Category: Gun Control

In the 2013 article “Preventing School Shootings Starts with Gun Safety at Home,” Richard Aborn made an effort to give society a better insight of how school and accidental home shootings are in fact preventable and more importantly, how they could be prevented with parents and the government simply increasing firearm education and taking precautions of the weapons owned and stashed throughout their homes. Most of the school shootings are done by people ranging between 12 and 20 years of age. The question is, “Where are minors getting access to these guns?” Here are three quick examples of school shootings just to show that there are patterns with almost all school shootings. For the first example, discussing the shooting that took place in Sparks, Nevada. October 21, 2013, Sparks Middle School faced a tragedy leaving the suspect and one teacher dead, and two classmates were injured. Jose Reyes, a 12-year-old student at the middle school planned to take revenge on the students who made his life hell. Reyes got this Rugger 9mm semiautomatic from home where it was stashed in the kitchen cabinet.

The next example will be the shooting that occurred at Red Lake High School. The shooting spree began on the morning of March 21, 2005. Jeffery Weise, at age 16, shot and killed his grandfather and grandfather’s partner in their home before heading to the high school. Weise had taken his grandfather’s police-issued gun-belt, bullet-proof vest, squad car, and obviously his gun. Weise entered the middle school shooting at random. By the time the police had reached the school, two of the school staff and five students were dead. When the police approached Weise, he backed into a nearby classroom and killed himself. When Jefferey was done ten people were dead, including himself.

Lastly, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. On December 14, 2012, a 22, Adam Lanza murdered at least 27 people. That morning before heading to the elementary school, Lanza killed his mother, Nancy. In route of the school, Adam grabbed three guns from the house, a semi-automatic AR-15 assault rifle and two pistols. Approaching the school Adam noticed that the doors were locked, due to the security system that was recently installed and shot his way into the school. Upon entry, three staff members were shot, and two of them died. The first classroom he entered had 14n students and without purpose, Lanza killed all fourteen children and their substitute teacher. He then entered another classroom where a teacher and her students were present. The teacher and six of her students were killed.

All these stories were in some ways different, but they all have one thing in common. All the guns used were taken from home. This is where taking precautions and going the extra mile as a parent to make sure that all of the weapons are stored in a safe place. These parents believed that their children would never take and use these guns, or they believed that the child had no clue where the guns were. As can see, just thinking or believing is not enough when it comes to things like this.

Not only will precautions prevent school shootings, it will also prevent accidental child death at home. In the article Aborn states that 89% of unintentional child shootings take place at home. While searching for stories on this topic, three of the top stories were chosen. First was an accidental shooting of a two-year-old in Greenville County where the toddler found the gun in the home and shot himself in the head. Second, NFL player, Derrius Guise’s three-year-old cousin found a gun in one of the bedrooms at home and accidentally shot himself in the head. Lastly, a six-year-old female was shot and killed by what was believed to had been a 12 year-old boy. In all three cases there were loaded guns in child’s reach without parent supervision. This should push parents to want to make their home safer for their kids especially when having a gun or any kind of weapon in the house.

In addition to taking precautions, parents and other gun owners must become more educated on firearms and the reasonings behind children using guns. Not only should families work to ensure safety in homes and the outside world but the government, firearm dealers, law enforcement etc. should also. More rules on the education required to own a gun are needed. When purchasing firearms there should be classes required to provide a clear understanding of just how dangerous guns are and how to prevent fatal accidents inside and outside of their home. Most people do not think that these kinds of things will happen to them and even if they do not happen, they sure are possible.

Researching and understanding signs and risk factors like violent video games, violet death related videos, images, and search history are important. Also knowing triggers or reasoning behind child gun usage, whether it be bullying and depression or feeling worthless at home. We must be aware that these things can affect young people in ways no one would ever think of. Just in case these things are going on, child access prevention laws should be endorsed in every state. Child access prevention laws are laws that are made to prevent firearm injuries of children by simply limiting their access to them. Under these laws gun owners who leave their guns available or accessible to children are criminally liable. These laws make gun owners think twice? before just storing their firearms anywhere in the house. There’s fact that properly storing firearms reduces the number of accidental shootings causing child death.

After researching all the key points from Aborn’s article it was made clear that the points made in the article are in fact true. Both school and accidental home shootings are preventable with a little more effort. These kinds of things do not come easy and maybe that is why no one has taken that extra step, unless forced by law, to do their part in making these shootings preventable.

In America guns have been in our everyday lives. Guns have affected so many families. Everyday there are people who die from guns. The government should have different ways of gun control. There are schools getting shot up and nothing have been done about it. Parents are sending their child to learn but they get a call from the school saying there child school got shot up. According to Molly Ivins article “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”, she states “The argument that guns don’t kill people is patent nonsense”. In agreement with Ivins, she states the truth guns kill many people and we shouldn’t have it.

In Ivins essay, she explains that whoever wants guns should only use it for target shooting, hunting, or pattling rattleshack. She also mentions how many family argue and they bring out guns and shoot each other. That shouldn’t be allowed at people house. It scary how anybody can buy a gun anywhere from anybody. We as American people need to find a stricter law for guns. In agreement with Ivins when she mention guns should be for military, armed forces, and the National Guards only because they protect our country. We have so many people dying from guns and kids are dying so young from guns as well. Ivins mentions guns have the power to kill anyone, In agreement with her because guns do kill so many people. Anyone can pick a gun can kill someone. Even though we have the second amendment a part of the Bills of Right. We as Americans should know to put the guns down and stop killing innocent people. The second amendment is protecting us Americans. Ivins says “A well regulated militia” surely implies both training and long discipline. That is the least, the very least, that should be required of those who are permitted to have guns, because gun is literally to power to kill”. Ivins means the military should have guns because they will protect us. She also is saying guns have power to kill anyone. Ivins also mentions “guns don’t kill people” is patent nonsense. Anyone who has ever worked in a cop shops knows how many family argument end in murder because three was gun in the house”. Ivin is explaining how families who argue leds to them to killing each other and that shouldn’t allowed. She also says people who works as cop knows how guns kill people.

America has the most gun violence than all nations. Ivins says “Ban the damn thing. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog”. Ivins was stating how people shouldn’t need guns if they want protection they should should get a dog. Anyone can buy a gun and kill anybody so they should illegal. Anybody can buy a gun from someone and that dangerous. Ivin’s also says “By the time someone who studies the martial arts become a master- literally able to kill with bare hand- that person has also undergone years of training and discipline. But any fool can pick up a gun and

kill with it”. Ivins is saying how study marital take time to learn it but when it comes to guns anyone can pick it up and kill anyone. For guns you really don’t need to learn anything there a button and touch and kill someone. The past years gun violence has drastically went up. People have been killing each with guns. People say guns shouldn’t be ban but there are kids and adults who die from guns for being at a place at the wrong time. Ivins says “We do, however, license them and their owners, restrict their use to presumably sane and sober adults, and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do the same with”. Ivin is saying how we should do do more background for people who wants guns. We shouldn’t give guns to anybody. Letting citizens have guns without no background cause more violence, even if we give background, some people will lie. To improve gun violence we need stricter laws and more police force.

