#shootersshoot | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

toussaintsteachings · 3 years

Text

Put Down Your Weapons

“The 22nd of July”

https://www.netflix.com/search?q=mass%20shooting&jbv=80210932

“A Killer on Floor 32″

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVfzxLvIxi8

Gun control is a topic of discussion in the United States which many Americans seem conflicted about. People advocating against the use of gun control and gun reform have consistently expressed concerns regarding the second amendment in the constitution, the right to bear arms. Many pro-gun Americans believe this is an invasion of privacy and does not represent a democracy that we pride ourselves in. Along with the infringement of privacy those who are pro gun feel that laws involving gun control will limit the ability for people to protect themselves and even lose hobbies like hunting with the progression of gun reform. Individuals who see the need for gun reform and gun control are adamant that the presence of these guns is in fact a risk to people's safety. They stress how easy and available guns are to the public, bringing people to forget how dangerous such common commodities are to the public eye. Our gun culture as a country stems from our revolutionary roots throughout colonial history. In the second amendment it states, “ A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Pro gun individuals insist that the second amendment protects the individual's rights to own guns and allows them to protect themselves and their families whenever a threat becomes real. With the relevance of mass shootings in our country especially throughout the past decade, people who are not pro gun believe that having guns around is doing more damage to society than protecting individuals. The easy access along with the new technology that breeds these killing machines are not the same guns that were used to protect ourselves when the Constitution was written. They believe the answer is not to abolish all gun ownership but to look into the laws and writing of the constitution and see if there is a common ground in which we can still have guns, but be safer with them.

My father is a retired marine and correctional officer at the maximum security prison, Sing Sing. My dad is a Republican and is very conservative in his views, but gun control is always something that he has been relatively progressive about when we talk. When I was growing up we never had a gun in our house, specifically for the reason that my dad associated guns with violence and having them in the house increases the likelihood they will be used in a time or place when they are not needed. After he retired he did armed security for a while. This was a job that required him to have a license to carry and own a handgun and was the first time that we had a gun in our household my entire life. In my family we never hunted or use guns as a hobby, so it is tough for me to acknowledge and understand the persistence of people who support guns for this specific reason. This helps me shape the severity of my stance when it comes to gun control and how I feel as if this is a major cause of violence in our country. Being someone who completed their K-12 education, lockdown drills, and active shooter drills was something that we rehearsed a couple of times a year. This was one of my biggest fears growing up, being involved in a school shooting, and how that would cause so much trauma to the individuals involved. Mass shooting alone fuels the fire when it comes to gun control and reform. This is not a matter of guns or no guns, but a middleground to please both parties. I believe that there are ways to allow us as Americans to feel safe and protected that do not involve arming every citizen. In addition, the accessibility level is another major issue when discussing gun control.

My friend from home called me over a week or two ago to hang out. I walked into his house and my friend Chase was standing in his living room with a semiautomatic rifle, with a smile on his face. My immediate reaction was to ask him where and how he got it. He proceeded to tell me how he walked into Dicks sporting goods, traveled back to the hunting section, provided an ID, followed by a quick background check, and walked out with the rifle all in the same hour. This is when I decided that I would write about gun control for my final paper and blog post. I wanted to write about this because in my eyes, guns scare me. I have never shot a real gun, or quite frankly even want to. I have grown up with an officer as my parent, and have heard many stories about how my dad almost lost his life with all of the gun violence he has encountered. The amount of damage that a gun causes, does not correlate with the difficulty of getting and owning a gun. The elimination or ban of guns would not address the problem. We have seen that throughout history when you tell a group of people or an individual that he or she may not do or partake in something, it only increases the likelihood of them disobeying. This was most popularly proved when the prohibition of alcohol was instated. People found every way in their power to not only consume, but illegally sell alcohol, regardless of the prohibition. This is not a way to cure the gun problem we have in our country, eliminating all guns will not work, and is not even a possible idea. People who are pushing for this need to realize that compromise will be the only way that we can properly address it and take into account society as a whole's belief, not just one side or the other. The need for reform is simply based on the amount of time that has passed. In the constitution guns were used for hunting and were oftentimes not even efficient or trustworthy enough to complete their original task. Now, technology has advanced these guns into killing machines that need active reform. The question is will these gun laws actually be effective.

