According to the Second Amendment, Americans have the right to bear arms. It is stated as such:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.When the 2nd Amendment was written, the right to bear arms was used for citizens to protect themselves against foreign invaders, of which were (for the most part) folks from England who were trying to keep America under their control. However, we did not have the issue of gun violence that exist today in the 1700s. Gun violence takes lives of more than 30,000 Americans through homicide, suicide, and accidents 2016). Some of these accidents occurred by children and teenagers. Because the second amendment was not written for the sake of children and teenagers bearing arms who were not involved in war, it is silly to act as if it was meant for all people to utilize guns in all situations. Guns should not be used by those who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, those who have severe mental instability or those who are planning to use this right to disturb and disrupt the lives of innocent people. National Crime Victimization Survey date notes that more than 9 times as many people are victimized by guns than protected by them (Defilippis & Hughes, 2015). When guns are used to intimidate and control people, they can make the rest of the rights citizens have very difficult to exercise.
There are implications for carrying weapons that are best use for Warfare. Why would US citizen need access to a weapon specifically designed for Warfare? Even as a soldier or a veteran, it is not beneficial for a military person to Star War items in their homes. What is the likelihood of a War happening on American soil? The last war that was fought on American soil occurred 200 years ago (though some may use the Aleutian Islands Campaign of WWII to counter this, Alaska was not a state at the time of this battle) (Perras, 2003). However, I understand the argument for guns in homes, even military-grade guns. If someone who is trying to kill a mass population can obtain these weapons illegally, we would fare better if soldiers and Veterans who are trained to use military-grade weaponry to have them close by and be able to fight with the same types of weapons that someone doing wrong may have.
This is also a argument that has occurred on my campus every few months. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University is a veterans-serving Institution, and my campus is comprised of about 10% veterans students. In addition, ROTC and Air Force ROTC are very popular on this campus. The argument for these populations is that, if there are students who are planning to serve in the military and have served in the military, who are trained or being trained to protect and serve the country, why would the school not wish to have additional members of the community who are available to defend students in the case of a outside or inside offender? I believe this is a good defense, but it is also difficult to regulate period if our ROTC students are undergraduate student to live on campus, it means they will be living with at least one additional person in a room or a maximum of 5 individuals within a suite. There has yet to be a single study examining the question that does not show that criminal uses far outweigh defensive uses, and the Kleck-Gertz survey (which occurred in my residential state, Arizona) results predicted 8 defensive killings or injuries and 19 firings over the same time frame. This means when guns are used, they are being used to threaten or are shot accidentally (Defilippis & Hughes, 2015). In the most lackadaisical of conditions, this means that one person may be trained to utilize a weapon, but five others may not. LaFollette (2007) states, “I propose we make handgun owners (and perhaps all gun owners) strictly liable for harm caused by the use of their guns.” I agree, but how are universities impacted by students in their care? If an argument or disturbance occurred, how could the university assure that no one else utilize the gun?
In addition, students who do not have access to weapons may feel intimidated by those who do. Though we investigate every threat of harm to students, allowing guns on campus would make that threat of harm even more possible in reality. In suicidal ideation situations, we evaluate a student's threat to self by plan and access. If someone says they do not have a plan or the access to that means of death, we rate it lower threat than those who do. Why would we allow people to carry access to hurting themselves or others? This is also our reasoning for banning knives longer than 3 inches as well (Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Prescott, 2016). I would personally be intimidated by a student who is going through the conduct process and walks into discuss consequences while holstering a gun. I would not feel comfortable talking to them in a group or by myself. I also believe it makes it easier for people who are within a contentious situation to resort to violence instead of talking things out and solving issues peacefully.
For these reasons I believe it is fair to limit people's rights to bear arms to handguns and hunting rifles, yet assure that even those people have a thorough training and mental evaluation every one or two years. Why so often? Because the amount of usability ranges from someone only using a gun for self-defense to using it everyday within a occupation, it makes sense that a shift in mindset could occur after a traumatic event like a home invasion or shooting an innocent person. People with serious mental illness are three times more likely than those who are not mentally ill to commit violent acts again themselves or others 2016). This is not to say all people dealing with mental illness will hurt people, but we all go through so many things within a year that could change our mental stability. It seems as if someone were to go through an evaluation every year, we would be able to track the changes in psychological innateness enough to do further research on what motivation is in homicides and suicides by firearm and get people the help they need so they can rationalize non-violent options before using their guns. This would greatly benefit us and how we implement gun laws.
References
Defilippis, E. & Hughes, D. (2015). The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership. From http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262_Page2.html#.Vvm1vnotslc
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Prescott. (2016). 2015-2016 Student Handbook. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Prescott. From
http://prescott.erau.edu/Assets/prescott/forms/prescott-student-handbook.pdf
(2016). Gun violence not a mental health issue, experts say, pointing to 'anger,' suicides. From http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/health/gun-violence-mental-health-issue/
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Perras, G. R. (2003). Stepping Stones to Nowhere, The Aleutian Islands, Alaska, and American Military Strategy, 1867–1945. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment