Gun Violence – A menace with no solution?

If something can be stated as a news staple - it is undoubtedly gun violence. It is in the news always, so much to the point that we are numbed by it. We are only shocked if the violence happens at a scale and in places unimaginable to us.  Indeed. Gun violence is the second highest cause of non-medical related preventable deaths in America, only topped by motor vehicle accidents. More people have died on gun violence than on terrorist attacks since 9/11.  The actual numbers are shocking - many thousands are killed on gun violence every year, in comparison with less than a hundred died in terrorist attacks since 9/11.  No place in the country has been immune to this maddening violence.  Places of worship – churches, temples; places of recreation – shopping malls, movie theatres; place of study – schools, universities and places with high security – navy yard, army bases, have all have been victims of gun violence. Thousands of innocent lives, including some of very young children, have been lost and yet this happens with a fair regularity.  With one out of every three household in America owning a gun and gun advocacy organizations such as NRA having millions of members,  it shouldn’t come as a surprise that gun control is a hugely controversial and a hot topic.  This writing attempts to explore the different dimensions of this complex topic.

Perspective 1 (President Obama disappointed by lack of gun control laws)

In the exclusive interview with BBC News’s Jon Sopel during July 2015, expressing his concern on gun control, President Obama worries, “I've been most frustrated and most stymied by the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws, even in the face of repeated mass killings.”. Obama provides some troubling facts that underline the seriousness of the issue, “If you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it's less than 100. If you look at the number that have been killed by gun violence, it's in the tens of thousands”, Obama notes. He asserts “it is not something that I intend to stop working on in the remaining 18 months.”

In the 2015 article on The Atlantic, Adam Chandler analyzes the various speeches made by President Obama after each mass killing gun violence incident. Chandler points out how the rhetoric of Obama’s speeches has shifted towards displaying more anger and frustration that these gun incidents continue to happen.  Chandler notes the earlier speeches Obama made had a softer tone intended to calm victims and their families with the notable exception being the below assertive section of his speech after Newtown, Conn school shooting, “As a country, we have been through this too many times.  Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago—these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children.  And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics”. In displaying anger in his recent speech, Chandler observes, President Obama deviated from a precedent set in over six years of delivering speeches about mass shootings and gun violence; this time, speaking after Charleston Church shootings, there was the same rhetorical splay of uncertainties, but with an entirely different conclusion: “We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that, once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun.”

Perspective 2 (Guns protect people)

David Kopel, the research director of the Independence Institute and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Denver and the co-author of “Firearms Law and the Second Amendment” in his 2013 New York Times article titled “A Divide in the Gun Debate Widened by Misunderstanding” contends the different ways people misinterpret gun issue and argues media disproportionality inflates gun violence and the stories of self-defense are not represented well. Kopel notes that the gun issue has been viewed as a rural issue and people thought that the issue would go away as the nation urbanizes but he points that it is still very much a mixed issues. Another misinterpretation is viewing it as “conflict of individualism versus communal values”, Kopel notes. He argues that there are many people who carry guns for communal good such as individuals carry guns to protect their families and trained teachers carry guns to protect school children. Kopel notes the division between people who insist “it is wrong for anyone (or anyone other than a government employee) to use deadly force” and others who “see self-defense as the most fundamental of all inherent, natural rights”. Kopel concludes that national media demonizes gun usage by “maximize coverage of atrocious gun crimes” and the people who only know guns via media become very angry that anyone could oppose gun control whereas the stories of self-defense are limited to local news. He asserts, “A fairer and less biased media … would help to reduce the emotional temperature.”

Perspective 3 (Children are victims of gun violence)

Geoffrey Canada, president and chief executive officer of the Harlem Children’s Zone and president of the Harlem Children’s Zone Promise Academy Charter Schools, in his 2013 New York Times article titled “The Availability of Guns Affects the Lives of Children” emotionally expresses that gun policy failures “have been responsible for the ongoing slaughter of children”. Expressing his distress, Canada argues that, “I have gone to too many funerals of young people slain by handguns, held the hands of too many weeping mothers” and they are “joined in grief and outrage by other Americans who sympathize -- and who maybe wonder if their loved one is next”. Canada is frustrated that this country “continues to make buying and owning a gun easier than buying and owning a car”. Canada expresses the immense grief he felt for young innocent victims of Newtown shooting and reasons that the founding fathers cannot believe, much less condone, the killing of innocents that is being politically enabled by so called defenders of second amendment. Canada comments that he understands people wants guns for self-defense and for sports but he is puzzled “how anyone can advocate for the easy availability of deadly weapons”

Perspective 4 (Guns and Women Safety)