Another source is “Guns are the problem’: activists get tough on gun control after Vegas” which discuss the gun violence happening across America. Ivins says in the article how guns shouldn’t be allowed and she said we should have stricter background checks. In the same source “Requiring background check on every gun sale- rather than just as current federal law requires has been the major policy goal of most American gun control groups in recent years” by Lois Beckett published by The Guardian on October 5, 2017. Both articles are both agreeing on getting stricter gun control laws and giving a gun to anybody. That show innocent people. Furthermore, Ivins tells guns should be for law enforcement and military. She also says gun shouldn’t be allowed at all if you want the protection get a dog or knife. In this source it discuss “The Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, had no serious criminal record, and a local gun store said he had passed a background check before buying some of his guns” by Lois Beckett published by The Guardian on October 5, 2017. The article is saying the Vegas shooter got and gun and had a background check and still got accepted for getting a gun and 58 people got killed. Ivins also is stating America should have stricter gun control laws. Also in the article it says “Nobody saw any red flags. Nobody thought anything was wrong with him” Volinsky said thought of Paddock. “It’s not enough to just limit the kind of people who own guns. You have to go to after the hun themselves. Gun are the problem” by Lois Beckett published by The Guardian on October 5, 2017. The article was saying how they didn’t see no warning signs and he still killed 58 people. Both articles is saying we need more strict laws and the government need to do more. Ivins says how anyone can be killed with a gun anytime.

Finally, in the essay “Get a knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns” by Molly Ivins, she has a belief of gun shouldn’t be allowed if you want protection you can get a dog or knife. She makes a good statement “Guns do kill. Unlike cars, that is all they do”. She is saying how cars don’t really kill you do like guns kill you. She is correct we shouldn’t be having guns there have been so much school shooting going on in the world and so many people dying. That we should have stricter laws. Us as Americans should know to not to kill innocent people.

The Relationship between State Gun Policy & Mass Shootings

Gun control is a much more widely debated subject when compared to as recent as two decades ago. This has occurred due to the increase in mass shootings in the United States. In response, the idea of teachers being armed has been suggested by officials such as Donald Trump, who also suggested they should receive a bonus. There are many sides to this argument, however, there is a clear correlation between lax gun policies and mass shootings. Specifically, this paper will examine state gun policies that benefit potential mass shooters along with statistics that prove this argument. In addition, evidence will be provided supporting policing that allows teachers to carry firearms in the classrooms, with the ambition to decrease mass shootings.

While arming teachers increases classroom protection, it also introduces new risks in schools. The National Association of School Resource Officers is against arming teachers due to the threat against law enforcement and the school community (Arming Teachers, n.d.). The Executive Director of the Major Cities Chiefs Association believes that “The more guns that are coming into the equation, the more volatility and the more risk there is of somebody getting hurt.” (Patterson, 2018) A survey consisting of 500 American teachers concluded that almost 3 quarter opposed the idea of arming teachers (Brenan, 2018). In addition, 63 percent of students’ parents opposed arming teachers (Arming Teachers, n.d.). Most of the school community opposes involving teachers with guns.

It is important to recognize that using a gun requires hundreds of hours of training. Law enforcement officers on average receive 168 hours of weapons training (Reaves, 2016). Unfortunately, states that arms teachers provide much less than 168 hours of training. In fact, a few states require no training to carry a gun (Arming Teachers, n.d.). Highly trained law enforcement believe that accuracy is significantly decreased when engaged in an intense gunfight. Thus, it is essential for anyone carrying a weapon to receive extensive training in how to handle it.

Having teachers armed in schools lead to many more dangers than advantages. One key danger that many do not recognize is the risk of shootings increase. One in favor of arming teachers would most likely believe the opposite. However, access to firearms increases the risk of death by suicide three times in addition to a 100% increase in the risk of death by homicide (Anglemyer, Horvath, & Rutherford, 2014). The United States has seen several incidents of guns being discharged by school staff. One incident occurred when a Spanish teacher was terminated. The next day, he returned with an assault rifle disguised in a guitar case and killed the headmaster and himself (Nelson, 2019). Additionally, there have been several unintentional gunshots fired by school officers and teachers. In general, arming teachers is a liability. Various insurance companies were unwilling to provide insurance to teachers carrying weapons in school (Hiltzik, 2018).

There are a few recommendations that may prevent mass shootings and gun violence. This consists of extreme risk laws, being able to restrict a high-risk person from having a gun. In addition, if firearms are stored safely, responsibly, and securely, unauthorized access will decrease. If states that allowed the open carrying of weapons required a background check and minimum age of 21, this would make guns extremely difficult for a minor to obtain (Arming Teachers, n.d.). In terms of the school setting, security upgrades, preparing for the worst, and threat assessment programs can make the environment much safer.

In terms of gun control, statistically speaking, the looser a State’s gun laws, the more mass shootings it has. Researchers have recently discovered this trend, however, many would believe this through common sense. On average, a mass shooting kills four or more people every 47 days. This trend has occurred since June 2015. When compared to the 1990s, the average was much less at once every 183 days (Molteni, 2019). In comparison, Hawaii has not witnessed a mass shooting for over twenty years. Whereas in the past three years, Florida has had six mass shooting incidents (Molteni, 2019). Congress has not attempted to pass a single national gun law after a mass shooting. Instead, individual state legislatures pass these laws.

Despite alarming statistics, mass shootings represent a small fraction of all gun deaths. This has made researching mass shootings increasingly difficult, until very recently. Epidemiologists at Columbia University used FBI crime data from 1998-2015 to calculate the annual mass shooting rate of each state (Molteni, 2019). Interestingly, researchers found that states rather completely restrict gun control, or permit it without restrictions. There are very few states that are in the middle in addition to the majority not restricting gun control. (Molteni, 2019). Lead author Paul Reeping states, “One of the most interesting things about this data is that we aren’t seeing a full spectrum because there just aren’t that many states directly in the middle.”

Research also found that mass shooting rates increased by 11.5% for every 10-point relaxation in gun control (Molteni, 2019). Referring to Texas and Ohio, where two shootings occurred in the span of 24 hours, their gun control regulations are amongst the laxest. For instance, one can legally purchase semiautomatic rifles with large-capacity magazines. It’s worth noting that only six states in addition to DC have banned the purchase of military-style weaponry. Stricter state gun control leads to fewer suicides in addition to reducing the number of premature deaths by 50% (Molteni, 2019).

Having teachers armed with guns in the classroom is a widely debated topic. Paul Hankins, a high school teacher finds the idea to “run, hide, fight” more appealing. Maureen S. Rush, superintendent of the University of Pennsylvania police department, believes that ”You don’t want to have a gun that’s available to a student or another worker who may have mental health issues,” Some suggest that metal detectors may prevent guns from entering the school. Experts counter this theory with the belief that an alarm would not stop a gunman (Hartocollis & Fortin, 2018). However, they can be useful in areas with a high rate of gang activity, such as Chicago. Furthermore, lockdown drills prepare students to act fast in the event of a mass shooting. Speed is the most important factor as shooters tend to not target rooms that appear vacant (Hartocollis et al., 2018).

Despite the widely debated pros of arming teachers, the cons tend to outweigh them. For instance, the weapons effect posits that the increasing presence of guns increases the chance of using them (Should teachers be armed? n.d) More obviously, it provides the shooter with ready access. There have been instances of mass shootings in restricted states, however, if guns are closer to home the likelihood of that person performing the shooting increases. Lastly, it places an unnecessary burden on teachers to receive training in firearms. Teachers work at the school to teach rather than be security guards. In addition, teachers are responsible for the costs associated with weapons training (Should teachers be armed? n.d). The profession does not pay high enough for its employees to work two professions. Teachers tend to not want to carry firearms as they consider them dangerous to themselves and their surroundings (Greene, 2019).