An article I read from the National Center for health research, explained how guns are a part of U.S. culture. However, public opinion polls show that “85% of gun owners and non-gun owners support gun control laws like background checks.” Regardless of your take regarding gun control, the everyday citizen will agree a background check to own a gun is more than necessary. What was shocking that the article brought forward was that, 40% of gun sales do not go through a background check because they take place online, at gun shows, or through classified ads.(Manier, 2018) This was a shockingly high statistic, and even more reasoning for more efforts than a background check. Background checks are originally required by law under the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.” The bill allows states to decide whether local law-enforcement or the FBI will do a background check for the individual attempting to purchase a firearm. The article stated how the “Brady Bill stopped 2.1 million gun purchases between 1994 and 2014—an average of 343 purchases per day. The law blocked 1 million felons, 291,000 domestic abusers, and 118,000 fugitives from purchasing a firearm.” The bill was extremely effective and the checks done at the local level were said to lower gun related suicides close to 25% and lower gun related murders to roughly 20%.(Manier, 2018) Although we see the effectiveness when conducting background checks and how it affects gun related crime and violence, there are still holes in the system that peak through. The bill has had times where it has failed to report felons to the federal databases. The story regarding Devin Kelley in 2017, explained how he entered a church in Texas and killed 26 people. “The Air Force failed to report Kelley, and other service members charged with serious convictions, to the federal gun background check database. If Kelley had been reported, he would have been stopped from buying a gun because of his previous domestic violence conviction.” I thought this was interesting that many of these stories include retired or ex military, and are often a demographic that slips through the cracks when discussing responsibility of gun violence. It was reported that the Army fails to report roughly 40% convictions, followed by the Navy, with a striking 36% of convictions not reported (Manier, 2018). I also believe there is a hole in background checks when it comes to mental health. A lot of the time individuals can go decades before being diagnosed with a mental health disorder that would not show up in a background check if they are not diagnosed and have had any convictions involving this illness. Someone who is bipolar, living with their parents but has not been diagnosed may just come off as an adolescent struggling with anger problems or behavioral issues, but when a background check is done this will not come up on paper even though this is a clear characteristic of someone who our society deems not fit to own or purchase a firearm. The data and statistics have proven that we need more than a background check for an individual to own a gun, period. It has proven to be a step in the right direction, but there are too many holes, and non reported conventions for this to be the only limit of gun control in a country with the highest prevalence of guns.

More effective laws and control appear as the article continues, starting with Missouri's “Permit to Purchase” this law requires people to get a permit from local law-enforcement before purchasing a gun. Oddly enough Missouri repealed its permit to purchase Law in 2007, resulting in roughly a 60% increase in the firearm homicide rate per year following the repeal (Manier, 2018). Connecticut had a similar permit to purchase law instituted in 1995. This installment of the permit to purchase resulted in close to a “40% drop in firearm homicides. There was no drop in non-firearm homicides, indicating that it was likely the permit-to-purchase law that prevented gun deaths.” Requiring a permit before purchasing a gun could help a substantial amount in efforts to reduce gun-related homicides. It is an additional safety net to ensure the buyer is an appropriate holder of a firearm. Another issue in gun control is the accessibility of automatic and semi automatic assault rifles. In 1934 the transfer of machine guns was taxed under the national firearms act in effort to discourage their use. Semi automatic weapons, which are categorized as burst guns, are illegal in most states but banned in California Connecticut Washington DC Massachusetts Maryland New Jersey and New York (Manier, 2018). What I thought was really interesting that the article touched on after stating that semi automatic weapons are legal in most states was the ability to turn a semi automatic rifle into an automatic rifle. It went into further detail of explaining accessories like a bump stock that was added to the exterior of the gun to make the gun shoot faster similar to an automatic rifle. The Las Vegas shooting in 2007 was an example of someone who purchased the accessories, like a bump stock, to modify the semi automatic rifles so they would fire like a machine gun. The technology of present day people allows there to be loopholes in many of the gun laws and reform.

