Wednesday, May 27, 2020

The Gun Debate: Why America Shouldn’t Repeal the Second Amendment

Must Read

Mental health in the global black community

On February 23, 2020, Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed 25-year-old African American man, was murdered by a white...

Did you know Yoga had a huge Impact on mental health?

In light of the recent Coronavirus pandemic, mental health has been at the forefront of many discussions....

A case of race: How racism can impact mental health

Racism is not short of its involvement in popular discussion. As debates of race and identity have...
Common Sense Contributorshttp://www.tcsnetwork.co.uk
Our contributors are friends of The Common Sense Network who write for us from time to time. We love hearing fresh perspectives from people in different spaces. If you would like to become a contributor contact us at hello@tcsnetwork.co.uk

By Shafiq Kyazze.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “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.”

In the wake of the recent tragic mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, USA many have called for the abolition of the Second Amendment and a total ban on guns in the USA. But such reactionary measures won’t immediately solve the problem of killings by guns as they fail to tackle the underlying root cause.

Sociological study of mass shootings in the US has found that there are various characteristics perpetrators of such heinous acts share with each other. For example, statistically, the majority of mass shooters have come from fatherless or ‘broken homes’. Of course, this is not to claim there is a direct cause and effect relationship between home structure and likelihood to engage in a killing rampage, but simply that guns in and of themselves can’t inherently be the problem.

Studies of children raised in single parent households have also shown a strong correlation with those likely to self-harm, suffer from depression and harm others, suggesting that the significance of both parents in the development of one’s happiness and health is second to none. However, if we are acknowledging family patterns as a contributor to any rise in mass shootings, this isn’t a new epidemic. In the US the increase in fatherless homes started in the 1960s under Democrat President Lyndon. B. Johnson and has been growing ever since. So instead of banning guns should policies not first attempt to address root causes of the issue?

I think it’s clear that even if guns magically disappeared tomorrow, there are still going to be individuals who are depressed, suffering from mental health and who are disengaged with positive society, inadvertently making them more susceptible to self-harm and harming others in different ways. In view of this, the US needs a tougher stance on background checks before issuing out gun licenses and needs to put a stronger emphasis on addressing and tackling mental health issues as well as boosting school security.

A scene at the signing of the constitution by the founding fathers. The second amendment in the USA is supported by the constitution (painting by Howard Chandler Christy)

Furthermore, in China where guns are banned, in 2012 a 36-year-old man was able to stab 23 children and a teacher. Evidently, in countries where guns have been banned, this hasn’t ended mass murders. To put it differently, to blame guns or knives for mass murders is like blaming cars for road accidents caused by intoxicated drivers.

While it seems sensible that fewer guns will lead to fewer shootings, the issue is intricate. In places where citizens are allowed to carry guns, the law abiding population can use guns for self defence against criminals. Criminals find it riskier to commit crimes due to fear of getting shot or even killed which is why 96% of mass shootings happen in “gun free zones” according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. As a matter of fact, gun ownership in the US increased by 56% while gun violence fell by 50% between 1993 and 2013.

On a further note, residential burglaries dropped by 89% after Kennesaw a town in Georgia, USA passed an ordinance requiring every head of a household to own a gun. Although gun-control advocates point out that criminals will give up their guns after a firearm ban, they forget the basic definition of a criminal – someone who doesn’t follow the rules and laws of a country. So why would a ‘criminal’ give up their firearm simply because it’s been outlawed by the government?

A ban on guns will push their primary supply directly through black markets and criminals will use these firearms against law abiding citizens whose only defence would subsequently be the police. Police who take minutes to arrive at a crime scene and in some instances eventually find themselves outnumbered. This was notably seen during the 1992 L.A riots. While police were busy dealing with riots, Korean shop owners had to rely on their firearms for self-defence and to stop rioters from looting, burning and destroying their shops. A further illustration was seen from the recent Florida school shooting, the local police received 45 calls about the parkland shooter and the FBI received a tip about the assailant’s “desire to kill people” but still failed to stop the shooting. The police can’t provide perfect protection which calls for a need for the population to have their own form of self-defence.

Korean shop owners during the L.A riots. While many people were fleeing for their lives, Korean shop owners defended their shops and lives using their guns.

