Opposition to Total Gun Ban - Essay Example

Opposition to Total Gun Ban Teacher               Opposition to Total Gun Ban Recently in the news, the U. S. government seems to be having a debate on whether guns should be carried in public or not. Currently, I know that so many gun advocates as well as human rights activists are fighting against the ban on carrying guns in school campuses. On the other hand, there are may who are also fighting for the prohibition of guns in school campuses. What is common knowledge to these people and to the majority of the population is that guns are dangerous and carrying them entails risks. However, a detailed analysis of the articles featured in this paper conclude that total gun ban in school campuses in America is not the solution to the gun debate problem. Nevertheless, there are also various problems with these articles especially concerning the fact that none of them touched on the idea of safety and security and that almost all of them focused on the legality of the issue. Purpose The purpose of the problem is actually to be able to shed more light on the issue of the lack of practicability of the complete gun ban in school campuses in the United States. Moreover, I believe that the paper should seek answers to the question on the extent that a total gun ban in schools should violate human rights, the extent that banning of guns in schools promote safety, and the possibility on the possible regulation of guns if allowed in school campuses. The problem is that the purpose of the problem or the issue of total gun ban in schools is not clearly stated in the articles. In Connolly’s article, although the purpose is somehow implied as something that illegally violates the basic human right to carry guns. Moreover, the article clearly states that the justification of Florida Carry against the total gun ban in the University of Florida campus is merely a “permanent injunction to protect the rights of students, faculty, and the public from the university’s illegal and unconstitutional regulations prohibiting firearms and weapons on all university property” (Connolly, 2014). Moreover, the reason why the University of Florida lost the case is also stated by Florida Carry – that the UF “has failed to comply with the court’s ruling by doing nothing more than adding an ‘intent’ footnote to one of its illegal policies” (Connolly, 2014). This therefore means that the University of Florida could have had a chance to win the case against Florida Carry if only the former had added an “intent footnote to its policy.” This somehow means that the University lost only because of a simple lack of information. Moreover, the fact that the article did not even speculate what this “intent footnote” was is actually a sign that the purpose of the issue is actually not a priority of the article. The purpose of the issue is also not clearly stated in the article “Conceal and carry advocates push U of M to drop gun ban.” The University of Minnesota was actually accused of having this wrong policy: “[regulating] the possession and carrying of weapons by members of the University community and by others when on University property in accordance with Board of Regents policy ‘Possession and Carrying of Weapons’ adopted in July 2003” (Kare, 2014). However, aside from the fact that the news implied that the accusations against the school was against this particular policy on banning guns totally, there are no clear explanations as to why exactly such a policy is illegal and wrong. Thus, for both this article and Connelly’s, there is a question about why a policy directed towards the protection of the lives of the individual is actually considered wrong and illegal. These news articles do not explain the verity and advantage of the accusations against total gun bans and the problems of the total gun ban itself aside from the vague statement that it is a violation of human rights. The CNN article is also a problem since it did not particularly state the purpose of the opposition to total gun ban. The news in favor and against these total gun bans were all mixed up. Moreover, those news about the Republican representatives of Missouri protecting the rights of gun owners and about the governor vetoing it somehow makes the reader conclude that the opposition to total gun ban is actually ridiculous. This sense of ridiculousness is actually implied from the statement that the Missouri proposal “would have technically allowed residents to own a machine gun [and] would have made it a crime to enforce background checks [on gun owners]” (Martinez, 2013). Moreover, there is another law in Iowa concerning the state allowing blind people to even receive permits for carrying guns in public (Martinez, 2013). Nevertheless, despite these reports, the CNN correspondent did not give his own objective evaluation of the matter, thus making it confusing for the reader to make a definite stance on the matter. Thus, although the article seems to be trying to say that the protection of gun rights to all people should be the rule, and that total gun ban is stupid, the purpose of the issue is not clear since it is not explicitly stated. Question The question regarding opposition to total gun ban in the United States is actually unclear and biased. This is because in the news and in the scholarly articles, it does not answer the question on how the opposition to total gun ban relates to the goal of gun safety. The articles actually answer the question of legality. It is therefore definite that a total gun ban is a violation of the basic human right to carry guns in public, including school campuses. However, neither of the articles considered the question of gun safety vis-à-vis the illegal nature of the total gun ban. Thus, the practical question that the articles have failed to answer is how can a school regulation that aims for the safety and security of students be considered illegal? Even the scholarly articles do not reflect a clear treatment of the question. Mongan and Walker’s article entitled “The Road to Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions”: A Historical, Theoretical, and Legal Analysis of Zero-Tolerance Weapons Policies in American Schools” asks whether or not the total gun ban in schools is beneficial or not, and the article simply says it is not without giving much consideration to the question. According to the article, the policies concerning total gun ban are actually “theoretically unsound, are empirically supported, and fall prey to several legal critiques” (Mongan & Walker, 2012). The explanations to this claim are actually very much biased and are directed only in favor of the opposition to the total gun ban. Furthermore, it repeatedly reiterates that a total gun ban is a violation of the basic human right to carry guns. Moreover, the authors repeatedly contend that “determining guilt and severity of threat can be time consuming and difficult” (Mongan & Walker, 2012). This therefore implies that the authors tend to be biased towards the idea that total gun bans are ridiculous simply because it would be hard to point out the true perpetrators in a particular case. In the same way, the authors never ever tried to touch on the idea of safety and security, which was the actual goals of these total gun bans in school campuses. Information The articles are actually showing accurate evidence but the information presented is actually not reflective of the whole issue. The solution therefore does not consider the complexity of issues since they do not touch on the aspect of security and safety afforded by the total gun ban. Connolly’s article and the one entitled “Conceal and carry advocates push U of M to drop gun ban” actually only present the ridiculousness of the total gun ban because it is tantamount to the violation of students’ rights to carry guns in school campuses. These articles do not touch on the aspect of safety and security that the total gun ban is actually aimed at. In the same way, the article by Mongan and Walker does not provide any information concerning the same aspect that is neglected by the two previous articles. Instead, it focuses on the problems of the total gun ban in school campuses without even highlighting any possible advantage of this regulation. Thus, the information is actually accurate but highly biased against the total gun ban. Concepts The news articles somehow treat their readers as if they were already familiar with the issue of total gun ban and so these articles do not seem to emphasize the basic concepts of the total gun ban anymore and neither does it explain the legalities behind it. Thus, the writers of these news articles also somehow consider their readers as people who do not like to delve deeper into the complexities of the law. The idea they present is extremely simple – that the total gun ban that universities impose in school campuses, regardless of the advantages it may bring, is always a violation of the basic human right to carry weapons in public. The articles, however, did not present the details of such violation. Thus, it fails to consider whether legalities still apply if the weapon carried must be concealed or can be exposed, if this applies to all types of weapons, and if the legalities still apply regardless of the potential safety and security benefits towards which these laws are directed. Moreover, in Connolly’s article, there are so many direct quotes from people perhaps in order to avoid possible biases in arguments. Moreover, in the same article, the activist gun group Florida Carry seems to be committing the straw man fallacy for going against the University of Florida merely because the latter is assumed by the former not to possess any constitutional right to ban guns. Florida Carry then concludes by maintaining its stance that the carrying of guns in public is constitutional since the University of Florida does not have the right to prevent this. This does not follow at all because federal law may still operate even within the jurisdiction of the university. Moreover, the goals of the University of Florida Board of Regents may simply be as simple as the protection of the lives of the students in the school campus. Thus, because of this fallacy, the concept behind the opposition to total gun ban is not objectively misunderstood. Likewise, the scholarly article by Mongan and Walker did not present the concepts as objectively as possible because it remained bias against the issues of safety and security. All the authors did was to present all the legal impediments that will result if the schools and the States favored the total gun ban. In fact, one fallacious statement by the authors is that “determining guilt and severity of threat can be time consuming and difficult” (Mongan & Walker, 2012). From this statement, one can realize that the authors are merely assuming that total gun ban and even partial gun bans are just a waste of time because they would all lead to complications as to who is actually the perpetrator. Moreover, the article is committing the fallacy of nonsequitur because it implies that the student violating the total gun ban policy maybe did not know about the violation of this law, and so somehow this means that those who have not known the law are just innocent and should therefore not be held accountable or arrested. Besides, the article somehow implies anybody can just feign ignorance of the existence of this particular law. Thus, Mongan and Walker are implying that things are actually less complicated if there is no total gun ban. The article by Stell features Professor Zimring’s argument regarding the best solution to the problem of gun control, but the concepts presented are not clear. According to Zimring’s argument, “Reducing the percentage of homicides committed with guns is the key to reducing America’s homicide rate,” thus gun control measures are actually considered “needless and useless” (Stell, 2004). Somehow, this is very sane as this means that the key to reducing the incidents of homicide caused by guns is the banning of the sale of guns altogether. The concepts behind this theory are presented and explained in detail and objectively. However, still, it fails to clarify on the concept of safety and security that a total gun ban would most probably bring. One more thing is that it did not clarify whether the concept of totally banning the sale of guns is indeed if even theoretically possible. In fact, it sounds more impossible than a total gun ban. McMahan’s article is actually very similar to Stell’s as it also abandons the idea that a total gun ban still has some advantages. What it does is that instead it utilizes argumentum ad hominem in directing its arguments against the nature of Americans calling them “simply inherently more violent, more disposed to mental derangement, and less moral than people in other countries” (McMahan, 2012). Therefore, instead of directing its arguments towards the problems regarding the legalities and