Gun ownership has been a political tradition in the United States right from the first day. The main reason for this is self-defense as the natural and undeniable right guaranteed appropriately by the Constitution. On the contrary, the modern history of the USA goes with gun violence. This term does not solely cover public mass shootings but also so-called daily violence, that is, shooting as a part of the routine. Such cases are not necessarily given equal publicity but still have numerous victims every year. The problem has grown especially acute against the background of the social tensions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the quarantine restrictions.
To acknowledge that the issue has always been, and remains, highly debatable would mean to say nothing. Every new case of mass shooting triggers intractable controversies at all levels of American society. The primary question is whether gun control needs strengthening or prohibitive measures will never allow an effective settlement of the problem. Those who insist on stricter limitations regarding gun ownership consider weapons to be the cause of violence. Meanwhile, the brutal force had been used for thousands of years before the invention of the firearm. This suggests that violence as a phenomenon has a social origin, and no increases in gun control would help.
The Nature of Violence
For as long as humans exist, they have committed violent actions and frequently blamed various external factors for such behavior. During the past decade, the primary focus has been on video games, most notably, shooters. They are widely believed to encourage gamers to translate in-game gunfights into action. For instance, much of the attention to the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012 looked at the fact that the shooter, Adam Lanza, had taken an interest in violent games. However, many other phenomena had been stigmatized similarly, including Shakespeare’s works suspected of producing violence in the readers (Bezio). Also, games were not the only activity Lanza had ever done, which does not mean they need to blame everything. All of the phenomena people used to place the burden on, such as television or rock’n’roll music, are no more than possible tools for escapism.
Practically, American history already has several examples of gun control laws whose effect is dramatically far from perfect. Thus, Kopel mentions the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 that unexpectedly became a complete failure (58). He refers to the fundamental research by sociology professor Wright and his colleagues that proved the inadequacy of direct banning in real-case scenarios. In particular, Detroit accepted the law that extended the imprisonment by two years in case the crime was committed with a gun. As a result, judges frequently lightened the punishments for the offenses themselves to counterbalance the extra years. The unforeseen manifestation of the human factor meant little to no change to gun crime rates (Kopel 58). This experience illustrates one of the ways society unconsciously but continually supports violence.
Another point to consider is the fact that the impossibility of purchasing a gun legally does not preclude violations and bypassing of the law. Wright’s further research revealed that less than 10 percent of the criminals who took part in the survey had bought their guns from gun stores. Some of the alternative ways to acquire weapons were stealing them and involving “surrogate buyers” with clean felony records (Kopel 59). Simply put, a criminal or one with a firm crime-related intention is not likely to obey the law.
Finally, guns are indispensable from the perspective of self-defense that is the stumbling block of firearm ownership in the United States. According to the same survey by Wright, 39 percent of the respondents would not attack even a hypothetically armed person, and over a half – an armed one. Besides, almost three-quarters agreed that the fear of being shot made burglars avoid buildings with people inside (Kopel 59). The survey outcomes suggest that firearm is helpful in crime prevention, which should not be neglected during the gun control debate.
All of the above allows assuming that neither guns nor video games or any other activities are the source of violence. The possession of a weapon will not encourage a well-meaning individual to commit anything forbidden, and an ordinary gamer will not kill anyone in reality. Violence originates from inside both a particular personality and the entire society in general. Thus, Bezio insists that being exposed to abuse, both physical and psychological, can result in violent behavior. Apparently, constant pressure leads to an accumulation of anger that finally haves its way in the form of hurting the other. She also mentions “ideologies that reward and condone aggression, particularly in men” among the reasons (Bezio). Otherwise stated, real-life violence breeds real-life violence, and indifference makes a substantial contribution to that.
What Is Said in Defense of Gun Control
Those who insist on additional measures against guns are mostly concerned with their excessive availability. Thus, Hummer, with reference to Collier highlights that the vast majority of mass murderers are not mentally ill, hence allowed to gun shops. She classifies them as “upset or angry people in a crisis who get their hands on an easily accessible gun” (Hummer 4). According to her, easy access to a firearm increases the chance that someone opts for shooting rather than less lethal ways to unleash their fury or disappointment. It is also worth noting that the lack of diagnosed mental health disorders eliminates any special supervision. In light of this, potentially dangerous individuals mix with society. In brief, although a random gun is not a murder weapon, it may become one in a hand of an emotionally distressed person.
Theoretically, the assumption that guns should be banned for the threat they carry is logical, but practically, anything is potentially hazardous. Several people have died in car accidents as well as airplane crashes, but there are no official proposals of additional limitations to using those vehicles. One can simply pick a stone lying in the street to injury somebody else, needless to say, about an ordinary kitchen knife. If a person has the intention to hurt someone, they find ways to do so, some of which may be absolutely unpredictable. Therefore, educating people to avoid abusive behavior makes incomparably more sense than trying to control everything that is hypothetically harmful.
Another frequent argument for gun control is the deficiency of alternative solutions to the problem of gun violence. “Unfortunately, we are left to choose between doing nothing and coercion. For victims […] doing nothing results in ongoing violence”, Eckstein and Partlow Lefevre proclaim (240). One has to agree that the problem exists and requires deliberate attention to reducing the number of victims. In that context, doing nothing is unacceptable, and restrictions seem to be the only option of what actually to do.
However, coercion is neither an appropriate solution in real terms since it hardly yields any noticeable results. Based on the findings of the above-mentioned research by Wright, a significant minority of armed criminals acquire their guns legally (Kopel 59). The likely result of restrictions is an upsurge in unlawful firearm trade along with shoplifting rather than a substantial reduction in armed attacks. The reason is clear: the chance that an individual who already has a criminal intention will stop at the law is extremely poor.
Considering all of the above, a more effective solution lies in minimizing the supposed social contributors to becoming a criminal. In particular, masculinity should stop being associated with aggression, and supporting all forms of xenophobia should grow unacceptable. In addition, it would be relevant to encourage those who detect abusive behavior in themselves to take psychotherapy courses. Along with the other measures, this one could reduce the probability that abusers themselves or their victims will ever take a gun for shooting people.
In conclusion, gun control is not likely to make a considerable difference to gun violence rates. Although weapons are used for killing, they do not cause violence but simply are a tool. Besides, research has indicated their efficiency in terms of self-defense, which is the primary reason for gun ownership. Violence as a phenomenon derives from other violence, notably physical and psychological abuse as well as the culture of aggression. Monitoring and minimizing those destructive practices would enable reducing the number of shooters.
Works Cited
Bezio, Kristin M. S. “Stop Blaming Video Games for America’s Gun Violence.” Christian Science Monitor, 2013, Web.
Eckstein, Justin, and Sarah T. Partlow Lefevre. “Since Sandy Hook: Strategic Maneuvering in the Gun Control Debate.” Western Journal of Communication, vol. 81, no. 2, 2017, pp. 225-242.
Hummer, Claire. Gun Control in the United States: An Analysis of Federal and International Policies and Applications. Portland State University, 2016.
Kopel, David B. “Hold Your Fire: Gun Control Won’t Stop Rising Violence.” Policy Review, no. 63, 1993, pp. 58–65, Web.