Gun Ban Bad
Gun Ban: Overall Good for Everyone Involved
There are many people who believe in their right to carry guns. They believe that their constitutional rights protect gun ownership. Most persons see guns as a mean of defense and protection against injustice. However, while it may be true that guns can be used for self defense, they are not a good option. Guns have many important drawbacks to note, such as their social and psychological degradation, environmental damages, and inefficiency in carrying out injustice. Because of these major drawbacks and dangers, gun ownership ought to be restricted to law enforcement agencies.
A gun ban has psychological and social benefits. What this means is that when the government bans guns, violence will decrease. …show more content…
This is done by the mitigation of cultural violence. In addition, the people in our world will have improved lives, mentally, educationally, and socially.
The presence of guns creates cultural violence. Cultural violence occurs when a society accepts violence as a norm, and resorts to it to solve an issue. Violence becomes an everyday and acceptable occurrence. How does this happen? The answer is fear. Guns create a complex of fear, meaning that their very presence creates the intimidation that causes cultural violence. Peter
Cummings, a writer for NCBI, wrote in a commentary article, “ Hemenway and colleagues reported the results of their surveys about the use of guns. They noted that reported episodes of being threatened with a gun were 3 times more common than episodes of using a gun for defense”(Cummings). What this shows is that guns are creating general fear, because they are used more for intimidation, or fear tactics, than defense. Fear is an extremely important factor in cultural violence. In the article “Fear; Beyond Intractability”, Phil Barker explains to us that fear is always a common factor in intractable conflict. He shows that throughout history, fear is always the cause of justified violence (Barker). If guns create widespread fear, and fear justifies the use of violent action, and cultural violence is defined as socially accepted violence, then the presence of a gun creates a culture of violence within our country. This has enormous impacts.
When we begin to believe that violence is okay, we lose our humanity and everything we stand for. If banning guns has the smallest chance of reducing this culture of violence, it is an action that must be taken.
In addition to mitigating cultural violence, a gun ban will improve the lives of people, especially youth, everywhere. This improvement can be seen in many ways. First of all, we need to look at how guns worsen the life of youth. Catherine Bradshaw, writer for Princeton, states,
Furthermore, youth living in violent communities may experience “pathological adaptations” such as hopelessness, fatalistic thoughts, desensitization to violence, and truncated moral
development.
These youth often participate in highrisk behaviors such as alcohol or drug abuse, promiscuous sex, or association with dangerous people (7677).
As seen, exposure to gun violence in any form is extremely harmful. If guns create cultural violence, and these psychological effects are occurring in young people exposed to violence, then guns are causing these negative adaptations in youth. Bradshaw continues, informing us that exposure to gun violence normalizes violence, and can limit relationships (77). This occurs even when the children aren’t victims or perpetrators. Mere exposure to gun violence, in any form, whether it be movies, videogames, etc., causes extremely dangerous behavior in youth. In addition to the harms against youth, the mere presence of a gun can increase aggressiveness. In
1967, Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage conducted an experiment. In the experiment, participants were angered by a person placed to appear as another participant. Later, the participant and the man who had angered him or her were seated at a table, and the participant had to choose to administer a level of shock to the man. However, there was a small twist. …show more content…
In some cases, the participants had a revolver and shotgun sitting on the table. In the control tests, these were badminton rackets and shuttlecocks. In the tests where there were weapons on the table, the subjects administered a higher level of shock, and were therefore more aggressive.
This was called the Weapons Effect (Bushman). As this study shows, the mere presence of a weapon increases aggression. The impacts of this are major, and frightening. By banning guns, we reduce the presence of weapons on the streets, and this will reduce aggressiveness among the general populace. In addition to the mental and social benefits, a gun ban has immediate environmental benefits, as well as long term economic benefits. In other words, banning guns will help the world environment, and reduce death and extinction rates. Additionally, while there may be short term economic drawback, these will be counteracted in the long run.
Banning guns will save the environment. One of the largest gun manufacturing companies, Smith and Wesson, released a report on the chemicals released by their gun production. Pamela Bump, a writer for The Equinox, states,
When it comes to chemical releases, in 2010 Smith and Wesson . . . released and transferred a total of 31,516 pounds of nitrate compounds and 22,920 pounds of sodium nitrite . . . , 100 pounds of toxic chemicals were released in 2011 while being transferred to
“offsite disposal” These chemicals excluded “dioxin or dioxinlike compounds.” (Bump)
The impacts of this simple statistic are huge. Sodium nitrate can be lethal towards humans and other animals, and dioxin is one of the most environmentally damaging substances in existence. Banning private ownership of guns will shut down companies like Smith and
Wesson. This will have major benefits to the environment, and to the lives of people. However, some argue that this will have dangerous effects on the economy.
Despite the fact that those who produce guns will lose jobs, there will actually be long term economic benefits. The main reason for this is the large amount of demand in STEM careers. When these people lose their jobs, they are likely to try to get another job. Tom
Hopcroft, CEO of MTLC, explains, “We have the jobs to fill, but not the people to fill them”(Berkshire). If the only reason STEM careers aren’t being filled is low amounts of people to fill them, then a gun ban gives us the perfect situation. Thousands of people will lose jobs, and they will be likely to go into a STEM career. Also, the US department of Commerce predicts that
STEM careers will grow over 17 percent before 2018. Because of this growth, we can expect that those who lose their jobs will go into these fields of study. Now, how do STEM careers benefit our economy? The UDC continues on, coming to state that STEM careers pay over $5 more on average an hour than nonSTEM jobs. While this seems small, the long term impacts are enormous. If thousands of people are receiving higher wages, then more money will be paid in taxes to the US government. The effect of this is decreased national debt. Also, certain STEM careers make huge amounts of money. With a gun ban and a slightly increased tax rate, the
United States just might be able to pull out of its financial nosedive. Guns must be banned in order to save the once greatest nation on earth from destruction by its own hands.
Another important benefit of a gun ban is the fact that other weapons do the jobs of guns more efficiently, without killing those who might not deserve death. Taking guns out of the hands of citizens and replacing them with nonlethals will save lives and decrease unjust deaths.
Firstly, there are many nonlethal weapons that are able to replace guns in the home. In
2014, Adam Kennedy invented a nonlethal firearm called “Salt”. This .70 caliber handgun fires small balls of pepper spray, and “ . . . when it hits, the sphere explodes into a lungburning cloud, inducing a sort of ‘controlled asthma attack’”(Loerzel). This weapon is highly effective, and the balls even explode and are massively effective when just hitting near the target. Another example of a weapon that is not lethal is the Pogojet. This small handgun burns propellant inside the round fired, ensuring that the round always hits at nonlethal force. David Hambling writes, “It’s like a bee sting. It’s only over a small area, but it is intense enough to be effective”(Hambling).
This gun is a similar renovation that will save the lives of those who do not deserve death.
In many cases, one who attacks another could be drunk. Do these people deserve death?
Are they responsible for their action? It is my belief that they are indeed responsible for the assault, but this criminal does not deserve death. The choice of attack may not be their, and they should be dealt with more justly. For instance, using the nonlethal weapons listed above.
Secondly, the crime committed may not deserve death. Citizens only have the right to defend themselves with lethal force in certain situations. According to Second Call Defense, you only have the right to defend yourself lethally if your attacker has the ability to cause bodily harm, is close enough to commit the attack, and if the attacker intended to cause you harm (Using Lethal
Force). There are many, many cases where these conditions are not met. Especially in the cases of attackers that are under the influence. We as citizens generally do not have the right to kill a criminal. Therefore, adhering to nonlethal weapons will be better for all involved. The life of a human is saved, the defendant is protected, and they also don’t have a chance of being prosecuted for their actions.
As proven, firearms create major disadvantages in the hands of citizens. However, law enforcement should still be allowed to carry guns. Richard Fairburn, a law enforcement officer, wrote on the reasons that officers carry guns.
We carry and train with firearms because police officers have a sworn obligation to save lives and sometimes deadly force is the only way to stop a terrible person from committing a terrible act. Our goal is to stop, and we would like to be able to stop them without the possibility of killing them, but we don’t have a Star Trek “phaser” to set on stun. Yeah, I know, we have an array of less lethal options for those cases where they are a viable alternative, but gunpowder and lead is the only certain way we have to stop the bad guys, for now. . . . The firearm is merely a tool we use to make the bad guy stop. (Fairburn).
As can be seen, law enforcement officers need guns. It is sometimes the only way to stop criminals. Also, it is not fair to assume that every officer is cruel and will use this authority to kill innocent civilians. USA Today released a statistic in which they notify us that a black male is
60 times more likely to be killed by another black male than a white cop (Medved). This is extremely important. Officers are not inherently racist. They are the good guys. We should be able to trust them with our lives and the responsibility that is put on their shoulders when they carry a firearm.
So, while it may be true that guns can be used defensively, this small benefit is not worth the drawbacks. Guns create cultural violence, cause environmental harms, and are completely inefficient. When guns are banned, all of these disadvantages will be mitigated, and the police and the economy will have amazing gradation. For the better of all people throughout this world, and for the lives of those who cannot protect themselves, gun ownership ought to be restricted to law enforcement agencies.
There are many people who believe in their right to carry guns. They believe that their constitutional rights protect gun ownership. Most persons see guns as a mean of defense and protection against injustice. However, while it may be true that guns can be used for self defense, they are not a good option. Guns have many important drawbacks to note, such as their social and psychological degradation, environmental damages, and inefficiency in carrying out injustice. Because of these major drawbacks and dangers, gun ownership ought to be restricted to law enforcement agencies.
A gun ban has psychological and social benefits. What this means is that when the government bans guns, violence will decrease. …show more content…
This is done by the mitigation of cultural violence. In addition, the people in our world will have improved lives, mentally, educationally, and socially.
The presence of guns creates cultural violence. Cultural violence occurs when a society accepts violence as a norm, and resorts to it to solve an issue. Violence becomes an everyday and acceptable occurrence. How does this happen? The answer is fear. Guns create a complex of fear, meaning that their very presence creates the intimidation that causes cultural violence. Peter
Cummings, a writer for NCBI, wrote in a commentary article, “ Hemenway and colleagues reported the results of their surveys about the use of guns. They noted that reported episodes of being threatened with a gun were 3 times more common than episodes of using a gun for defense”(Cummings). What this shows is that guns are creating general fear, because they are used more for intimidation, or fear tactics, than defense. Fear is an extremely important factor in cultural violence. In the article “Fear; Beyond Intractability”, Phil Barker explains to us that fear is always a common factor in intractable conflict. He shows that throughout history, fear is always the cause of justified violence (Barker). If guns create widespread fear, and fear justifies the use of violent action, and cultural violence is defined as socially accepted violence, then the presence of a gun creates a culture of violence within our country. This has enormous impacts.
When we begin to believe that violence is okay, we lose our humanity and everything we stand for. If banning guns has the smallest chance of reducing this culture of violence, it is an action that must be taken.
In addition to mitigating cultural violence, a gun ban will improve the lives of people, especially youth, everywhere. This improvement can be seen in many ways. First of all, we need to look at how guns worsen the life of youth. Catherine Bradshaw, writer for Princeton, states,
Furthermore, youth living in violent communities may experience “pathological adaptations” such as hopelessness, fatalistic thoughts, desensitization to violence, and truncated moral
development.
These youth often participate in highrisk behaviors such as alcohol or drug abuse, promiscuous sex, or association with dangerous people (7677).
As seen, exposure to gun violence in any form is extremely harmful. If guns create cultural violence, and these psychological effects are occurring in young people exposed to violence, then guns are causing these negative adaptations in youth. Bradshaw continues, informing us that exposure to gun violence normalizes violence, and can limit relationships (77). This occurs even when the children aren’t victims or perpetrators. Mere exposure to gun violence, in any form, whether it be movies, videogames, etc., causes extremely dangerous behavior in youth. In addition to the harms against youth, the mere presence of a gun can increase aggressiveness. In
1967, Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage conducted an experiment. In the experiment, participants were angered by a person placed to appear as another participant. Later, the participant and the man who had angered him or her were seated at a table, and the participant had to choose to administer a level of shock to the man. However, there was a small twist. …show more content…
In some cases, the participants had a revolver and shotgun sitting on the table. In the control tests, these were badminton rackets and shuttlecocks. In the tests where there were weapons on the table, the subjects administered a higher level of shock, and were therefore more aggressive.
This was called the Weapons Effect (Bushman). As this study shows, the mere presence of a weapon increases aggression. The impacts of this are major, and frightening. By banning guns, we reduce the presence of weapons on the streets, and this will reduce aggressiveness among the general populace. In addition to the mental and social benefits, a gun ban has immediate environmental benefits, as well as long term economic benefits. In other words, banning guns will help the world environment, and reduce death and extinction rates. Additionally, while there may be short term economic drawback, these will be counteracted in the long run.
Banning guns will save the environment. One of the largest gun manufacturing companies, Smith and Wesson, released a report on the chemicals released by their gun production. Pamela Bump, a writer for The Equinox, states,
When it comes to chemical releases, in 2010 Smith and Wesson . . . released and transferred a total of 31,516 pounds of nitrate compounds and 22,920 pounds of sodium nitrite . . . , 100 pounds of toxic chemicals were released in 2011 while being transferred to
“offsite disposal” These chemicals excluded “dioxin or dioxinlike compounds.” (Bump)
The impacts of this simple statistic are huge. Sodium nitrate can be lethal towards humans and other animals, and dioxin is one of the most environmentally damaging substances in existence. Banning private ownership of guns will shut down companies like Smith and
Wesson. This will have major benefits to the environment, and to the lives of people. However, some argue that this will have dangerous effects on the economy.
Despite the fact that those who produce guns will lose jobs, there will actually be long term economic benefits. The main reason for this is the large amount of demand in STEM careers. When these people lose their jobs, they are likely to try to get another job. Tom
Hopcroft, CEO of MTLC, explains, “We have the jobs to fill, but not the people to fill them”(Berkshire). If the only reason STEM careers aren’t being filled is low amounts of people to fill them, then a gun ban gives us the perfect situation. Thousands of people will lose jobs, and they will be likely to go into a STEM career. Also, the US department of Commerce predicts that
STEM careers will grow over 17 percent before 2018. Because of this growth, we can expect that those who lose their jobs will go into these fields of study. Now, how do STEM careers benefit our economy? The UDC continues on, coming to state that STEM careers pay over $5 more on average an hour than nonSTEM jobs. While this seems small, the long term impacts are enormous. If thousands of people are receiving higher wages, then more money will be paid in taxes to the US government. The effect of this is decreased national debt. Also, certain STEM careers make huge amounts of money. With a gun ban and a slightly increased tax rate, the
United States just might be able to pull out of its financial nosedive. Guns must be banned in order to save the once greatest nation on earth from destruction by its own hands.
Another important benefit of a gun ban is the fact that other weapons do the jobs of guns more efficiently, without killing those who might not deserve death. Taking guns out of the hands of citizens and replacing them with nonlethals will save lives and decrease unjust deaths.
Firstly, there are many nonlethal weapons that are able to replace guns in the home. In
2014, Adam Kennedy invented a nonlethal firearm called “Salt”. This .70 caliber handgun fires small balls of pepper spray, and “ . . . when it hits, the sphere explodes into a lungburning cloud, inducing a sort of ‘controlled asthma attack’”(Loerzel). This weapon is highly effective, and the balls even explode and are massively effective when just hitting near the target. Another example of a weapon that is not lethal is the Pogojet. This small handgun burns propellant inside the round fired, ensuring that the round always hits at nonlethal force. David Hambling writes, “It’s like a bee sting. It’s only over a small area, but it is intense enough to be effective”(Hambling).
This gun is a similar renovation that will save the lives of those who do not deserve death.
In many cases, one who attacks another could be drunk. Do these people deserve death?
Are they responsible for their action? It is my belief that they are indeed responsible for the assault, but this criminal does not deserve death. The choice of attack may not be their, and they should be dealt with more justly. For instance, using the nonlethal weapons listed above.
Secondly, the crime committed may not deserve death. Citizens only have the right to defend themselves with lethal force in certain situations. According to Second Call Defense, you only have the right to defend yourself lethally if your attacker has the ability to cause bodily harm, is close enough to commit the attack, and if the attacker intended to cause you harm (Using Lethal
Force). There are many, many cases where these conditions are not met. Especially in the cases of attackers that are under the influence. We as citizens generally do not have the right to kill a criminal. Therefore, adhering to nonlethal weapons will be better for all involved. The life of a human is saved, the defendant is protected, and they also don’t have a chance of being prosecuted for their actions.
As proven, firearms create major disadvantages in the hands of citizens. However, law enforcement should still be allowed to carry guns. Richard Fairburn, a law enforcement officer, wrote on the reasons that officers carry guns.
We carry and train with firearms because police officers have a sworn obligation to save lives and sometimes deadly force is the only way to stop a terrible person from committing a terrible act. Our goal is to stop, and we would like to be able to stop them without the possibility of killing them, but we don’t have a Star Trek “phaser” to set on stun. Yeah, I know, we have an array of less lethal options for those cases where they are a viable alternative, but gunpowder and lead is the only certain way we have to stop the bad guys, for now. . . . The firearm is merely a tool we use to make the bad guy stop. (Fairburn).
As can be seen, law enforcement officers need guns. It is sometimes the only way to stop criminals. Also, it is not fair to assume that every officer is cruel and will use this authority to kill innocent civilians. USA Today released a statistic in which they notify us that a black male is
60 times more likely to be killed by another black male than a white cop (Medved). This is extremely important. Officers are not inherently racist. They are the good guys. We should be able to trust them with our lives and the responsibility that is put on their shoulders when they carry a firearm.
So, while it may be true that guns can be used defensively, this small benefit is not worth the drawbacks. Guns create cultural violence, cause environmental harms, and are completely inefficient. When guns are banned, all of these disadvantages will be mitigated, and the police and the economy will have amazing gradation. For the better of all people throughout this world, and for the lives of those who cannot protect themselves, gun ownership ought to be restricted to law enforcement agencies.