Contrary to the conventional view of ‘more guns equals more crime’, a study by 2 criminologists, Professors Gary Mauser and Don Kates repudiates the views of gun- control activists. The researchers wrote in the report:

“If the mantra `more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death’ were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per ca pita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed, many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)”

The report also found that in Russia where it’s illegal to own a gun, the murder rate is 4 times higher than that of the USA and 20 times higher than Norway where citizens of both countries have a higher gun ownership rate than Russia.

While many gun control proponents point to Australia as an example due to its 1996 firearm ban, the number of guns in Australia has increased over the last 10 years and is almost similar to what it was in 1996 (1.6% less). Yet, despite a rise in gun the ownership rate, the number of homicides has been steadily declining .

 

It’s safe to say that if statistics are anything to go by, banning gun ownership will not immediately reverse the rate of gun related deaths. What government needs to prioritise is identifying and tackling the underlying factors which require more time and more thought; those which can’t simply be implemented with the signing of a piece of paper.

 

Shafiq has a strong background in philosophy and history having been exposed to such issues at a very tender age. He has a voracious interest in economics, history, politics, philosophy and social issues. He is a Chemical engineering student at The University of Manchester. Shafiq is also an avid Barcelona fan and is currently a writer for TCS.

- Advertisement -

6 COMMENTS

  1. Interesting article. Why does it posit approaches to gun crime as binary? Ban guns or deal with root causes. Why cant the connective be AND lol. I don’t think ANYONE thinks ‘banning gun ownership will immediately reverse the rate of gun related deaths’…. Its simply a step in the right direction. You article, on the whole, seems to be saying banning guns won’t solve everything. Which is true, you haven’t augured that we are better of having them than not. Also what about, tougher background checks, closing gun show loop roles. The debate is a lot more nuanced than ban guys or not

    • I think we can both agree that i commended tougher background checks and how the topic is more naunced if you check the article is said “While it seems sensible that fewer guns will lead to fewer shootings, the issue is intricate”,
      “In view of this, the US needs a tougher stance on background checks before issuing out gun licenses and needs to put a stronger emphasis on addressing and tackling mental health issues as well as boosting school security.”
      Lastly, yes there are people who strongly believe banning guns will stop the mass murders.

  2. Its more nuanced than this :
    ‘Studies of children raised in single parent households have also shown a strong correlation with those likely to self-harm, suffer from depression and harm others, suggesting that the significance of both parents in the development of one’s happiness and health is second to none. ‘

    Single parent households are usually low income households and because the states has such a bad record of actually taking care of families, that what causes the depression and self harm etc…

    Correlation does not equal cause. In thr same way, I can say that mass shooters etc are men and so being a man is a root cause. Lets sort men out firsr before we decide to get rid of guns.
    I think we can do both. Get rid of guns AND support families and the issues they face in order to get rid of the culture of hypermasculinity that IS the root cause of mass shootings.

    • “states has such a bad record of actually taking care of families, that what causes the depression and self harm” i touched on this when i mentioned Lyndon b johnson’s welfare policies that led to an increase in single parent homes. If your assumption was even true, then the 1940s (before the introduction of the welfare state) would have higher mass shootings than 2016 but the facts say something else. In short you’re assumption doesn’t match up with the facts.
      Secondly getting rid of guns doesn’t stop mass murders which i touched upon by mentioning china and the the correlation between gun violence and gun ownership in Australia and various places.
      Lastly, if hypermasculinity was the case, then the 1950s where hypermasculinity was higher than it is now would have higher mass shooting but again the facts say otherwise. And ofcourse boys are more likely to suffer from growing up in single parent homes than girls which explains why alot of the mass shooters are men from single parent homes according to various studies carried out.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -

Latest News

Mental health in the global black community

On February 23, 2020, Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed 25-year-old African American man, was murdered by a white...

Did you know Yoga had a huge Impact on mental health?

In light of the recent Coronavirus pandemic, mental health has been at the forefront of many discussions. Staying indoors and living in...

A case of race: How racism can impact mental health

Racism is not short of its involvement in popular discussion. As debates of race and identity have increased tenfold, due mostly to...

What is lock-down like around the world?

Migrant workers throng buses amid the nationwide lockdown to stem the spread of coronavirus at Lal Kuan Bus Stand n Ghaziabad,...

War commemorations during a pandemic: right or wrong?

For a nation that loves any excuse for a good old party, frustrations were riding high as Victory in Europe's 75th anniversary...
- Advertisement -

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -