million cannons are in circulation in the United States. It’s almost a weapon for every American citizen. From this, we can conclude that arms control affects many people.

One of the main mistakes of gun control is the fact that criminals always find a way to get weapons. ‘The results of the murder suggest that when weapons are scarce, other weapons are replaced by killing,’ quotes a Harvard study. If a person is motivated enough, he will find a way, and we have already found that there are about 300 million weapons in the United States, so finding a way is not too difficult.

Removing weapons would only disarm law-abiding citizens and expose them to criminal attacks. ‘Weapons control laws ensure that thieves and bad people who want to defeat them are defenseless,’ said Earl Bumpkin, author of the pentagram. People may argue that we have police who protect us. The problem is that the police can’t be everywhere at the same time. In fact, they may be quite far from the crime scene. The average police response time is about ten minutes, but it is known to take more than 20 minutes in some areas. A lot can happen between 10 and 20 minutes. People can die, businesses can be robbed, cars can be stolen, and many other events can take place. Therefore, citizens should be armed.

FBI reports show that the number of violent crimes has fallen since 2007. Despite the ongoing debate on arms control. Interestingly, gun ownership increased at the same time. The growing number of weapons can actually lead to a lower crime rate. For example, if you look at a place like Russia, a country that has very strict weapons regulations for its citizens. Despite the laws on weapons, they have a very high crime rate, perhaps even because of them. The more citizens have guns, the less likely they are to commit a crime. An armed population is much more dangerous to criminals than unarmed.

Another reason for the lack of control over weapons is the second change. ‘You cannot violate a well-regulated militia, necessary for the security of a free state and the right of citizens to hold and carry weapons.’ Let’s sum it up. When the founding fathers spoke of ‘well-regulated militia,’ they meant that US citizens should be armed and ‘necessary for the security of a free state.’ They should be armed to protect themselves against criminals and potential government tyrants. ‘The founders warned [people that the government does not limit the possession of weapons] … they knew that governments could turn against their people,’ said Glenn Beck. As a nation that has just separated from a government that has opposed its people, it makes sense to incorporate this amendment into the constitution and it is prudent to keep it now. It may seem absurd to think that the US government may be corrupt, but many governments in the past, so it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Some argue that weapons regulations such as ‘Stand Your Ground’ encourage people to shoot first and ask questions that lead to unnecessary murders. However, the lack of regulations such as ‘Stand your Ground’ would cause far more deaths. When people fall into life or death, they shouldn’t worry about breaking the law. ‘Citizens must be able to protect themselves without fear that self-defense is a legal issue.’ says Rich Morthland, a member of the Illinois House of Representatives. It would hesitate in a situation where nobody would allow it and do bad things. Even the police are learning not to hesitate in such situations.

It is also argued that loose weapon legislation makes it easier for criminals to obtain weapons. Although it’s true, this can’t be avoided. An alternative to ‘loose weapon control’ is strict weapon control, which means that only criminals have weapons (it is not known if the criminals follow the rules)

Having only criminals who have guns is a much worse alternative than criminals and citizens who have guns.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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

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.