In the United States, it’s difficult to go even a day without hearing about some form of gun violence whether accidental or intentional. We have a long history of gun ownership going as far back to our sacred Constitution. However, it seems to me, guns are becoming an increasing factor in our lives.
Over
the course of the last couple decades, incidents of mass slaughter by means of
a firearm have increased exponentially. Now it’s as though we are taking our
own lives in our hands just to go to the movies. And the response that we’ve
made, out of fear, is to give our law enforcement more free reign to use deadly
force in order to deal with this threat. But is that really the best course of
action?
Instead
of trying to fix the problem as it is occurring, we should be focusing on
nipping it in the bud before it can even happen. The United States needs tighter restrictions
on guns, and our police should not be resorting to lethal tactics just to
maintain order.
We need to look at the reason these shootings
happen in the first place, focus on the mental welfare of our nation instead of
tightening our security out of fear and denying the real problem. Otherwise, we
breed a whole new set of problems by over-militarizing our police. There are
plenty of unarmed victims of police gunfire to justify raising these questions.
The first response a police officer makes in a confrontational situation should not be to draw their weapon and fire. Our police need to be a positive influence in our society; after all they should be here to protect the freedom and rights of the common people.
Guns and violence go hand in hand. By giving people the means to destroy one another we are inevitably opening up a proverbial ‘Pandora’s Box’ of grisly outcomes. True change must start from within, and that requires us to answer this question; do we want to be safe at the cost of our liberties or do we want to be sane and work out a permanent solution to gun violence in this country?
The statistics in the article you cite does not justify usage of the mathematical term "exponential".
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between "tighter restrictions on guns" and "tighter restrictions on gun ownership." I can't tell which of the two you're concerned about.
You are appear to be conflating the problem of gun violence by individual gun owners, and the over-militarization of our police. While both issues have "guns" in common, there is no one-size-fits-all social policy that will fix both.
Unless there has been a major shift in how law enforcement officers are trained, a first response in a confrontational situation is not to draw their weapon and fire. Your phrasing comes across as inflammatory and disrespectful to the vast majority of well-trained police officers.
While guns and violence go hand in hand, so do many other artifacts. Cars and knives come to mind.
Your final sentence doesn't make sense. While I'm willing to stipulate that true change must start from within, the question you then propose does not logically follow. And your proposed answers do not make sense. Given the context of your blog post, I parse it as:
Choice #1: impose safety by restricting gun ownership
Choice #2: be sane and work out a permanent solution
And your phrasing implies that we can have one or the other, but not both. But the choices are not exclusive. The preferential soulution would be:
Choice #3: be safe, be sane, do not restrict liberties, and work out a permanent solution.
I'll also point out that your final paragraph does address your opening question with regards to gun worship and law enforcement...
I understand what you are saying but I would like to clarify that I'm not talking about gun ownership or even restricting guns really. The main issue I'm raising is the increase in the use of firearms as a means of violence in this country. It's true that guns are not inherently murder weapons, and people are more likely to be killed by an automobile than a glock. But I'm not talking about car deaths, I'm talking about gun deaths. When I'm driving home from work at night I'm perfectly aware that at any moment I could encounter a drunk or in other ways reckless driver. However, guns have the ability to invade spaces in a way that a car cannot. And they are so pervasive in our society we sometimes forget they are primarily killing tools, The question I am raising is this; why have guns become so ingrained in American society that a mass shooting or a police killing of an unarmed suspect is seen as just any other grisly news event? I feel as though we need to tackle the issue of why we have become so desensitized to the power of guns that we shrug our shoulders when these things happen instead of opening up a sustainable dialogue on this epidemic. I know the vast majority of people who own firearms have never or would never fire on another person. And I realize now that the comment I made about police officers opening fire as a first response is inaccurate. A police officer should know more than anyone the deadly power of a gun. That is why I think we should be more incensed as a society when that power is ignored or abused.
DeleteAlthough I believe that there has been a lot of news about gun violence, I think you need to narrow your focus on whether it is gun violence or police brutality. Both are hot topics that have some things in common but not entirely. There are always two sides to every story. Yes, there has been cases of absolute police brutality however there have been some cases when it was necessary. This is a dangerous world and how can the police protect if they are being threaten all the time? I think you need to make a more clear argument about which topic to write about.
ReplyDeleteAlso gun restrictions or gun ownership. Most people trying to obtain a gun licence go through a long process to obtain it. First there is age, a gun safety class to go to, training, and then an interview with the town you live in police chief. Those are all steps in trying to get a restricted/unrestricted license. The argument you are making should include those steps that need to be taken before asking for restrictions on gun owners. There are plenty of people who have obtained guns with out having a license.
I agree that your argument you are trying to make is a little vague. Guns and violence go hand in hand, but gun violence and police brutality do not always. You said that "the first response a police officer makes in a confrontational situation should not be to draw their weapon and fire" but that is not always the case. Sure, police brutality occurs when they abuse their rights to carry a gun. However, if an officer is presented with a dangerous situation, it is their duty to draw a weapon if it means protecting not only themselves, but everyone else as well. A lot of people like to jump to conclusions and say something is police brutality when in reality they are just trying to do their jobs.
DeleteWe recently moved to a very rural area. In order for me to buy a shotgun for shooing varmints away, I must:
ReplyDelete1. Take an approved class
2. Pass a test given by the local police chief
Police (and society in general) are not at risk for sudden lead poisoning from people like me. There's a different demographic which is responsible for gun violence.
I believe that this topic needs to be spoken of more, I am happy that I came across this blog. The only word of advise I have is to add statistics and facts for your future blogs. I think that it would have made your blog stronger and more impressive. Overall, good start.
ReplyDelete