 |
| Students being escorted out of Arapahoe High School in Colorado, yet another tragic public murder this year |
In regards to mass killings, public massacres that attract the most media attention, such as Sandy Hook, only comprise 16% of mass killings. Most of the time, the killings are family-related, or the killer knows the victim.
When a gun was used in mass killings, 72.9% of the time the weapon of choice is a handgun—which are not banned in most proposed gun control laws. In addition, most guns are obtained legally. The analysis also states that mass killings often involve a "failed safety net," such as issues with the mental health system and immigration bureaucracy. Should we be pushing for new laws in these sectors rather than focusing on increased gun control? Or should more effective gun laws still be prioritized?
9 comments:
There are two issues I'd like to address. The first is on sensationalism and the media. As we've discussed in class, the media tends to sensationalize news as a way of attracting an audience. With the elections, they use polling to turn it into a competition they can then report on. I don't think they need to focus more on the "other 99% of murders." Rather, they should just report better quality news, period.
Secondly, I'd like to address the topic of gun control and mass killings. I think mass killings, just like any other killings, are quite normal in the grand scheme of things. There have always been stories about serial killers and massacres throughout history. The introduction of guns has just made it easy for mentally unstable, violence-prone individuals to commit multiple murders in a single incident, like Sandy Hook. I think that theoretically tighter gun control laws would reduce the risk of such incidents, at least regarding gun violence. However, the effectiveness of gun legislation is dependent on several factors, one of the main one's being a nation's gun culture. There have been instances of very positive outcomes from tighter gun control, such as in Australia. Unfortunately, we haven't discovered the best method to regulate firearms here in the USA.
For more on Australia's gun control and why America's attempts at similar legislation aren't proving as effective: http://abcnews.go.com/International/australia-model-successful-gun-control-laws/story?id=18007055
I second Chris's statement that the media really, really sucks at reporting actual news - but its almost guaranteed that they won't change their reporting strategy. Stories like mass murders are dramatic and get views. Only a small portion of the nation really cares about important news like significant policy changes, press releases and conferences from institutions, announcements by government officials and what have you. Mass killings and the like are fairly insignificant beyond the emotional impact, and even that impact is dubious when a lot of people just don't care as much as the media makes the nation out to.
I believe that the reason mass killings are so publicized are because of the way people think. A hundred people dying at once has a way bigger emotional impact than one person dying a hundred days in a row. For example some people fear flying, even though it statistically the safest way to travel. When 300+ people it has a dramatic impact on people emotionally. Also Sandy Hook shooting was more emotionally dramatic because it was young children dying instead of adults.
I think the main goal of these initiatives to reduce gun violence is to have more in depth background checks so that those with mental illnesses do not have access to the deadly weapons. The perpetrators of most mass killings tend to have some form of mental illness which blurred their perception of right from wrong. If proposed laws would restrict those with mental diseases to obtain guns, many incidences like the Colorado movie theater shootings could be decreased. Although the type of gun may matter, all guns are deadly and none should be available to those who cannot pass sanity tests.
I honestly believe that we should not be pressing new gun laws. The summary says "most" guns are obtained legally, which gives us no real understanding of how many guns were actually obtained legally. Furthermore, if we push to have more gun laws, it will just make it more difficult for normal, law abiding citizens to obtain guns, giving criminals more guns than the people who simply wish to protect themselves. Also, I do not know why the media insists on blaming the gun and not the gunman. To me, its as silly as blaming the plane for 9/11, or blaming the homemade pipe bomb at the Hillsdale emergency a couple years back.
I agree with Cristina that we need to have more in-depth background checks, because like she mentioned, many of the gun violence incidents relate to some form of mental illness. Although, I don't necessarily think that that is a complete solution, because unfortunately, there are many people who are able to purchase a gun, even without mental illnesses, that should not have one. Like Sean mentioned, in most gun control laws, handguns are rarely mentioned in regards to increased restrictions, yet it seems to be causing the most violence. I think that this proves that there needs to be increased legislation on handguns as well as other assault weapons to prevent these incidents. Also, because most of the killings are family related,
I think there should be increased safety measures when bringing guns into homes, such as required gun safety classes.
Though I don't have a fully formed opinion regarding gun control, it seems to me that we shouldn't simply increase the quality of background checks to keep guns from dangerous persons, but should work on fixing the multitude of mental health issues in the country. We've had serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer do plenty of damage without firearms, and I get the feeling that the kind of people who shoot up schools would be able to do harm without guns as well. As people have said above, we can't really blame guns for the damage done by their owners.
With regard to the media portrayal of school shootings and the like, there's arguably more coverage than is necessary, but I'd rather find that on the news than hear about some pop star's inappropriate behavior (though I do agree that the media could be doing a better job overall with reporting legitimate news). The primary issue with media coverage is the obsession with the killers themselves; I tend to agree with Roger Ebert, who pointed out that "the message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."
I believe that gun-ownership activists have successfully framed this issue as a disagreement over blame: the gun or the shooter? If you analyze that argument, it's evident that it's the shooter that pulled the trigger and is ultimately responsible.
However, to me, the real issues at hand, which I believe Christina touched partly upon, are 2 fold: 1. the mental state of people with access to guns, and 2. the accessibility of guns.
While there are restrictions on ownership, people with mental disorders continue to acquire these weapons. Why? Part of it is lax regulation in some jurisdictions, but a large part of it is their access to guns legally purchased and owned by others. In the Newtown shooting incident, the shooter used his mother's gun. The second part of the issue at hand, in my opinion, is the wide availability of firearms to virtually everyone.
So while, yes, the shooter is at fault, and, yes, the criminal can use other tools, we have to question whether the abundance of firearms is an issue that has to be tackled because often times, shootings and other crimes against persons are committed in rage and in opportunity. If the gun were not present, the scenario would not be as opportunistic for that individual, and he/she may choose not to follow through on his tirade.
This angle is notably absent from any meaningful media coverage, which at the closest focuses on gun buyback programs with cliche anecdotes of people saying, "I think it's great! Anything to get guns off the streets" or "It's useless. Criminals will get them anyway." What many have stressed to little avail is that with so many guns, it's easy to acquire one whether it be by breaking into a home and stealing one or buying one from your friend, who legally purchased it. I am not suggesting that we eliminate the right to bear arms, but I am proposing that society seriously consider how availability of weapons and the mental state of individuals (whether it be disorder or temporary rage) factor in to the conversation.
I saw this article in the NY Times today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html?pagewanted=2
Law enforcement officials in Colorado (sheriffs) are refusing to enforce certain gun control measures that they believe to be too vague. The same happened in New York with two sheriffs who refused to enforce Governor Cuomo’s new measures. My point is that any policy has to have the support of law enforcement officials. And really, this is another extension of the battle between gun rights advocates and gun control advocates. On closer examination, you can note that these sheriffs are in fact elected to office, often with significant backing by gun rights advocates. Special interests with a questionable influence on politics? What a surprise. The more I look at it, the more I’m convinced that the issue isn’t as black and white as the legislative dilemma has been made out to be.
Post a Comment