Some states have started to allow teachers to carry guns in the classroom. In Texas, this is present in most schools. Trump believes that teachers care for the children more than any security officer would, thus they should carry weapons. Dr. Marquenta Sands Hall argues that school resource officers “care for the children and build relationships with students and staff. and that “you must love the job to be a school resource officer” (CNN, 2018). In addition, she believes that school safety must be a top priority in order to reduce future mass shootings (CNN, 2018).

It is evident through statistics that states with weaker gun control regulations are more prone to mass shootings. Recent research has determined that the most restrictive state is Massachusetts while Vermont is the most permissive state (Keeping, Cerdá, Kalesan, Wiebe, Galea, & Branas, 2019). The study found that states that are 10 units more permissive typically showed an 11.5 percent increase in the rate of mass shootings per million (see figure 1). In addition, states with more gun ownership had a 35.1 percent higher occurrence of mass shootings per million (see figure 2). The study concluded that states with more permissive gun control and ownership laws had a significantly higher occurrence of mass shootings (Repping et al., 2019). This divide between permissive and restrictive states is only increasing.

It has been widely claimed that mental illness, rather than access to weapons, increases the likelihood of mass shootings. Even Donald trump has claimed that “mental illness and hatred pull the trigger” (Johnsen, & Woodward, 2019). Despite popular belief, people with mental illness are much more likely to be a victim of violence, not a perpetrator. The APA concluded that “mental illness accounts for only 1% of annual gun-related homicides” (Johnsen et al., 2019). Gun-related homicide is one person shooting another to death, not necessarily a mass shooting.

Many have also suggested that violent video games play a role in deciding to commit mass shootings. However, there is no research to support this correlation. A 2002 Secret Service study concluded that the analyzed shooters played little-to-no violent games (Johnsen et al., 2019). Rather, most mass shooters have an extensive history of domestic violence. One example would be the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida. The perpetrators had a long history of stalking and abusing women (Johnsen et al., 2019). A better solution for Donald Trump would be to restrict those with domestic violence backgrounds from purchasing firearms, as this has proven to decrease gun deaths.

Other findings have supported the notion that an increased gun presence increases the likelihood of a mass shooting to occur. For instance, concealed carry policies are highly associated with an increase in firearm homicide deaths (Johnsen et al., 2019). In addition, a lack of background checks correlates with higher gun violence, representing a need for more strict background checking. After the assault rifle ban expiry in 2004, mass shootings increased by 183 percent (Ingraham, 2018). During the ban, the mass shooting rate decreased by 43 percent (Klarevas, 2016). A new ban on assault rifles would decrease a state’s amount of gun-related deaths.

Arming teachers with guns in the classroom poses more risks than apparent advantages. First off, the weapons effect becomes present to the teacher and their surroundings. Furthermore, it has become apparent that states that are more gun-permissive tend to have more occurrences of mass shootings per million when compared to the most restrictive states. Finally, there are school resource officers that receive extensive training on the use of firearms, showing that teachers do not need to sacrifice time and money in order to receive minor firearm training. Teachers should not receive a raise for carrying a gun as this encourages colleagues to do the same. Overall, the student does not benefit enough for a teacher to possess a firearm in the classroom.

References

1. 14 Arming Teachers Pros and Cons – Should Teachers Be Armed? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://futureofworking.com/14-arming-teachers-pros-and-cons-should-teachers-be-armed/
2. Anglemyer, A., Horvath, T., & Rutherford, G. (2014). The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 160, 101–110. Retrieved from https://www.suicideinfo.ca/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/6-191a85f36ce9e20de2e2fa3869197735/2018/08/The-Accessibility-of-Firearms-and-Risk-for-Suicide-and-Homicide_oa.pdf
3. Arming Teachers Introduces New Risks Into Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://everytownresearch.org/arming-teachers-introduces-new-risks-into-schools/
4. Brenan, M. (2018, March 16). Most US teachers oppose carrying guns in schools. Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
5. CNN. (2018, February 24). Inside school where teachers carry guns [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-4ZjROjkY
6. Greene, P. (2019). Did I Need A Gun In My Classroom? Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2019/05/15/did-i-need-a-gun-in-my-classroom/#68ca8c141120
7. Hartocollis, A., & Fortin, J. (2018, February 24). What Experts Say About Armed Teachers and School Safety. New York Times, p. A13(L). Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.libproxy.wlu.ca/apps/doc/A528687384/AONE?u=wate18005&sid=AONE&xid=d9ae77a2
8. Hiltzik M. (2018, February 26). One big problem with the idea of arming teachers: insurance companies won’t play along, and for good reason. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com
9. Klarevas, L. (2016). Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
10. Molteni, M. (2019, August 6). The Looser a State’s Gun Laws, the More Mass Shootings It Has.
11. Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/
12. Nelson, R. (2019, February 14). “My school shooter was a teacher,” Jax school shooting survivor speaks out against arming teachers. Actions News Jax. Retrieved from https://www.actionnewsjax.com/
13. Patterson, B.E. (2018, March 8). America’s police chiefs call BS on arming teachers. Mother Jones. Retrieved from https://www.motherjones.com/
14. Reaves, B.A. (2016) State, and local law enforcement training academies, 2013. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/slleta13.pdf
15. Reeping, P. M., Cerdá, M., Kalesan, B., Wiebe, D. J., Galea, S., & Branas, C. C. (2019). State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US: cross-sectional time series. BMJ, 364(1502), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l542

Introduction

School shootings in the United States and a few other countries such as Canada and Germany have continued to elicit debates among stakeholders. While there is considerable optimism about the possibility of eliminating institutional violence such as school shootings, the diversity of the assumed causes of school shootings complicates the positivity. In response to a series of school shootings in the years the 1990s to 2002, sociologist Catherine Newman presented a unique perspective on the dynamics of social formations associated with school shootings. The publication effectively delivers the connection between social, political, and economic demographics of perpetrators of school shootings and forwards a theoretical approach to the comprehension of various cases of school rampage. Despite the existence of credible literature investigating school shootings and possible solutions to addressing the societal challenge, the probability of school shootings remains a safety concern for public institutions in the United States. The paper presents a reflection on Kathrine Newman’s publication addressing the social perspective of school shootings.

Theoretical Perspective

The comprehension of the historical origins of the causes of school shootings and the associated predisposing factor is instrumental in the development of possible solutions. Accordingly, a school shooting can be described as an assault on an educational institution whereby a student opens fire and shoots fellow students, faculty members, or both within the premises of the institution. The attack may result in the injury or death of one or multiple victims depending on the type of weapon used the speed of response from administrative authority and the reaction of the public. Accordingly, Newman proposed a hypothesized sociological perspective of the causes of school shootings in the United States comprising of a combination of at least five important factors. Primarily the assailants typically are marginalized individuals in the society; the individuals suffer from personal vulnerabilities that amplify the effects of marginalization, the perpetrators have access to single or multiple sources of philosophies that glorify violence, the community, and the schools fail to identify the obvious intentions of the assailant timely, and lastly, the shooters have access to firearms. Despite the variations of school shootings from one incident to another, the predisposing factors have founding relations with the social and political dynamics of the area of jurisdiction. It is hence necessary to examine the social and political balances of the American community in consideration of school shootings in various locations in the country.

