Op-Ed: We Have a People Problem, Not a Gun Problem

Orlando, San Bernardino, Colorado Springs, and many more have been the sight of mass shootings. They have shaken the United States and ignited the gun control debate each and every time. Amidst the chaos, many Americans have become paranoid with the fear of guns the media instills in them. While guns are the topic of concern for many individuals, the gun control debate really boils down to this simple question: do we have a gun problem or a people problem? In other words, are guns responsible for the death of an individual of a homicide, or is the person wielding the gun at fault? When put into these words, the answer becomes quite obvious. Clearly a gun cannot do any harm to anyone by itself, but if a person is holding one, it can certainly do some damage. It is the person’s mentality that decides what the gun will do, whether for recreational use or for violence. We have a people problem.

The mass shooting of Orlando, for example, was caused by Omar Mateen, a man with a strong hatred toward homosexuals. Had he had no firearms, that still wouldn’t change his hatred toward homosexuals. He might have used a bomb or even committed arson. According to an article from NBC, a cheap homemade chemical bomb killed 52 on a London-transit, more than the Orlando shooting, which was the deadliest in American history (“Tiny, Cheap, Deadly: Hydrogen Peroxide Bombs”). As with arson, it can be committed with a simple lighter and some alcohol. There are still many possibilities for crime without the use of guns.

As a former gun-control supporter, I understand many of the pro-gun control people’s’ reasons. A common argument is that even if the person is at fault for violence, and not the gun, the gun is still a dangerous and effective weapon for killing. This is valid, as a gun would certainly be more effective than a knife, for example. However, a study conducted by the Small Arms Survey points to several countries with less guns than the U.S, that still have similar or even higher homicide rates. To list a few, developed countries Estonia, Chile, and Turkey all have about 10 per 100 that own firearms compared to the 88 per 100 in the US, but still have similar homicide rates as the US, which hovers around four to five per 100,000 people. Moreover, developed and stable countries like Russia also have about 10 per 100 that own firearms, but more than double the homicide rates in the US (“Comparing Murder Rates and Gun Ownership across Countries – Crime Prevention Research Center”). This shows that the ownership of firearms does little to affect homicides, thus proving that a person’s mentality and murderous capabilities do not change with or without guns.

Homicides are most commonly discussed whilst debating gun control; however, suicide is still a concern, as it is much more common than homicides involving guns. According to the Pew Research Center, ¨a significantly higher – and growing – number of gun deaths were by suicide than by homicide” Suicide rates have remained at a fairly consistent area, with 6.7 per 100,000 in 2014, but has increased slightly in recent times (Krogstad, para. 4). While some people may take relief in the fact that gun-related suicides make up more deaths than the scary mass shootings on the media, I have to side with gun control supporters in that suicide is still a problem. However, there is more than just one method for suicide. It is true that guns are the most common method for suicide, and are easily accessible. It makes logical sense that taking away guns should prevent suicides, but simply taking away firearms from the suicidal will not change their state of mind.

They may resort to other methods, such as hanging or poisoning/overdose, which are all easy methods one can perform at home. Recent reports have shown that gun-related suicides are actually decreasing, while other methods are increasing. An article from the NRI states: “According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data, which cover years 1981 through 2013—incidentally, a period in which Americans acquired an additional 195 million firearms—… the non-firearm suicide rate increased 27 percent” (“Gun Control Not Associated With Reducing Suicides”, para. 4). This 27 percent increase is significantly greater than the slight increase of gun-related suicides. While gun-related suicides remain high, other suicide methods have climbed even higher, despite the massive increase of gun ownership, indicating that we need to focus on a more broader ways to control suicide. Even without stricter gun laws, suicide methods have switched from guns to other methods. Gun control will only encourage people to use different methods for suicide, rather than prevent it.

Despite all the discussion of gun control, and whether we have a gun problem or a people problem, gun crime rates are actually decreasing, despite what the media might make it seem. According to the Pew Research Center, ¨ Between 1993 and 2000, the gun homicide rate dropped by nearly half, from 7.0 homicides to 3.8 homicides per 100,000 people. Since then, the gun homicide rate has remained relatively flat.” In 2014, the gun homicide rate is now only 3.4 per 100,000 people. Others may argue that the data shows only the deaths, and that plenty others are still being injured. While nonfatal violent gun crimes have a significantly higher number than gun homicide rates, these nonfatal acts have increased dramatically as well, with 725.3 people in 1993 to 174.8 people per 100,000 in 2014 (Krogstad). If gun crimes are decreasing, the question becomes, “Why do we even care?” We care because we want the best we can possibly provide for our citizens; however, we are caring for the wrong thing.

According to a report from the Brookings Institute referenced in an article from the National Review, back during the 1960s, only about 15 people of 1,000 were victims of a violent crime. Since then, crime rates have spiked dramatically, but have started to lower since the 1990s. In 2013, violent crime rates recorded 23.2 people of 1,000 (Cooke, para. 3). If we realize that guns are not the only problem, and that other crimes have equal importance, America might lower its violent crime rates to back where it was during the 1990s.