safety and security aspects, the article instead focuses on the attitude and mental nature of Americans. Assumptions Generally, the news and scholarly articles all assume that total gun ban in school campuses in the United States is actually merely a disadvantage. The articles discuss the negative side of the total gun ban such as its being a violation of the human right to carry guns. The article by Mongan and Walker, as well as those of McMahan and Stell also discuss the disadvantages or the uselessness of a total gun ban. Mongan and Walker do not give any suggestions and instead only criticize the ineffectiveness and complications of total gun ban policies. McMahan somehow does the same but implies that if ever there is a solution, it should be to change the nature of the American people, which is naturally impossible. Stell’s article is no different as it assumes that it is the sale of guns that is the problem and not the total gun ban. Just like McMahan, it therefore avoids the issue of the gun ban altogether. Moreover, just like McMahan’s impossible assumption about changing the nature of the American people, Stell’s theory which implies banning the sales of guns is also another impossible thing. The problem is that these assumptions are biased because of a number of reasons. First, they do not raise the issue of safety and security, which is obviously an advantage of total gun ban. Secondly, these assumptions are actually directed only against the total gun ban. Thirdly, the solutions offered by the authors are mostly impossible such as the implication to change the nature of Americans and the suggestion about banning sales of guns. Inferences The articles offered a similar solution to the problem: to eradicate total gun ban for all it has is disadvantages. There are some explanations as to why the solution was reached. The news articles by Connolly and by Kare are all about the victories of the gun advocate groups after battling against the University of Florida and the University of Minnesota. Thus, there is no other way to discuss this than to discuss how the gun advocate groups have won. Moreover, the CNN article is merely stating the news and is not directly either in favor or against the total gun ban because of the mixed topics of the news that it presented. Lastly, McMahan’s article, and the ones by Stell and Mongan and Walker are actually articles that assume that the whole process of total gun ban has complicated consequences. Stell believes that a total gun ban is not directly connected with homicide cases. Mongan and Walker believe that there is a problem with the nature of the perpetrators when it comes to adopting a total gun ban. McMahan assumes that the problem lies in the nature of the Americans and not in the implemented policy. Point of View Based on the point of view of the authors of the articles, not many points of view are discussed in some of the articles. The news articles by Connolly, Kare and Martinez actually only discuss the points of view of the gun control advocates and does not consider in detail the defense of the University of Florida and the University of Minnesota. Somehow, the other articles – those of McMahan and Stell discuss other points of view, although these points of view are actually impossible solutions. Mongan and Walker’s article is one that does not consider anything but the negative legal aspects of a total gun ban. Implications Based on the considerations of the solution, the articles imply that a total gun ban is certainly not the answer to the rising number of cases of homicide in the United States. However, there are no concrete solutions offered except perhaps a reduction in the sales of guns, as implied by Stell. What the six articles did not discuss, however, is the idea of safety and security that a total gun ban can actually bring about. Therefore, unless this aspect is considered in detail, then one cannot make any conclusion regarding the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of a total gun ban. Conclusion Based on the articles, the purpose of the problem of complete gun ban in American school campuses in the United States is not properly stated. Moreover, the articles do not touch on the aspect of safety and security which is actually one of the reasons why the complete gun ban in school campuses is being implemented. Rather, the articles concentrate on opposing the idea of total gun ban and presenting all sorts of evidence against it. This evidence includes legal impediments and complications that will arise from it, the fact that it is a violation of the basic human right to carry guns in public, and the theory that it is not a gun ban that the country needs but a change in the attitude of Americans as well as reduction in the volume of gun sales. From the statement of the authors, one can say that they are merely assuming that gun bans, whether total or partial, are actually simply a waste of time. Thus, all the articles are assuming that gun ban is actually only a disadvantage to the society, but they did not offer any concrete solutions to the issue nor did they present multiple points of view on the matter or at least even touch on the idea of safety and security visa-a-vis the concept of violation of human rights. Moreover, these articles had various fallacies in them, which means that the content of these articles are at best fallacious or untrue. References Connolly, K. P. (2014). UF sued Florida gun-rights group over campus firearm rules. Retrieved from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-01-11/news/os-florida-carry-lawsuit-uf-gun-rights-20140111_1_north-florida-firearms-campus Kare (2014). Conceal and carry advocates push U of M to drop gun ban. Retrieved from http://www.kare11.com/story/news/local/2014/03/24/conceal-and-carry-advocates-push-u-of-m-to-drop-gun-ban/6849565/ McMahan, Jeff. (2012). Why Gun ‘Control’ is Not Enough. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/why-gun-control-is-not-enough/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Martinez, M. (2013). State battles intensity on access to guns. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/gun-control-state-by-state/ Stell, L. K. (2004). The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 3, 38-46. Mongan, P. & Walker, R. (2012). The road to hell is paved with good intentions: A historical, theoretical, and legal analysis of zero-tolerance weapons policies in American schools. Preventing School Failure, 56(4), 232-240. Read More