Social Dynamics

The prevalence of mass shootings, particularly in public schools, has been associated with imperfections and social deviance. Notably, contemporary American Society is a long-term blend of intercultural norms diversely distributed in major cities and suburban towns. According to Newman (2004), contrary to the previous perception of school shootings occulting within major cities more often than in other towns, the demographics of the shootings reveal a high prevalence of violent insurgency is more likely in suburban areas. The assertion effectively challenges the notion that perpetrators of violence are unlikely to originate from well-structured families and socially balanced societies. It is correct to note that regardless of the location of the school or public facility, society as a whole plays a major unconscious role in the development of social eccentrics who are often the main perpetrators of school shootings. It is, therefore, prudent to establish the connection between the school-based violence that escalates to mass shootings amid the perception of a suitable societal infrastructure as a foundation for the proper growth and development of students.

The supporting social relation structures of the perpetrators vary from one case to another, effectively influencing the level of damage caused in every school-shooting event. There are considerable societal structures that feature in most cases ranging from family formations, institutional stigmatization through bullying, gender-centric societal expectations of young people, and unrestricted access to violent entertainment resources through the internet and video games. However, the interconnectedness of the neighborhood ties among the members of society, and public learning institutions, coupled with the insensitivity of society to security structures in schools creates an unfavorable environment for the growth of unique individuals (Newman, 2004). As a result, the primary structures of recognizing and attending to security threats possessed by the perpetrators go unnoticed in many cases. Therefore, one can undeniably agree to the fact that the balances of social formations increase the vulnerability of mass shootings in suburban regions in the United States.

Political Dynamics

American policies in gun control have always ignited local and international political debates as the cases of gun violence continue to escalate. Accordingly, while the regulated access and use of firearms for adults are constitutionally regulated, a majority of school shootings involve juvenile access and utilization of guns from either parents or close relatives. In that respect, although Newman recognizes the occurrence of school shootings in other countries including Germany and Canada, there is a considerable affirmation of gun availability among Americans results in a high number of cases of gun violence such as school shootings than any other country in the world (Newman, 2004). Unfortunately, the historical political support of the right to own firearms for American citizens prevents institutions of prohibitory laws for civilian ownership and operations of guns. Therefore, security stakeholders are effectively forced to develop alternative regulatory frameworks to guarantee public safety in learning institutions. On the other hand, while gun violence plays a role in escalating the extent of damage caused during shootings, the option to use violence as a way of expression among the youth reveals the extent of the weaknesses in the existing societal structures in the country.

From a different perspective, the resolution to physical assault as the final option of expression among the members of the society reveals existing loopholes in the entire social system. According to Newman (2004), marginalization among peers coupled with low social status as a result of bullying and public ridicule are among the major characteristics of the victims who turn out as perpetrators in the school shooting. Moreover, the shooters are subjected to predisposing factors that increase their vulnerability, including deterioration in mental health, social isolation in the school, and home settings in addition to a considerable degree of personal paranoia. While the hypothesized predisposing factors may not result in a violent reaction by the individuals, access to antagonistic cultural beliefs that glorify armed attacks to prove dominion, manhood, and restore authority, and unrestricted exposure to aggressive digital continents such as violent video games resonate in different cases of school shootings. Interestingly, political stakeholders in the federal and state government agencies regulate the legal provisions of the management of the majority of predisposing factors.

Corrective Measures

It is in the interest of every result and future-oriented government administration to guarantee the safety of the public. Besides, it is the responsibility of security agencies at all levels to ensure the safety of the citizens for continuous political stability and social development to occur. In addition to international criticism of the American policies of weapon control, particularly for civilians, there is increasing popularity of anti-gun activism in the country (Newman, 2004). It is hence correct to recognize the administrative pressure in the development of sustainable solutions to the political and social challenges leading to the escalation of school shootings in the country. Notably, Newman identifies the role of societal problems contributing to the threat of school shootings in American learning institutions. Precisely, the author identifies the connection between violence to the loss of social structures that lead to the development and actualization of mass shootings in schools. Fixing the loopholes in the social and political weaknesses of the American structures effectively reduces the probability of future institutional assaults.

Despite the lack of frequent school shootings in society, the topic remains an issue in society because once in a while students often get injured or die from shootings. The author analyses two columbine shootings from the Westside middle school and the Heath High school. The analysis comes with questions that the author attempts to answer to have reasons why shootings occur in schools. The problem is how respectable families produce rampage killers. The book has main themes that include gun control, legislation, and students. According to the author, the 1990s had a variety of tragedies caused by middle and high school students. The students shot and killed their schoolmates and teachers. Society was shocked, and this probed people to have answers to why such actions occur. Katherine Newman and her researchers discovered rampage shootings behaviors to be a unique act that occurs in school domains. The author shows a 14-year-old boy known as Michael Carneal that had killed three students and injured five. Newman researched various individual pathologies like mental health and depression among teenagers in society. The author identifies social hierarchy, popularity, and self-worth among students as the developing factor that might lead to rampage and social shooting. Shootings represent rampage and rage among students that feel left out in society. Peer pressure among students could be a contributing factor to the theme of rampage among students in society.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the social-political dynamics of the parameters of school shootings demand the incorporation of a collective approach by the stakeholders. It is essential to revisit the legal provisions of the gun control regulations in the country and access to violent entertainment programs and video games among learners in the interest of public safety. Secondly, the administrators of learning institutions should incorporate student welfare-supporting structures, including counseling and sufficient student profiling for administrative purposes. Additionally, there is a need to incorporate modern security infrastructure to identify and mitigate potential public security threats in learning institutions. Importantly, collective social responsibility is paramount in fostering socially upright individuals and addressing the weaknesses in societal structures.

Why is gun violence so prevalent in the U.S.? This question is one that has many answers. A plethora of factors contribute to the vast quantity of gun violence incidents. These can be small factors, such as time of day, or larger factors, such as the number of citizens that have easy access to firearms. Gun violence should be considered a prevalent issue that can be solved with gun control because many individuals are uneducated about guns, individuals with serious mind-altering conditions are not getting proper help, and gun laws are extremely loose.

Initially, gun violence occurs in great quantities partly due to the lack of knowledge about guns among the public. This is the case, especially in households with a combination of firearms and young children. Guns are proven to be just as or even more deadly inside one’s home than outside of it. “Among children, the majority (89%) of unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home.”(‘Gun Violence: Facts and Statistics 2019). These unintentional shooting deaths could have been prevented if there were no loaded guns in these households or if the individuals in the house were educated about guns.

Gun violence negatively affects children in the U.S. to a great extent. These negative effects have the potential to alter or end the lives of these children. According to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, “In 2015, 2,824 children (age 0 to 19 years) died by gunshot and an additional 13,723 were injured.”(‘Gun Violence: Facts and Statistics 2019). A majority of the causes for these deaths and injuries are due to accidental shootings. Therefore, if the individuals behind these shootings were educated about guns and gun violence, these instances may have very well been avoided.

Another factor that contributes to gun violence deaths or injuries due to a lack of education about guns is access prevention precautions. Access prevention precautions and lack thereof are proven to contribute to gun violence trends among children. “Studies have shown that states with Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws have a lower rate of unintentional death than states without CAP laws.”(‘Gun Violence: Facts and Statistics 2019). These laws are put into place in order to protect the lives of children, therefore it is reasonable that states without them would suffer from a higher trend of accidental shootings among children. In this sense, the legislature of the states without CAP laws is uneducated about the harm that guns can bring.