For the reasons above, it is clear that guns actually have little to do with the overall violent crime rates in America. We must focus not on the gun, but what holds the gun: us. Gun-related homicides are not the problem. All homicides are the problem. Suicide by use of firearms isn’t the problem. All suicides are the problem. Gun control will provide little help to prevent the terrible losses of innocent lives.

 

Works Cited:

Krogstad, Jens Manuel. “Gun Homicides Steady after Decline in ’90s; Suicide Rate Edges up.” Pew Research Center RSS. N.p., 21 Oct. 2015. Web. 2016.

“NRA-ILA | Gun Control Not Associated With Reducing Suicides.” NRA-ILA. N.p., 18 Sept. 2015. Web. Oct. 2016.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32027560/. “Tiny, Cheap, Deadly: Hydrogen Peroxide Bombs.” Msnbc.com. N.p., 23 Sept. 2009. Web. 04 Oct. 2016.

Chalabi, Mona. “Gun Homicides and Gun Ownership Listed by Country.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 22 July 2012. Web. 04 Oct. 2016.

Cooke, Charles C.W. “Careful with the Panic: Violent Crime and Gun Crime Are Both Dropping.” National Review. N.p., 30 Nov. 2015. Web. 05 Oct. 2016.

Lott, John R. “Comparing Murder Rates and Gun Ownership across Countries – Crime Prevention Research Center.” Crime Prevention Research Center. N.p., 31 Mar. 2014. Web. 05 Oct. 2016.

 

The Early Evening Show with Angelica: Gun Control

Check out The Early Evening Show with Angelica: Gun Control

Task 1: Response to John Horgan

I agree with some of your points in that the U.S. puts too much effort in counterterrorism; however, I disagree with your ideas of more gun control. You brought up a good point that most terrorism-related deaths occurred during the 9/11 attacks, and that people should focus more on gun violence, but I believe that the fight for less gun violence is the same as the fight against terrorism: they are both overdramatized. Although I am not an expert, I am able to recognize that the media makes it appear that gun violence is getting worse, when in reality, it is getting better. This is due to the increased news coverage and reports of the modern day. According to studies done by the Pew Research Center, gun-related homicides have reduced to nearly half of what it was in the 1990s, going from 7.0 to 3.6 per 100,000 people. I haven’t included suicide in this statistic for the following reason. You mentioned that 20,000 of around 32,000 people killed by guns are the result of suicide. I understand your point that a death caused by gun violence is still a cost of a human life, whether it is due to the harming of others or self-harm. Still, I must argue that just because guns won’t be available to a person seeking suicide, that won’t make the person’s suicidal tendencies disappear. I am not calling for a complete repeal of all gun laws; I think the gun laws are fine the way it is right now, considering the decreasing gun violence.

Article: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/orlando-massacre-exposes-need-for-more-gun-control-not-more-counterterrorism/

 

 

 

E-mail to Law Professor Eugene Volokh

Dear Mr. Volokh,

My name is Kenneth Kim and I am a sophomore in Monte Vista High School in California. We are currently studying the gun control debate, and I am looking for some deeper insight from an expert.

I have done some extensive research involving points from both sides of the debate. Before starting, I was for gun control for the simple reason of safety. However, after some research, I found some statistics that pushed me to pro-guns. I found that the media actually makes it seem that gun violence is increasing, when it is not.

However, since there are many biased and misleading articles and reports, it is confusing to decide whether gun control is really not necessary. First, as a professor of law who supports gun rights, what is your interpretation of the second amendment? Some articles claim that gun violence is a big problem, while others will diminish its gravity. Do you believe that the media makes the issue bigger than it really is? Even if gun violence is not that much of a problem, isn’t it better to be safe than sorry and implement gun control laws?

Thank you for taking your time to read this.

 

Sincerely,

Kenneth Kim

Bio: http://law.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/eugene-volokh/

V.V.B: Loaded Language

    V.V.B. is the author of “Senators fail the American people (again),” from the blog section of The Economist. The author writes towards Americans who oppose gun rights, implying that they should become more politically active. V.V.B. states that “gun enthusiasts, who believe that the good guys must be armed to fight the baddies, tend to be far more politically active” (V.V.B., para. 5). This fact acts as a reminder to gun control supporters to become more involved with the issue. A more clear example of this encouragement is when the author writes, “GUN violence requires more than moments of silence. It requires action” (V.V.B. para. 1). Homosexual people are also a target audience, as V.V.B. mentions the insensitivity of the legislatures after they didn’t pass a gun control bill, just right after the Orlando shooting. Another group V.V.B. targets are people who may have lost someone to gun violence, or even just sympathisers to victims. The author uses words and phrases such as “moments of silence” (V.V.B. para. 1), referencing the mourning of a lost one. The author also replaces several words with more emotional language. When describing the Orlando shooting, V.V.B. called it the “bloodiest” shooting in our history (V.V.B. para. 3). However, he could have instead described it simply as “biggest” or “worst.” This choice of words emphasizes the tragedy of the event, and may induce fear as well. V.V.B. also uses the word “frustrating” to describe President Obama’s failed attempt to make it harder to gain access to a gun. The target audience would strongly agree to this, as a big argument on the pro-gun-control side is that the new gun control laws are common sense. The author seems to be biased in that he is against the legislatures. The loaded language in the article is used to overall incite anger in the voters against the legislature.