I did a lot of research regarding other countries' gun laws, and how they change and additional reform has led to a decrease in gun violence. I watched a video produced by global news regarding where one of their examples included the “Australian Port massacre”. I also researched an article, titled “Are Gun Control Laws Effective in Reducing Gun Violence” where they touch on this example as well. A gunman armed with semi automatic weapons killed 35 people, while wounding 23 others. The country responded with fast reform and some of the most comprehensive firearm laws in the world. They started by buying back around 700,000 firearms (Semple, 2019). In addition, they banned civilian ownership of semi automatic rifles and shotguns. They also implemented background checks when purchasing a firearm. Unlike the United States, Australian did not see “self defense”as a valid excuse for owning a weapon and one must have a more reasonable need for ownership. Although the right to bear arms is not in the constitution like what we have in the United States with the second amendment. When the laws passed, the firearm homicide rate dropped by more than 40% in the 7 years following. Also, “within 20 years from 1996, the odds of being murdered by a gun decreased 72% from 0.54 per 100,000 to 0.15 per 100,00 people”. They closed this section of the article with somewhat of a “jab” at the United States says “ many supporters of gun control believe the United States could follow Australia's successful and effective gun control rules and regulations.” In the video, South Africa has a similar reform of gun laws that took place in 2000. South Africa banned powerful weapons and implemented a background check system. They also required gun owners to have permits and licenses. A study found that gun deaths in five major South African cities decreased by nearly 14% per year for the next five years (Semple, 2019). Similar to the reform that took place in South Africa, Austria had a similar gun law implemented in 1997, that included background checks, limited access to powerful weapons, and a change in how people who owned guns wore store and carry them. It has been statistically proven that those cross countries with harsher gun laws and more restrictions have had less gun related deaths and are responsible for a much smaller percentage of gun violence, like mass shootings.

In the article, “Are Gun Control Laws Effective In Reducing Gun Violence”, the author explains how other cultures deal with guns and gun violence. Honduras has shown to have a different outlook on gun culture, but not by choice. A statistic provided stated that “Astonishing 80% of deaths in Honduras or a result of gun violence. Honduras is an underdeveloped Third World country and is a victim of gun trafficking.” Due to its location it is home to see routes in airdropped zones for gun trafficking. Corruption mixed with drug cartels is the perfect recipe for gun violence. Israeli gun culture is much different from the United States due to the fact that it requires military service from its citizens. When they are 18, they take a gun safety course along with other military training. Israel does not allow citizens to have guns unless they have a reasonable need to carry a firearm or are in a military practice (Paulsen, n.d.). That being said if you are employed in a security job or someone who cares about objects of high value, this deems fit as well. Due to the location of Israel and the neighboring countries like Iraq and Syria, citizens take personal protection very seriously. Many people believe that due to the high gun usage and access in Israel it would produce the same number of gun related deaths as the United States but this is not the case. This is because of the common practice of gun safety in the familiarity with guns on a day-to-day basis for reasons like personal safety. Finally, Japan was introduced to the discussion, which is practically a “gun free zone.” Japan practices an extremely strict set of laws and requirements when purchasing a gun. People who want to own a gun in Japan must complete a plethora of steps. These include Taking an all day safety course in passing your written exam followed by the requirement to shoot 95% on their marksman test. After this a rigorous background check which includes criminal records, drug use, both illegal and prescription based and mental health screenings (Paulsen, n.d.). The buyer is even checked at an employment level and colleagues are checked for links to extremist groups. In addition, yearly inspections are required and license expiration every three years are just some of the many rules Japan has in place for gun laws. Due to the vast rules and requirements, the ownership of guns and gun related death are extremely low. The author states how “In 2014, only 6 deaths by gunfire occurred in Japan, compared to the 33,599 deaths in the United States.” The stigma around guns has held true and allowed Japan to have success containing gun violence. I really enjoyed this article and how it was outlined. The main theme used the other countries, and their gun laws with the results, constantly comparing them to the US. This helped exploit and highlight the fact that we need reform and how that will lead to a progression when dealing with gun violence.