Caitlin Kelly, the author of “Blown Away: American Women and Guns”, in her Jan 2013 article in New York Times titled “Women Buy Guns to Protect Themselves” argues that women want to feel safe and as long as women feel a reasonable fear they will purchase weapons. Kelly offers some chilling stats on how much women are in danger of horrendous crimes against them - domestic violence, rape, becoming a victim of staking etc. Kelly recalls that how she become a victim of harassment and violence as she was unknowing dating a convicted criminals, how the law enforcement agencies who are supposed to protect her turned a blind eye towards her and how helpless and fearful she felt. In a different 2013 New York Times article titled “Broaden the Base of Support for Gun Control”, Kelly argues that women represent a significant percentage of gun user base and involving them can effect better gun control measures. Kelly reiterates that women feel unsafe and therefore buy guns to protect them. Kelly proposes that, “President Obama should create a multidisciplinary committee that includes those most directly involved in gun use and violence, especially women” and this committee should include people from multiple disciples - emergency room doctors, nurses, concerned individual gun-owners, domestic violence experts, experts in diagnosing and treating mental illness etc. Kelly argues that unless this is done “a viable solution will continue to evade this society”.

Perspective 5 (Solutions for Gun Violence)

    In the New York Times opinion page titled “Here’s a Way to Control Guns.”, The Rev. David K. Brawley, the Rev. Otis Moss III, the Rev. David Benke and Rabbi Joel Mosbacher, members of the Metro Industrial Areas Foundation aimed at building power for social change, argue that as a  largest buyer of guns, the federal government can hugely influence gun manufactures to be more accountable leading to smarter guns that reduce crimes and a vigilant gun distribution making access to guns harder for criminals. The authors note that President Obama assured the country in the aftermath of Newtown, Connecticut shootings that he would do whatever in his power to prevent such future tragedies and notes that he rightly took the first step of using legislation. But when that failed, the president failed to use other ways, the authors note.  As a largest purchaser of guns in the country, the federal government has the most powerful tool: its purchasing power, the authors assert. The authors note that the leading brands of guns used by the government are also leading brands in crimes. For example, while pointing out that Smith & Wesson, a large gun manufacture, turn up frequently in the hands of criminals, the authors assert, “Shouldn’t questions be asked when Smith & Wesson seeks a contract with the federal government?” The authors provide several different ways the federal government can influence this positive change from gun manufactures. “We might measure, for instance, the number of a manufacturer’s guns found at crime scenes as a percentage of their overall sales”, the authors suggest. Distributing the guns exclusively through reputable and thoughtful dealers, making “smart guns” that can be fired only by authorized users thereby preventing accidents and unauthorized use, reviving the smart-gun research program of government and incentivizing gun manufactures for making smart guns are some of the ways to control guns and prevent gun deaths, the authors recommend.

My Views on Gun Control

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”– Albert Einstein.  I think this quote is very appropriate to the gun control discussion as no positive progress had been made on it and the gun instances happen over and over again.  As you look further, there is a well-defined pattern.

Be it a man, who shoots people in a park because he is depressed by his marriage not going well or a teenager who shot his classmates as they are not socializing with him - the pattern is very simple to spot. Somebody is going through a difficult phase in life – just like everyone goes through one time or the other, but the difference here is the person has access to guns. He goes and shoots people shattering the dreams and lives of innocent people. Time heals most things and without access to the guns, these people would have recovered and lead a normal life, but access to a gun changes all that - forever.  This underscores the importance of making access to a gun very difficult.

As someone who has personally witnessed the extremely nervous moments my friend went through for finding whether her children are safe, when the news of a school shooting broke, and as someone who is in complete disbelief that five people including a child had lost their lives in a random shooting, in a neighborhood park our family goes every day, gun control discussion is very important to me.

I understand that there are several dimensions and complications in this issue. Some people argue that stricter gun control laws affect only people who abide by the law to buy weapons and criminals by nature don’t follow the rules and hence they have no problem getting access to a weapon. However, I am sure nobody can deny that military style weapons have no place in private hands.  Even while using for personal safety, there are countless occasions where people were killed by accidental firing, even by children, so they must be regulated as well.

An irresponsible gun owner puts the entire society at risk. By not passing sensible laws that restrict guns, we are putting the innocent lives at risk. So it is important for us to participate in gun control discussion, bring meaningful changes that makes everyone safe.

References:

Sopel, Jon. "Full transcript of BBC interview with President Barack Obama." BBC News. n.p, Web. 24 July 2015.

Chandler, Adam. "President Obama's Hard Rhetorical Shift on Gun Control." The Atlantic. n.p, Web. 19 June 2015.

Kopel, David. "A Divide in the Gun Debate Widened by Misunderstanding." The New York Times. n.p, Web. 6 January 2013.

Canada, Geoffrey. " The Availability of Guns Affects the Lives of Children." The New York Times. n.p, Web. 9 August 2013.

Kelly, Caitlin. "Women Buy Guns to Protect Themselves." The New York Times. n.p, Web. 6 January 2013.

Kelly, Caitlin. "Broaden the Base of Support for Gun Control." The New York Times. n.p, Web. 4 January 2014.

David K. Brawley, Otis Moss III, David Benke and Joel Mosbacher. "Here’s a Way to Control Guns." The New York Times. n.p, Web. 17 July 2015.