    V.V.B’s indirect audience are the senators of the legislature. Just from looking at the title, V.V.B is already pointing fingers at the Senate. The mention of failure in the title, and also in the article throughout, is particularly strong. Firstly, it arouses anger in the reader. Secondly, it calls out the Senate for not doing their job properly. Furthermore, the “again” in parenthesis worsens the image of the Senate. Also, the “again” could catch the attention of voters, encouraging the aforementioned pro-gun-control people to become more involved.

    The loaded language in the article makes the article more powerful in various different ways. It arouses different emotions such as fear, sadness, and mainly anger. Fear of guns make people support gun control. Sadness is used to evoke passion to prevent the cause of the sadness, which is gun violence. Finally, since the author is biased in that he is against the legislature, the loaded language in his article mainly serves to incite anger in the voters against the Senate.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/06/gun-control

Mike LaBossier

    Mike LaBossiere is a philosopher professor with a truly unique style of writing. He has written numerous posts about gun control on The Philosophers’ Magazine Blog. As a pro-gun rights activist, LaBossiere concocts various points that have never crossed my mind. I have read several of his gun rights articles, but “Controlling Guns” was a particularly interesting one. Firstly, the author shows much respect for the opposing side of the argument. He accepts the fact that all of his opponents’ points are perfectly valid, all the while showing his understanding for their points, but then goes on to make his own. His depth of thought is also admirable. LaBossiere states that the main reason for gun control is to reduce deaths. However, “if guns can be severely restricted under the justification that doing so would reduce the number of deaths, then it would follow that automobiles should be subject to the same level of restrictions because they generate a significantly greater death toll” (LaBossiere, para. 8).This point is used to show how gun violence is not that significant of a problem. LaBossiere concludes by saying how it is the people that are the problem, and not the guns. LaBossiere also uses a fair amount of ethos and logos. One of his first paragraphs is of him stating his position, and how he is an experienced, long-time gun owner himself. He also introduces his profession as a philosopher. His logos takes the form of his many examples used in the post. He makes connections to automobiles and obesity, and how they cause more deaths than gun violence. Should this mean that there needs to be tighter regulations on cars and food, too?

    I hope to achieve some of LaBossiere’s critical thinking into my own posts, and answer all questions clearly, not leaving the reader thinking, “But what about this?” I can achieve this by learning to understand the opponents’ arguments, and not just what the arguments are. This way, I can also learn to become more respectful to different sides of a debate.

Link (post at bottom of page): http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?tag=gun-control

Bias

     Lee Fang of The Intercept is the author of the article ¨Gun Industry Executives Say Mass Shootings Are Good for Business.” The bias of this article is evident through his use of claims without evidence, and appeal to pathos. The article claims that gun industries support mass shootings because it increases their profit. However, this claim is supported by quotes that do not necessarily prove anything. The quotes and transcripts mainly state what is happening, and not what the gun industries think about what is happening. One such example of a quote is of Tommy Millner, a chief executive of a gun retailer: “the business went vertical … I meant it just went crazy” (Fang, para. 8). The quotes also describe the reason for the spike in gun sales: “Stack noted that the industry saw ‘panic buying’ when customers ‘thought there were going to be some very meaningful changes in our gun’ laws” (Fang, para. 6). Following a mass shooting, the debate for gun control is heated up again, and people rush to buy guns in fear that guns will soon become banned. Still, there is not much in the quotes to support the author’s claim. Fang also uses several appeal to pathos, especially to sadness, fear, and anger. The author uses words such as “despairing” and “tragic” to describe gun violence. Words such as “murderous” and “rampage” are also used to stimulate fear (Fang, para. 2). The way Fang arouses anger is by first describing gun violence as something that is tragic and scary, but then going on to claim that gun industries are taking advantage of a situation that people find bad. There is also no reference to the other side of the argument. There is no mention of the rise of gun sales being a coincidence, or that gun industries simply cannot change the fact that many people rush to buy guns after a mass shooting. Although the author formulates sentences and words that are biased, the quotes he chooses are not, as stated before. Still, the article itself is biased. Even though the quotes are not very biased, the author warps the words of the quotes to match his own personal beliefs. It is clear that the author is against some aspects of the gun industry, and believes that they take advantage of these mass shootings.

This article receives a seven on the bias scale. Its arguments are mainly based on an appeal to feelings and unsupported claims, as well as showing no perspective from the other side.

Bias by Omission: no mention of other side

Bias by Headline: title is the claim of the article; catches reader’s attention

Although this article was blatantly biased, there are many other biased articles that may be disguised. Some of these articles use the same tactics as this article, such as an appeal to pathos. Subtle word choice can make all the difference in a reader’s thoughts. Even though the author may be citing evidence from one side of the argument, the reader may still believe that that is all the evidence there is.