People who are anti-gun control often use the defense of protection. To them having a gun is the ideal way of protecting their families but statistics have shown that this is just simply not true, or a valid excuse to disregard gun reform. An article from ProCon.org states that, “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. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women).” The second highest country, Yemen, was at 52.8. We are also the highest in mass shootings. Mass shootings are one of the main indicators our country should note in regards to the gun control discussion. I found an article by SabRang, which showed a graph of mass shootings from the years 1983, to 2003. 119 shootings occurred, 78 of them in our own country, with the seconds closest being Germany with 7. We account for close to 65 percent of those shootings (Lemieux, 2018). People who believe this ideology that more guns equals a higher protection rate are not reading into gun related crime and deaths. If you read that graph, it helps you visualize the severe difference in ownership of guns in the United States, but this directly correlates with the amount of mass shootings taking place. This is a major area of concern when dealing with gun reform. This is especially important, because we see the amount of damage that these guns can cause and how more recently how they have affected schools. Are you supposed to arm everyone or teacher in a school setting? Will this result in a dramatic drop in school shootings and actually serve as a preventative measure? No! The most simple analogy, two wrongs don't make a right, can be applied here. More guns are not the solution when it comes to gun control. That is at the very bottom of the priority list, compared to making it harder to access these killing machines, and taking a look at which guns we should even have access to as everyday citizens. The only way to take a hard look at our issues with gun control, is to take into account how other countries who have had success with this dilemma, and try to model our society and begin to practice their restrictions. The common theme of countries like Japan, and Austria, include severely reducing the amount of guns available for the public, rather the implementation of more guns as a defense mechanism.

“Guns don't kill people. People kill People'', is something you commonly hear when discussing the argument of gun control with someone who is against reform. An article by the Rolling Stone titled, “4 Pro-Gun Arguments We’re Sick of Hearing”, by Amanda Marcotte, states that this is a logical resonse when dealing with one death, but to rack up a death count of 10-20 people, you need a weaopn, a gun. Appointing and reflecting the blame is a lackluster way of going about such a serious dilemma. It highly suggested that if you do have any sympathy or feeling toward the recent trend guns have attached to themselves, then you should have no issue in implementing laws that make it harder for individuals to obtain. A little further down in the article it touches on a similar blame tactic pro gun individuals use when defending guns, which is mental health. I thought that the author did a great job of highlighting the neglect of mental health from the republican party, until something like a mass shooting comes alone. Statistics show that 1 out of every five Americans are diagnosed and deal with a mental health disorder (Marcotte, 2018). Due to the abundance of shooting incidents, we have a lot of information on these individuals. “Data shows it is hard to predict when someone suffering from mental health is going to go off, and only 23 percent of shooters have a diagnosis. Even if all of those individuals got gold-star treatment, the system would only stop a few shooters.” (Marcotte, 2018) Although I felt that these were the major takeaways from this article, the author did have additional information exposing limitations of the argument that guns are the only way to protect us from gun violence. No mass shooting in the past 30 years has been stopped by armed civilians. Only in 1982 did an armed civilian successfully kill a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime (Marcotte, 2018). The idea is that shooting back during the chaos of a mass shooting or a school shooting is unrealistic and oftentimes makes matters worse. We saw this with the example given in the article when in 2011 Gabby Gifford nearly shot the wrong man when attempting to take out the active shooter.

To come back to the original question will gun laws be effective, I think there is a clear-cut answer. Yes! Throughout the extensive research there has been an abundance of articles, and videos that thoroughly support the enforcement of stricter gun laws in the United States. Just like any other topic of discussion the best way to bring awareness to a dilemma is through comparison. I saw by researching other countries and getting familiar with their gun laws that there was a common trend that led to successful gun control; low amount and accessibility of guns in the first place! This is not an object or a commodity that should be taken lightly, since we have seen its potential and how it is only growing through the revamping of technology and the progression of time. It is fair in every Controversial topic to take both sides into account, and try to come to a middle ground rather than in this case abolishing the right to own or purchase a firearm.

References:

History of Gun Control - ProCon.org. (2020, November 03). Retrieved November 13, 2020, from https://gun-control.procon.org/history-of-gun-control/

Lemieux, F. (2018). “5 things to know about mass shootings in America”. Retrieved November 13, 2020, from https://www.sabrangindia.in/article/5-things-know-about-mass-shootings-america

Manier, L. (2018, April 12). “Does Gun Control Really Work?” Retrieved November 17, 2020, from https://www.center4research.org/does-gun-control-really-work/

Marcotte, A. (2018, June 25). 4 Pro-Gun Arguments We're Sick of Hearing. Retrieved November 23, 2020, from https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-194212/

Paulsen, M. (n.d.). Are Gun Control Laws Effective in Reducing Gun Violence. Retrieved November 13, 2020, from https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=4a1b03cf5575487190772768259d653d

Semple, Jeff, director. Gun Control: Do Firearms Laws Actually Work. Gun Control: Do Firearm Laws Actually Work?, 2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODwRtjN13No.

#shootersshoot #whyyousoobsessedwithguns

1 note · View note