Many individuals are not informed about firearm safety until they are teenagers. Informing them of these important things at such a late stage in life may cause the information to not resonate with them. In addition to this, it may be too late at this stage to change any already formulated opinions about guns and gun violence. It is advised that children be taught as early as possible the dangers of gun violence and gun safety. If children learn these things at an early stage, it will stick with them and they will be less likely to have conflicting thoughts about the matter later in their life(‘American Psychological Association’).

Interestingly enough, male perspectives on masculinity contribute to gun violence just as much as other factors do. Males who act tough because it is the ideal trait of a male in society are more prone to committing gun violence than those who accept themselves for whoever they are. This false sense of toughness can lead to them neglecting common knowledge about firearm safety in order to fit the social standard of masculinity. “The skills and knowledge of psychologists are needed to develop and evaluate programs and settings in schools, workplaces, prisons, neighborhoods, clinics, and other relevant contexts that aim to change gendered expectations for males that emphasize self-sufficiency, toughness, and violence, including gun violence.”(‘American Psychological Association’). The shift in the standard is proven to lead to less violence overall due to pent-up emotions and facades.

Subsequently, many instances of gun violence, including mass shootings, occur due to individuals with mind-altering conditions not getting proper help. Though mass shootings occur frequently in the U.S., it can be tricky to identify the exact definition of one because they can be interpretable from person to person. This is due to the fact that different people have different cognitions, or perceptions, of certain ideas and events. As officially stated by Gun Violence Archive’s Mark Bryant, “Well, we define mass shootings as any incident where four or more victims are shot or killed.”(‘Understanding The Scale Of Gun Violence In America’ 2019). This statement provides an official definition of the matter from the director of a web page outlining gun violence statistics.

As with many situations, anything can be a variable in causing someone to do something. In the same sense, anything can make someone more or less likely to use a firearm against someone. One of the main variables that contribute to this is mental health. Mental health can decline swiftly if one does not get the proper help for it, which can make someone do things they would not normally do. In extreme cases, mental health can also cause someone to use a firearm against someone with the intention of wrongfully harming them(‘American Psychological Association’).

Mostly due to individuals who require assistance with their mental states but are not receiving this help, a large number of deaths by guns in the U.S. occur due to mass shootings. Compared to other countries, the U.S. has astonishingly more mass shooting incidents. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been a total of 342 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2019(‘Gun Violence Archive’). These increasing mass shooting rates continuously put citizens at risk. Unfortunately, these numbers show no signs of decreasing any time soon.

Of course, declining mental health might cause an individual to use a firearm on one’s own self instead of harming others. If they have such mind-altering conditions, it would be even more detrimental to one’s safety to own a firearm than not. Ownership of guns contributes greatly to heightened suicide rates. “Suicide rates are much higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership,”(‘Gun Violence: Facts and Statistics’ 2019). Of course, more differing factors from state to state could contribute to the trend, yet it is likely that gun ownership is one of the main factors.

Many instances of violence can directly lead to gun violence. For instance, domestic violence can escalate quickly and can even turn deadly on its own. However, “Domestic violence is more likely to turn deadly with a gun in the home. An abusive partner’s access to a firearm increases the risk of homicide eight-fold for women in physically abusive relationships.”(‘Gun Violence: Facts and Statistics 2019). In this case, the aggressor’s mind-altering condition could be temporary spurts of anger causing them to commit this violence in a fit of rage. The risk presented by the introduction of a firearm in certain violent situations is one that is easily a dangerous one.

The latter cause of increasing gun violence is the leniency of gun control laws in the U.S. Many trends relating to gun violence are increasing due to this leniency as the years go by. These trends continue to grow with seemingly no cease to their progress. Such a trend is gun violence itself. Gun violence incidents are increasing from year to year(‘Understanding The Scale Of Gun Violence In America’ 2019).

Many deaths in the U.S. can be related to gun violence. The Gun Violence Archive outlines that there have been a total of 31,778 deaths related to gun violence this year alone(‘Gun Violence Archive’). When taking into account the deaths due to gun violence in past years, the amount adds up quickly. The causes of these deaths are mostly direct, such as suicide or homicide. In general, many deaths are caused indirectly by the failure to put effective gun control laws in place.

Interestingly, gun violence incidents occur more in specific areas than in other areas. For example, more gun violence incidents occur closer to the east coast than on the west coast (‘Gun Violence Archive’). This may be due to several factors. These factors include where the capital is, how many people live in a certain area, the differing gun laws from state to state, and gun ownership in general. Depending on the factors, the results and data may vary greatly or little.

Even though mass shootings occur as frequently as they do, they are still not the most common type of gun violence. Many other types of gun violence occur much more frequently, such as accidental shootings and shootings where only one person was killed or injured. Astonishingly, mass shootings make up approximately only 5% of all gun violence incidents in America. An evident cause of the prevalence of gun violence is the loose nature of gun control laws, which let many individuals purchase firearms and ammunition, regardless of their intent(‘Understanding The Scale Of Gun Violence In America’ 2019).

An abundance of factors contributes to the number of injuries and deaths resulting from a mass shooting. Some factors include the density of the area, the number of rounds the shooter has, and also the magazine capacity of the shooter’s firearm. Guns with high magazine capacity are one of the main reasons for the increase in the lethality of mass shootings((‘Understanding The Scale Of Gun Violence In America’ 2019). The more rounds a shooter’s magazine, or the part of the gun that holds the rounds that are ready to be transferred to its chamber, can hold, the more shots that the shooter will be able to take. Firearms with high-round capacity magazines can be purchased at many gun stores in the U.S., making them easily accessible to anyone in the county.

Many instances of domestic abuse occur in the United States. As such, a majority of Americans own firearms as well. When a domestic dispute escalates violently, having a loaded firearm in the vicinity often causes it to turn deadly. “During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001, and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.”(‘Pros & Cons – ProCon.org’). This comparison displays how domestic disputes involving guns are even deadlier than these wars combined.

Individuals within the United States who own guns are protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. According to ProCon, “The United States has 120.5 guns per 100 people, or about 393,347,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world.”(https://gun-control.procon.org). This means that some Americans own around one to two guns on average, with some owning none or more than two. In addition, “22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women).”(‘Pros & Cons – ProCon.org’). This excess of firearms in the hands of citizens can easily turn deadly, either accidentally or purposefully, if these firearms are put in the wrong hands.

The dangers of mass shootings and gun violence, in general, are widely known. Certain types of firearms, such as ones with high-capacity magazines, can contribute greatly to these dangers. In a majority of mass shootings, the shooter used these high-capacity magazines. To be exact, this type of magazine was used in at least 50% of mass shootings from 1982 to 2012. The figure further displays the danger of citizens owning high-capacity magazines, as they are often, but not always, used to cause harm(‘Pros & Cons – ProCon.org’).

Many people own guns in case they are in need of self-protection. This explains that their ownership of excess amounts of firearms is not caused by malicious intent, yet by a fear for their safety. However, firearms are often not used in defense of people involved in potentially threatening situations. “Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior.”(‘Pros & Cons – ProCon.org’). Even though 235,700 people are a large number of lives that were saved, it is still only a small portion of the total violent crimes that occurred without using a gun in defense.

Preventing people who have a record from obtaining firearms has proven its efficiency. “Firearm prohibitions for high-risk groups – domestic violence offenders, persons convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes, and individuals with mental illness who have been adjudicated as being a threat to themselves or to others — have been shown to reduce violence.”(‘American Psychological Association’). These prohibitions see fit that people who are considered unstable in society cannot have legal access to firearms. This is highly appropriate, as this law keeps dangerous offenders from becoming repeat offenders. Nevertheless, this law is one that places America one step closer to a lower gun violence rate.

Some sources assert that gun violence rates should not cause the enactment of gun control laws. According to ProCon, “The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.”(‘Pros & Cons – ProCon.org’). Although the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals’ rights to own and bear arms, there should be a limit to how much the amendment protects when it leads to an overwhelming amount of injuries and deaths each year. In addition to this, it is also argued that gun control laws would obstruct one’s right to defend themself in dangerous situations(‘Pros & Cons – ProCon.org’); however, this point can be easily disproved by the fact that only 0.79% of victims to dangerous crimes from 2007 to 2011 had defended themselves with a firearm or any other weapon(‘Pros & Cons – ProCon.org’). Another point made by ProCon in opposition to gun safety laws is that “Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws.”(‘Pros & Cons – ProCon.org’). While this is an accurate observation, gun control laws will make it more difficult for criminals to obtain these firearms, therefore discouraging them from committing gun-related crimes altogether. ProCon then outlines yet another reason for the opposition to gun safety laws: the enactment of said laws may result in government tyranny and unjust rule(‘Pros & Cons – ProCon.org’). This reasoning is mostly based on speculation and the observation of other countries’ people’s rights being taken away slowly. Just because tyranny due to rights being revoked occurs often does not mean it will occur all the time. One of the last arguments ProCon makes is that “More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths.”(‘Pros & Cons – ProCon.org’). While the second half of the statement is true, gun control and gun education could be used together in order to lessen gun violence incidents as a whole. In short, the argument that gun control laws infringe upon the rights of Americans, is unnecessary, and will lead to government tyranny is outweighed when juxtaposed with the safety that these laws will bring about to the citizens of the country.

In conclusion, gun violence should be considered a prevalent issue in the U.S. because of the vast amount of harm it brings to the people of America. In order to prevent this harm, individuals need to be educated about gun safety from a young age, as well as this idea needs to be reinforced throughout one’s life. Another solution to gun violence’s prevalence would be to see fit that people with mental health issues get the help that is appropriate for them. A final solution that would lower the number of gun violence incidents in the U.S. would be to put into place more strict gun control laws without taking away the people’s Second Amendment rights. These solutions would put America in the right direction to resolving the prevalence of gun violence.

Throughout the last three years, there have been over 75 mass shootings in the United States. Gun violence has reduced the life expectancy of White Americans by 2.5 years and African Americans by 4.1 years. Gun control has been a big debate among political leaders because it creates a controversy over the Second Amendment, the “Right to Bear Arms.” However, every 4 days roughly about 147 people die. The gun control laws, currently in action, worry many citizens because the country’s violence has not been reduced. The gun control associations such as the National Rifle Association, Everytown for Gun Safety, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and many more organizations are fighting to ensure that the ones who hold political power help reduce gun violence. The fatalities from the Las Vegas shooting in 2017 to the Parkland shooting in 2018, have been the deadliest in U.S. history. The issue here is that it is causing individuals uncomfortable negative emotions towards the use of weapons. If it is seen from a social psychological point of view, it correlates to the cognitive dissonance theory. Cognitive Dissonance Theory explains that the inconsistencies in a person’s beliefs, attitudes, and/or actions create an uncomfortable psychological or emotional tension, called dissonance, which leads to efforts to restore consistency. Gun control associations and research are trying to restore these inconsistencies by creating new beliefs, altering the importance of certain beliefs, and changing certain beliefs. The research obtained will be able to provide ideas on ways gun violence can be reduced. The experiences of individuals will express how they endure the emotional impact of the events of gun violence. However, it will bring to context why guns can be important to have. Even though the second amendment is controversial, legislation will put restrictions on gun use so it cannot deny citizens to fire weapons, but it will create a safer environment. Lastly, research shows that in some countries, they have enforced change in order to make the environment a better place without having to worry about the misuse of firearms.

One of the ways to restore inconsistencies of the negative emotional individuals that fear firearm is by the ideas in the theory of cognitive dissonance by adding a new belief. By adding a new belief, individuals who feel negative emotions will be able to think a little differently and not base it on the same belief of disappointment. Most people view these horrifying events as the worst possible because it causes the lives of many. However, if individuals would make a belief that prescribed medication has a lot to do a lot with shooting tragedies. Many of the individuals who commit these sort of tragedies have serious mental health issues due to prescribed medication that take effect in these individuals. The mental health of an individual is a cause of gun violence due to prescribed medications that affect behavior. For example, the shooting in Las Vegas left 58 killed and more than 400 injured. The assassinator, Stephen Paddock, premeditated the attack. He killed many and then killed himself. But why? The law enforcement questioned the motives of Paddock because he did not have a criminal history. However, the investigators did find out that he had bipolar disorder. In the article “Las Vegas Shooting Report Explores Gunman’s Mental Health” Colton Lochhead wrote, “Someone who displayed little emotion. Paddock refused antidepressant medication, but he did accept prescriptions for anti-anxiety drugs” (Lochhead Pg 1). Anti-anxiety drugs can trigger aggressive behavior and if used frequently it can lead to a psychotic experience. If Paddock hadn’t taken his “medication” he wouldn’t have been triggered to take the lives of many. Substance abuse is one of the reasons gun violence has risen over the years. The correlation between drugs and gun violence is high. The Addiction Center by Delphi Behavioral Health Group stated, “Many of the recent mass shooters in America were prescribed psychotropic drugs before going on their rampage; this type of medication has a well-documented history of causing hostility and homicidal ideation” (Delphi Behavioral Health Group Pg 1). This may be a reason why the majority of mass shooters commit suicide after their shooting spree. Any prescription medication taken by an individual should be supervised when a firearm is being bought. Gun violence could be reduced if supervised gun regulations were placed before the purchase of a firearm. This is one solution to prevent gun violence that is caused by prescription drugs. The Las Vegas shooter, the Orlando Nightclub shooter, the Virginia Tech shooter, the Stockton shooter, and many more shooters had one thing in common, prescription drugs.

Individuals tend to demand change in order to feel better about themselves or an event that causes them aches or pain due to emotional impact. Gun violence is one of them like those mentioned above. The second amendment is one of the laws that protect having firearms at home for protection. Many believe the weapons should be banned in general, however many protests that banning them would violate their rights. Gun regulations will, unfortunately, continue to be a political debate among those who believe their rights are being violated. People that disagree with regulating gun control often justify their acts or ownership of firearms with the second amendment. The second amendment states the rights of the people to keep and bear arms without being compromised. At that time the militia was required to have a gun in their home for safety reasons. It was created for citizens to defend themselves from dictators and military presence. Instead, people have abused the amendment for hate crimes. In the article “Gun Laws and What the Second Amendment Intended” Michael Waldman claimed, “They are quick to decry any gun laws as an assault on a core, sacred constitutional right. They waged a relentless constitutional campaign to change the way we see the amendment” (Waldman Pg 2). All of this means that the second amendment was intended for the safety of those who seized protection for themselves and their family. People who are against gun regulations attack groups that want to decrease gun violence because they don’t want to take justification for their actions. The constitution did not take into account that mental disabilities which include emotional lashes such as anger, depression, and anxiety would appear later in the future.

