Gun Should Not Be Banned - Essay Example

Insert Introduction It is a fact that cases of gun misuse are real and have brought about horrendous tragedies, suffering and psychosocial anguish. The West Chester, Pennsylvania Rocky Hill Schoolhouse shootings (September 28, 1850), Louisville, Kentucky shootings (November 2, 1853), the Chattanooga, Tennessee shootings (December 22, 1868), the Cleveland, Ohio (October 10, 1906), the San Diego, California shootings by Brenda Spencer (January 29, 1979), the Centerville, Tennessee shootings by Donald Wayne Givens (May 20, 1990), the San Antonio, Texas shootings by Gregory Heath Tidwell (August 15, 1996), the Columbine High School shootings on May 20, 1999 the Campbell County High School shooting on November 8, 2005, the Chardon High School shootings on February 27, 2012, the 2012 Aurora shootings, the Santa Monica shooting in 2013, the John F. Kennedy High School and Cesar Chavez Elementary School shootings in 2014 are some of the few examples of gun violence. Because of the profound prevalence of gun crimes, Vice President Joe Biden has been n tasked with looking at the list of recommendations on gun policy to the US President, Barrack Obama. Banning guns or gun ownership may not be a solution, even though there are those who have touted the move as a tenable alternative. Thesis Statement Despite the menacing threat of gun violence, banning guns will not be the solution to the problem, since the move [banning guns] will be done in isolation to facts pertinent to crime. Banning guns will not be a tenable solution to gun violence and the misuse of guns because doing so is making the assumption that a gun is an immoral object. On the contrary, just like any non-living thing, guns in themselves are amoral. Guns in the hands of responsible and law abiding citizens are merely tools of self-preservation, defense and maintenance of law and order. It is important to factor the truth that those who engage in gun violence and mass shootings are a small minority in the US population. In this case, banning guns would be infringing on the rights of the majority in the United States, to solve a section of the minority’s problems. Also, in this light, banning guns is an act that will be tantamount to deny law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves from criminals. The converse is also true that in the hands of troubled minds or people with criminal intent, guns will also become tools of terror, murder and grave injustice. In this case, it will be important that corrective measures are expended to deal with the portion of the minority that cannot handle gun rights well. That guns are amoral as previously stated in the discourse means that banning guns may not necessarily reduce crime. According to research studies on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, there was very little effect that the ban brought about, if at all, as far as abating gun crime is concerned. Specifically, the research study that was carried out by Koper and Roth under the aegis of the US Department of Justice indicated an absence of the direct relations between the original bans of guns and reduction in gun crime or gun violence. Particularly, Koper and Roth stated the inability to point out reduction in two types of gun murders that are believed to be closely associated with assault weapons- those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim and those with multiple victims in a given incident. In respect to this development, Koper and Roth divulged that at its best, the assault weapons ban can have a limited effect on all gun murders since banned magazines and weapons are never involved in more than a simple fraction of total gun murders (Vernick, Webster and Hepburn, 275-7). Again, the problem with banning guns as a way of containing gun violence is also akin to treating the wrong symptoms. Some of the cities that have had the worst gun crimes are those with very strict gun control laws. Baltimore, Chicago, Washington D.C. and Detroit exemplify these cities. This underscores the fact that withdrawing guns from the public will by any means extirpate the proliferation of violence or gun crimes. In a closely related wavelength, it is important to appreciate the feasibility of banning guns. At the moment, there are 300 million guns that are privately owned in the United States. The corollary to this is that there are nine guns being owned by ten people. This means that to effect the banning of guns from private hands, the government will have to buy back privately owned guns in large scale. The same also brings the possibility of the massive buy-back of guns to question. It is interesting how the federal government will achieve this feat in the face of its current economic struggles. Again, the fact that gun control is becoming increasingly unpopular is a matter that may hinder the success of the gun buy-back move. This unpopularity is especially profound among the Second Amendment advocates. Again the fact that over the last five years, gun sales has soared continues to underscore the inability to buy guns back from private owners. In the same vein, more than 100,000 people have in the past five years joined the National Rifle Association in the wake of a potential gun crackdown (Newport, 1-3). In another wavelength, banning guns will not be in order since it will be tantamount to treating the symptoms of an illness rather than the illness itself. The crux of the matter behind gun violence and crime is that those who engage in it have mental health or psychological problems. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in 2012, the public started questioning the logic that would motivate a person to open fire on 20 innocent children and 6 adults in Newtown, Connecticut. Following this, psychologists started to investigate and create profiles of mass shooters. According to Peter Langman, a psychologist in Pennsylvania, Allenton the commonest themes that emerged from studies and psychological investigations on mass shooters are vengeance and/ or envy. Parker concludes from Langman’s contribution to posit that this explains why most mass shootings are prevalent in school, at the workplace or in movie theaters. According to a forensic nurse at Binghamton University, Mary Muscari, these are the points where the shooters felt rejected (Parker, 717). According to Mary Muscari, most mass shooters exhibit risk factors which are usually linked with criminality. Some o f these risk factors are ineffective parenting, a sadistic mien, a history of abuse, lack of compassion and self-centeredness. These behavioral predispositions are also consistent with psychological problems. It will therefore be helpful that the United States deals with psychological problems that beset the American population. America’s focus should particularly be placed on family health and people who have been found to have had a brush with abuse, dysfunctional families and childhood. In respect to the above revelation, it is in order to reiterate the standpoint that banning guns is not a constructive exercise since guns are amoral and the cause of mass shootings. It does not delude even the simplest of minds that guns do not kill people, and that instead, it is people who kill others, the instrument used notwithstanding. In this regard, it is an indisputable fact that banning guns will not necessarily assuage mass killings. On the contrary, even if mass shootings will have been extirpated by the banning and withdrawal of guns from private ownership, there will be other ways and mechanisms by which mass killings can be carried out. Reflections The foregoing clearly shows that banning guns from private ownership should not be done, as it will not suffice in the war on violence and mass killings. Such a move will have been founded on the logical fallacy that guns are immoral in themselves, and that guns are the only means by which mass killings can be executed. The same also assumes that guns are the sole problem behind mass killings. Instead, there are measures that the US can do to avert the danger of mass killings. It is needful that the US places emphasis on people who have had a brush with a distraught past, abuse or dysfunctional families but have not received counseling. Presently, the American society does not seriously teach about constructive ways of dealing with disappointment and depression. I like manner, people at risk are offered very little support before they become violent. When the psychological instability that besets and characterizes the American society is added to the crime stories, series and movies which dominantly litter the US media, the source of mass shootings cannot be missed. It is also expedient that America as a whole gets rid of the toxic culture which seems to inculcate itself deeper into US’ life with every passing day. In this light, America’s culture and media may be relooked, vis-à-vis, video games and violent movies. Some of the video games and movies in the market or public domain are violent enough to influence children and desensitize the public towards atrocious acts and crime in general. Time is also opportune for the US government to review and amend its gun laws so that gun holders are subjected to more frequent psychiatrist reviews. Works Cited Newport, Frank. “In U.S., Continuing Record-Low Support for Stricter Gun Control; Fewer than 3 in 10 support law banning handguns except for police and authorized personnel.” Gallup Poll News Service, 11/2010. Print Parker, Jeffrey S. “Guns, crime, and academics: some reflections on the gun control debate.” The journal of law & economics, 44.2 (2001): 715 – 723. Print Vernick, J. S., Webster, D. W. & Hepburn, L. M. “Effects of Marylands law banning Saturday night special handguns on crime guns.” Injury prevention: journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, 5.4 (1999): 259 – 263. Print Read More