Tag: gun laws

Categories
Opinions

Gun laws and who to blame

Australia had Port Arthur. Since the swift response by Canberra to restrict gun use, there has been one mass shooting in 2019.

New Zealand witnessed a gunman kill 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch. According to NBC news, lead Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to announce plans to ban nearly all military-style semi-automatic and assault rifles on the Thursday six days after the unfortunate event.

The United States has had Dayton, El Paso, Parkland, Las Vegas, Columbine, and more. The United States’ response? The Independent reports that Walmart has removed video game advertising.

For years, the American public has grappled with the reality of mass violence. It came in many forms; in schools like my high school, Columbine, to the more recent hate crime in Texas and the random attack in Ohio.

Since Columbine High School just over 20 years ago, the general tendency was to blame video games. The link is not completely insignificant, but not a sole factor either.

“But the story isn’t that Republicans are blaming video games,” according to Vox.com. “It’s that they’re blaming anything other than lax gun laws and the huge number of firearms in this country.”

Kean University assistant professor Allison Paolini wrote an article on Counseling.org pointing out the role of mental health in gun violence. Every human being is at risk of mental health problems, and yet, according to Paolini, America is the only recipient of routine mass violence.

Politicians in my home country will cry every species of wolf before addressing the real problem: easily accessible guns.

“Following a series of mass shootings in the US in recent years,” according to the BBC, “there has been little in the way of sweeping gun-control reforms.”

This disturbing trend has to stop. The blame has been thrown every way, and yet nothing has changed. Attributing these actions to virtual reality’s effect on human beings enables people in power to properly handle the situation.

The recent societal outrage towards video games has happened before, to no avail. The link between video games and violence has been proven by Oxford and the National Center for Health Research to be nominal — both found that games contribute insignificantly towards aggression but not towards violent and criminal acts.

The American Psychological Association found opposing results, finding a link to “increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior.” However, most other studies verified the former statement, not the latter.

It’s one thing to place blame, but there are powers at play that avoid even banning games as a potential solution. Not that legislation against video-games will do anything except potentially infringe on first amendment rights of game makers.

Large capacity magazine ban, assault weapons ban, bump stocks ban, or even universal background checks; all solutions the New York Times stated has been debated and shelved by lawmakers. Any of these are viable options to slow down these attacks; yet none have passed.

Until we see some remote semblance of action to save lives, be it in better rating systems for entertainment, improvement in mental health screenings, or the gun control that my country has clamored for, the counter will continue to roll up. There is no one solution, but inaction is certainly not the answer.

 

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Categories
Opinions

Mass shootings: Why does this keep happening?

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth.

Las Vegas massacre highlights the deeper problem of gun control in the U.S.

Fifty-eight people lost their lives when Stephen Paddock opened fire from the 32nd floor in his Mandalay Bay hotel room in Las Vegas on Oct. 1. This was the 273rd mass shooting of 2017—also the deadliest in modern American history, according to Time.

Various conservative news sources have reported that no one could have seen this tragedy coming. It was totally out of the blue. That’s strange given the fact that Paddock bought a total of 33 guns in the last year, according to CNN. In February, President Donald Trump signed a bill into law that forbade the U.S. Social Security Administration from submitting the names of people with mental illnesses to the national background check system. I believe this has no other purpose than to get more guns into the hands of more people.

When a man like Paddock can amass nearly 50 guns throughout his lifetime, the main problem isn’t mental illness or hotel security. The real culprits are the gun laws (or lack thereof) currently in effect in the United States, and the people unwilling to change them.

Even though assault rifles are illegal in the United States, Paddock had bump stocks—small pieces of hardware attached to his guns that help semi-automatic rifles fire nearly as quickly as full automatic ones. The kicker? They were purchased legally. Why are they legal?

The answer is the NRA (National Rifle Association). The answer is always the NRA. For decades, they have pushed for increased deregulation of firearms and even opposed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The group has so much power through campaign contributions and lobbying efforts that it’s literally undemocratic. They have spent over $200 million in the last 20 years promoting their agenda, according to the U.S. Federal Election Commission, and that somehow seems to drown out the fact that nearly eight out of 10 Americans are in favour of implementing the most basic gun control laws, according to the Pew Research Center.

Even the majority of Republicans (82 per cent) advocate for barring people on the no-fly list from getting guns. More than half of Republicans (54 per cent) approve of background checks for private sales or gun shows and a database that will track gun sales across the country, according to Pew Research Center.