According to the US census in 2017, there were 393 million firearms and 326 million people in the United States. However, by changing one or more areas, such as legislation, will create an opportunity for the country to become safer, even though it involves changing the belief. With all these guns, it explains why so much violence has risen throughout the states. For example, Malcolm Turnbull, the Australian Prime Minister, had to look into this after the incident in Tasmania, Australia. Like other shooters, Martin Bryant looked like a normal man. Unfortunately, he killed 35 people and left 23 wounded. Malcolm Turnbull put a stop to this and his solution was to ban all semi-automatic and other military-style firearms in the country of Australia. With the help of elected officials, he made this happen with the procedure of a program. In the article “How Australia All but Ended Gun Violence” Clifton Leaf notes, “The federal government of Australia prohibited their import, and lawmakers introduced a generous nationwide gun buyback program, funded with a Medicare tax, to encourage Australians to freely give up their assault-style weapons” (Leaf Pg 1). With this program, many gave up their weapons which means that it can help reduce the violence that is caused by firearms. As a result, it worked to reduce crimes in Australia according to the Australian Prime Minister that later was interviewed by the Australian Police Department. Malcolm Turnbull stated, “The economy didn’t crash; Invaders never arrived. Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up. Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get along and legislate” (Turnbull). It comes to show that the theory that makes people feel uncomfortable can be reestablished by changing the belief of how people view firearms. If gun regulations here in the United States were made such as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull did, it would change the way firearms are used now. Gun violence would be reduced if the firearms were turned in or banned from the country or at least from people who misuse them.

In conclusion, firearm handling supervision would help reduce gun violence. These supervisions include prescription drug testing, age restrictions, and the banning of higher maintenance weapons. If these regulations were implemented it would lower the use of weapons and it would lower the number of fatalities that are announced on the news every evening. A few days ago the news came on about potential threats in the California State University, Northridge. Letters behind serious threats that worry american citizens continuously. Those who hold political power should put effort into creating ways to reduce violence caused by firearms. It shouldn’t take 500 more people to die for something to actually change. The amendments as well say free speech and liberty for all. But there is no liberty knowing that there can be a potential active shooter in the same place where people work, where people go to school, or where families gather in peace.

I chose to base my topic of gun control regulation on the cultural perspective, as it provides a tolerable understanding when it comes to the culture of the United States, and their flourishing attachment to guns. Choosing to do so, I had to take a glance at several other perspectives. The one that came into play secondly was the historical perspective as it also caught my eye with what I was looking for, but it lacked a connection to the American people. I will address the following articles in a position against the government doing an unstable job, by not protecting the people, and not limiting laws. When it comes to this controversial topic, many will choose to come up with their own biases, and not refer to the crimes that are going on directly, instead many media corporations will reword it, so it doesn’t seem like such a problem.

The United States people find guns a part of who they are, growing up. Even if there are no gun carriers in a household, most people are familiar with how to operate them. This is especially dangerous when we talk about guns going anywhere near schools. We have to significantly extend our physical health when it comes to dealing with guns on school campuses. Terrible actions can and frequently begins in our schools, yet there is an enormous lack of school advocates, school social laborers, and school therapists in state-funded programs. The cultural perspective compares the lack of advocates and the increase in gun violence due to ignorance.

Our schools must be designed with an obvious attempt at mechanical help, where students can speak about what is going on in their lives. We should put resources into the school workforce to give advice and guide administrations, for example, teachers, school analysts, and medics. Students that are unable to receive good grades need more attention to peer intervention projects, assorted variety and consideration educational programs or projects, and character training to limit strife and unsafe conduct. Also, we must try harder to address the harassing plague in our schools. Harassment, though it is undocumented, might as well be the leading factor in violence relation actions in schools. The amount of times when shootings have occurred due to harassment is tremendous. This is why institutions should change to this sort of diagram.

Based on other cultures, we can say that the United States is no less fond of guns than any surrounding nation. The fact that our constitution protects our right to carry weapons grants the citizens a reason to be different from any other country, and therefore culture. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution states that the privilege to carry arms is lawful. Despite sudden changes to make this arrangement generally and something else, the Supreme Court has stood its ground that our guns are going nowhere. This establishes tolerable arms, even those that were not in presence at the season of the establishing. It may be something citizens are proud of, that gives us this sense of cultural identity.

To conclude, the topic of gun regulation that I have chosen can be easily defined using a cultural perspective. American ideals have come to a point where you can’t live a normal life without involving weapons, more specifically guns, this provides a tolerable understanding when it comes to the culture of the United States, and its flourishing attachment to guns. Though the historical perspective was an option, I still chose the cultural perspective as it allows us to see the viewpoint of Americans through tradition and the involvement of guns in everyday life. The effort to take it a step further with the government can be un-American. Such as gun ownership. As the cultural perspective brings this topic to our attention, we can tell that viewing it as a part of who we are helps us understand it better.

Bibliography

1. Pettit, Emma. “After the Parkland Shooting Happened Next Door, This University Is Training the Next Generation of Activists”. Chronicle.com, 2 May 2019, http://chronicle.com/article/After-the-Parkland-Shooting/246237
2. Aguilar, John. “20 Years after Columbine Shooting, Little Has Been Accomplished on Gun Control”. The Denver Post, 19 Apr. 2019, http://denverpost.com/2019/04/14/columbine-high-school-shooting-gun-control/
3. Samuels, Alex. “‘Guns and Safety Aren’t Synonymous for Us’: Some Black Texans Fear Plans to Arm More Teachers”. The Texas Tribune, 1 May 2019, http://texastribune.org/2019/05/01/texas-school-safety-marshal-program-teachers-guns/
4. Lopez, German. “New Zealand Parliament Votes 119-1 to Ban Assault Weapons, Less than a Month after a Mass Shooting”. Vox, 10 Apr. 2019, http://vox.com/2019/4/10/18304415/new-zealand-gun-control-mosque-shootings-assault-weapons-ban
5. Behsudi, Adam, et al. “Trump Supports Gun Rights, but Even He Sees Limits”. POLITICO, 26 Apr. 2019, http://politico.com/story/2019/04/26/trump-gun-rights-limits-1384930

Who’s to blame the weapon or the person? Gun control do we really know enough about it. Throughout the years gun control has been one of the most common topics in the United States, tens and thousands of death and injuries has been caused by firearms, weather that be mass shootings, suicide, or murders. There has been so many different topics about this subject, like is the Second Amendment really worth all these people dying just to make sure we have the right to have or own a gun in Emma Gonzalez’s speech about the Florida school shooting. In the speech she said: “When adults tell me I have the right to own a gun, all I can hear is my right to own a gun outweighs your student’s right to live. All I hear is mine, mine, mine, mine”. This shows that even though adults or kids want the right to be able to own a gun, they don’t realize the cost of having that right.

There have been many mass shootings in US history. One of the worst mass shootings occurred on February 14, 2018, when a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, killing seventeen students and staff members and injuring seventeen others. One of the most outgoing speeches was given by one of the victims of the Florida shooting, Emma Gonzalez; her speech is called ‘We call BS’. Throughout the speech, she goes through the different topics about gun violence and how easy it is to get a gun. She says: “We certainly do not to understand why it should be harder to make plans with friends on weekends than to buy an automatic or semi-automatic weapon”. This quote is showing on easy it is to get a gun and how people are doing nothing about these laws to make them think of fixing these laws, so it’s easier to buy a gun than to hang out with your friends on the weekend. In her speech she also mentioned something about the gunman and how he had mental illnesses but they still let him come back to the school. No one did enough to stop him and know one question him about the guns, he had no neighbors or his parents, they didn’t think to stick up for people and call the police or even the school. She even makes a thing towards the president: “You want to know something? It doesn’t matter, because I already know. Thirty million dollars. And divided by the number of gunshot victims in the United States in the one and one-half months in 2018 alone, that comes out to being $5,800. Is that how much these people are worth to you, Trump? If you don’t do anything to prevent this from continuing to occur, that number of gunshot victims will go up and the number that they are worth will go down. And we will be worthless to you”. She said how if he made harder gun laws, this would happen as often no one else would have to go through that, but what do you think should gun laws be stricter?

