As this year’s disturbing presidential race unfolds, one of the issues that has been brought up—the cause of multiple deaths of civilians and police officers—is that of gun possession. The Democratic, pseudo-progressive view is pro-gun control, while the Trumpian view supports deregulation and is aligned with the views of the NRA. Both sides invoke academic studies to support in their respective attempts to support and promote their views.
There are several, contradicting, studies on the issue. According to The Washington Post, “The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries.” A study carried out by Harvard Law School concludes that there is no immediate correlation between gun control and reduction in homicides and suicides “when a large number of nations are compared across the world.” On the contrary, Harvard School of Public Health finds that both across high-income nations and American states, more guns result in higher homicide rates, and for the United States, more guns result in more police homicides. Even from a limited sample of studies, it is evident that results are mixed. There are many factors in play, hence study results are not consistent and do not provide concrete evidence as to whether we should allow firearms, control their distribution, or ban them altogether. Therefore, although such studies are substantial aids in understanding the problem, in this case they cannot serve as solid guidelines in formulating policy. In cases where human life, and more importantly the “right” to take one away, is involved, we should go deeper than just numbers and cold rationalism. One of the most prevalent pro-gun arguments is that there are already millions of guns out there, possessed by the “bad guys,” hence we should arm the “good guys” to balance the situation, as beautifully illustrated in the Guardian short documentary Gun Nation. Nevertheless, arming both sides is an argument that, although at first glance might seem rational, aims to restrict the existing manifestations of the most troubling problem in the Unites States, rather than confront and deal with the processes that created it. Unfortunately, the majority of people prefer measures that restrict consequences rather than targeting the source of the problem. These measures are also preferred by some policymakers given that they are the easiest approach. Both gun control and deregulation are highly restrictive measures, only in different directions. The former aims to restrict people “unfit” to access guns through the law, while the latter aims to restrict malicious people who already have guns through arming people with “noble objectives.” Nevertheless, targeting the root of such a long-lasting problem is much more complicated and requires a much tougher course of action than just restricting the consequences. …show more content…
The key steps of such a solution are recognizing what creates the problem, explaining the apparent “need” for gun use by such a large number of Americans, and most importantly comprehending and embracing passive defenses to gun possession. A passive defense plan entails abolishing gun ownership, while aiming to reduce the guns possessed by individuals at the moment. Although such a course might at first seem non-rational, given the enormous amount of 88.8 guns possessed by every 100 people, it could prove to be the toughest, most effective way to combat the problem. According to Reuters, the number one cause for gun use by civilians is “personal conflict.” Nevertheless, it is one thing to have a personal conflict with somebody and another to go so far as to use a gun to commit a murder. Therefore, it seems that personal conflict leading …show more content…
At the same time, it should replace mass education, focusing on each individual’s problems and characteristics. There should be mechanisms to identify and combat mental illnesses at an early age incorporated in such an educational system, thus providing people who have mental illnesses with safe, hospitable environments. Concurrently, we should target areas of concentrated poverty where the cycle of rotting in an endless environment of no opportunity repeatedly brings people to their limits, hence the high homicide rates. Although the individuals share significant responsibility for their actions, it is the described environment that creates these tendencies, as survival instincts, naturally, replace what we know as rational thought
There are several, contradicting, studies on the issue. According to The Washington Post, “The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries.” A study carried out by Harvard Law School concludes that there is no immediate correlation between gun control and reduction in homicides and suicides “when a large number of nations are compared across the world.” On the contrary, Harvard School of Public Health finds that both across high-income nations and American states, more guns result in higher homicide rates, and for the United States, more guns result in more police homicides. Even from a limited sample of studies, it is evident that results are mixed. There are many factors in play, hence study results are not consistent and do not provide concrete evidence as to whether we should allow firearms, control their distribution, or ban them altogether. Therefore, although such studies are substantial aids in understanding the problem, in this case they cannot serve as solid guidelines in formulating policy. In cases where human life, and more importantly the “right” to take one away, is involved, we should go deeper than just numbers and cold rationalism. One of the most prevalent pro-gun arguments is that there are already millions of guns out there, possessed by the “bad guys,” hence we should arm the “good guys” to balance the situation, as beautifully illustrated in the Guardian short documentary Gun Nation. Nevertheless, arming both sides is an argument that, although at first glance might seem rational, aims to restrict the existing manifestations of the most troubling problem in the Unites States, rather than confront and deal with the processes that created it. Unfortunately, the majority of people prefer measures that restrict consequences rather than targeting the source of the problem. These measures are also preferred by some policymakers given that they are the easiest approach. Both gun control and deregulation are highly restrictive measures, only in different directions. The former aims to restrict people “unfit” to access guns through the law, while the latter aims to restrict malicious people who already have guns through arming people with “noble objectives.” Nevertheless, targeting the root of such a long-lasting problem is much more complicated and requires a much tougher course of action than just restricting the consequences. …show more content…
The key steps of such a solution are recognizing what creates the problem, explaining the apparent “need” for gun use by such a large number of Americans, and most importantly comprehending and embracing passive defenses to gun possession. A passive defense plan entails abolishing gun ownership, while aiming to reduce the guns possessed by individuals at the moment. Although such a course might at first seem non-rational, given the enormous amount of 88.8 guns possessed by every 100 people, it could prove to be the toughest, most effective way to combat the problem. According to Reuters, the number one cause for gun use by civilians is “personal conflict.” Nevertheless, it is one thing to have a personal conflict with somebody and another to go so far as to use a gun to commit a murder. Therefore, it seems that personal conflict leading …show more content…
At the same time, it should replace mass education, focusing on each individual’s problems and characteristics. There should be mechanisms to identify and combat mental illnesses at an early age incorporated in such an educational system, thus providing people who have mental illnesses with safe, hospitable environments. Concurrently, we should target areas of concentrated poverty where the cycle of rotting in an endless environment of no opportunity repeatedly brings people to their limits, hence the high homicide rates. Although the individuals share significant responsibility for their actions, it is the described environment that creates these tendencies, as survival instincts, naturally, replace what we know as rational thought