Many Americans will argue that it is their constitutional right to protect themselves. In reality, nowhere in the American Constitution does it say people have the unalienable right to own a gun just because they are American. Word-for-word, the Second Amendment 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.”

Notice a very curious group of three words that is often left out of the NRA’s and many Republican’s speeches: Well. Regulated. Militia. That means if the freedom of the United States is under threat and militias are brought into action, their right to have arms will not be infringed. It does not say anything about private citizens. I imagine the beginning of the Second Amendment is often left out because “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” sounds a whole lot better for gun advocates.

In my opinion, the NRA has ignited this pro-gun fervor by convincing millions of people there is a secret, totalitarian super-government hell-bent on taking away their guns and freedom. Truthfully, what gun control advocates are trying to do is simply make sure gun owners don’t misuse them or put anyone in harm’s way. Like, you know, the nearly 100,000 people who have died in the United States since 2014 from gunshots, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Right-wing media and politicians have a go-to tactic when a mass shooting they can’t politicize occurs. They avoid talking about the real problem at hand. Take Fox News’ Sean Hannity, for example. He spent more time talking about how he would have been able to help the people of Las Vegas had he been there, rather than discuss the serious ramifications of the lack of gun control. These commentators and politicians give their thoughts and their prayers, and that’s it. However, they had no problem politicizing shootings when they happened in San Bernardino, Fort Lauderdale, Brussels or any other instance of violence that fit their anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Every time we say “never again,” people seem to think doing nothing will solve the problem. What really needs to happen is a significant overhaul of the current legislation and a bipartisan effort to limit who can obtain firearms to avoid more senseless deaths.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

Gun enthusiasts, beware

Image via Flickr
Image via Flickr

April 20, 1999: Columbine High School, Colorado. 13 deaths. April 16, 2007: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 32 deaths. December 14, 2012: Sandy Hook Elementary. 26 deaths. How many more lives must be lost because of gun violence before the U.S. government takes action?

In 2011, 8,583 people in the United States were killed with firearms. This statistic is hardly surprising for a nation with the highest gun ownership rate in the world, with 89 guns for every 100 Americans. American history is no stranger to gun violence. Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings in the United States, 25 of them occurring since 2006. In 2012 alone, 151 people were either killed or injured in a mass shooting.

Year after year, Congress continues to ignore the problem. President Barack Obama has promised to make gun control a priority during the first year of his second term. He has already assembled a task force, headed by Vice President Joe Biden, to come up with some solution to end tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting.

However, the President has a tough battle ahead. The National Rifle Association has spearheaded efforts against gun control, and with approximately 90 per cent of its political contributions going to the Republican Party, the Republicans will in no way want to risk their relationship with such a major benefactor. The party will likely dig in their heels as much as possible (as is almost tradition in American politics), and that lack of action is probably the biggest roadblock in America’s fight against gun violence.

There are a lot of excuses that are thrown around in the argument against stricter gun regulations. Some say guns keep people safe, and that restricting gun laws will make it harder for innocent people to defend themselves. After the tragedy at Sandy Hook, it was even suggested that teachers be trained and have weapons at schools in order to combat a gunman. However, as the shooting at Fort Hood Military Base on Nov. 5, 2009 showed, even against armed, trained military men, a shooter can do a lot of damage. In that shooting, 13 people were killed and 29 others were injured.

Another argument used by gun enthusiasts is the protection of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment 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.” Many people in the United States take that to mean the government has no right to organize any form of gun control, but in the context of the amendment, it seems more likely that the founding fathers and writers of the Constitution related the right to bear arms with being a member of a militia.

So much evidence has piled up in favour of gun control, it’s not clear how long-gun enthusiasts will be able to keep up this fight. One convincing example of the positive effects gun control has is evident in Japan, a country which has implemented strict laws and many requirements for gun ownership, including a rigorous written exam. Japan has had a large amount of success in keeping gun violence low, and because of their gun laws, they have the second lowest murder rate in the world. While the exact techniques Japan uses may not be effective in the United States due to the difference in population, the overall concept should help curb American gun violence.

It may be too late for the victims of Sandy Hook Elementary, or the many others who have met the same tragic fate, but we can honour their memory by doing everything in our power to stop these tragedies. Obama has his sights set on assault weapons, and while that’s going to help, the United States needs to focus on improving gun registration techniques and making it harder for people to acquire weapons. The harder it is to obtain a firearm, the less tragedies will occur. The time to act isn’t after the next school shooting — it’s now.

Exit mobile version