One of the most talked-about protests against violence and gun control took place on March 14, 2018, marked the one-month anniversary of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Thousands of American students and teachers took part in the Enough! The National School Walkout. This walkout was 17 minutes, one minutes of each victim killed in the school shooting. This walkout was to draw attention to gun violence. More than 2,800 were part of the walk out over the country. The walkout was a protest against the fact that society is not going to do anything about gun control laws.

The people that are most affected by gun violence are the victims in every mass shooting or school shooting our generation is affected by these shooting. So many people don’t get that they think it there right it’s the Second Amendment, but what are they going to say when their family’s or friends are getting or got killed by one of these gunmen. Are they still going to have the same opinion, are they still going to think it’s right? I think that we need more gun laws and make guns harder to get. I don’t think a 16-year-old should just walk into a gun store and give a fake ID and they’ll just give him a gun, or even someone with a mental illness, even though you think that’s okay. So many people have already been hurt by firearms, so we must do everything we can to prevent this from happening again in the future.

Gun control is a very big deal in today’s society. We need to make gun control laws to help prevent people from dying yearly. A lot of people are shot yearly because of gun violence. We need to prevent as much gun violence as we can because if we do not, this endless cycle of gun violence will keep on going. More & more people will die each year, and that is a bad thing. We do not need innocent people dying each year. It causes a lot of pain to families in America, losing a loved one in the world is a very hard thing to cope with. Laws on guns should definitely be stricter to prevent people from dying or getting into a situation where they are fighting for their life. What if you were put into that situation? Nobody wants to be put into a situation where they’re fighting for their life. I’m glad we have doctors who are in this world that are ready to respond to emergencies or dire situations. I will be listing some points to hopefully convince you that we need to enforce stricter gun laws to ensure Americans each year are safe from gun violence.

My first point in this essay will be that more gun control laws will definitely reduce gun violence & gun suicides each year. If you look at our current statistics in America, it will show that 100,000 Americans are injured each year by gun violence, and 36,000+ Americans are killed by gun violence each year. In the year 2017, US Gun Deaths per year has broken a record and ended with 39,773 and possibly more people being killed in that same year. It is super sad that gun violence has increased by 3,000 and higher in that year. Gun Deaths also increased by 16% from 2014 to 2017, and suicide with guns is the most common way to kill yourself. Over 51% of Americans take their life with a gun. This is obviously a big deal. People who are suicidal need help and we need to make these laws to ensure it isn’t too late to help them. We need more laws to ensure our safety and make sure Americans are more protected over the years to come. Click here to view the statistics. Guns at this time are the main cause of homicide. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that deaths caused by firearms for children are the second leading thing that death rates for children. Gun violence is responsible for 15% of children dying. Between 1993 – 2003, there were 270,000+ people who committed suicide through a gun. Which was the result of 51% of United States citizens killing themselves. If we enforce stricter gun control laws, it is possible that US gun ownership rates can decrease rapidly, which would result in fewer suicides by gun. If we do not enforce stricter laws, they’re likely to get higher & higher throughout the year resulting in more American deaths. Click to view the source for these two. Look at Pro 13 and Pro 2.

Did you know that other countries with gun control laws that are strict have lower suicide & homicide rates than the US? Take Finland for example. The countries require gun owners to get licensed to own their weapons. If you compare current US gun violence statistics with Finland’s gun violence statistics, you would be surprised. Finland has less death & injury rates than the US. Their laws on gun control reduced injury & deaths by gun. If the U.S. did what Finland does, throughout the years the U.S. gun violence rate will go down. Click here to view Finland’s statistics for deaths & injuries. We should also look at Switzerland. If you compare U.S. injuries & deaths with Switzerland’s injuries & deaths, it would show a much more impressive amount than what we currently have. The sad thing is, Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership, but there hasn’t been a mass shooting in eighteen years. Right now, they haven’t had one mass shooting since 2001. Where in the US, almost every day there is a mass shooting. We could also do something like Switzerland does, but then again, we need to improve and have laws that will protect the American people throughout the future. If we do not enforce gun laws, stuff like this will likely rise faster & faster. Click here to look at my source.

If Gun Control laws were to take place, we will definitely reduce a lot of hospital bills people are given. 100,000 people get shot in America yearly. When you are shot, you have to rush to the hospital. Gunshot wounds have cost us nearly $1 billion just for paying hospital bills. That is just insane. A group of researchers have concluded that the overall cost of these bills is $229 billion yearly. Click here to see my source. We need to enforce gun control laws and make them stricter. We cannot lose more lives in today’s society.

My conclusion is, we need to add more gun laws. If we do not, hospital bills will rise to a higher amount, more American deaths will occur, etc. As I said, gun violence in today’s society is a very big deal. We need to handle this properly and I believe this is a proper way to handle this. We have to act fast before more innocent lives are taken from us. I think I have given out the point a lot in this essay. If I didn’t, let me know. Also, let me know if you agree or disagree with me. Thank you for reading my essay and I hope you’ll consider me for a position in the Central Auditing Commission.

Gun Control has been a hot topic for a long time. It Started in 1968 “House Resolution 17735, known as the Gun Control Act, was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 22, 1968, banning mail order sales of rifles and shotguns and prohibiting most felons, drug users and people found mentally incompetent from buying guns.”-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Modern-day gun control has been a jumbled mess. A lot of people uneducated on the subject keep using the word “assault Rifle” which is not a real thing. People keep saying “We need to ban assault rifles” which makes no sense as it is not a real thing. The whole wave of people wanting to ban rifles is dumb because most gun violence is done with handguns. Most of the left-leaning side of the spectrum listens to the loudest sound on the subject. They don’t like to have their own facts they like to hear other people’s “facts”. They like to say that” In 2017 39,773 people died from gun deaths” This is a type of fear-mongering. Now this number is high but it doesn’t take out Suicide and gun accidents. So uninformed people hear the number 39,773 and think is all homicide or mass shootings. “Of the nearly 40,000 who died by firearms in 2017, 23,854 people, or 60%, committed suicide using a gun.”-http://time.com/5479993/gun-deaths-us-cdc/

Only about 37% of deaths were homicides due to guns. So suicides are a more pressing issue than gun homicides. Everyone talks about lives lost because of guns but what about lives saved?

As to defensives uses of guns, the CDC report said, ‘Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies. … Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.’ -https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/how-many-lives-are-saved-by-guns-and-why-dont-gun-controllers-care/

So 500,000 to 3 million lives were saved because of firearms compared to the 39,773 lost by guns is a dumb argument. Guns nowadays get a bad name, many more lives are saved because of guns than are lost. Banning guns is not the answer, more gun control is not the answer. A more intense background check is a got option to slightly lower gun violence. But criminals get guns illegally so more background checks aren’t going to stop gun violence. So what’s the answer? There is no right and wrong answer there’s not a lot we can do. In my opinion, we need better technology to track guns but until then there’s not a lot we can do.