Every time a mass shooting occurs in the United States, the same age-old topics bubble back to the surface. What can we do about gun control and is there a way to stop mass shootings? I'm an advocate of gun control. How much control to implement is much trickier than many realize. With the amount of violence in the United States, I do believe we may have reached a point of "no return" or at least a point that will take many many decades to correct, that will extend long past our lifetimes. The United States is simply more violent than a lot of other nations even taking guns out of the equation. I'll get into that a little bit later. So, would I feel comfortable telling someone who lives in Detroit, Chicago, or Philly that they can't own a gun if they pass certain criteria? Could I feel good about denying someone with the right to protect themselves? I think banning guns entirely would make the world a better and safer place, but I think banning a lot of things in this world would make it much safer, and people's rights have to be taken into account whether we like it or not. Those who are against gun control or who even believe in having more guns on the street will tell you that guns prevent gun violence, which is such shallow and factually false logic. Owning a gun or having a gun in your possession rarely saves your life. Most gun victims are taken unawares, and don't have the time or the composure to take out their gun, aim it, and fire it at a target who already has you in their crosshairs. It's rare that a firearm is used in self-protection to prevent a homicide. Plus, each death, regardless of whether someone took an innocent life via firearm, or a life was taken in defense of your own safety, they all count the same in the annual gun death statistics.
There are too many gun fatalities in this country. Far too many. Especially compared to other first world nations. We have roughly 33,000 gun deaths in the US every year, though "only" approximately 11,000 of those are via homicide. Most are suicides. I think changes need to be made in gun control. My issue is the ease in which individuals can possess what I'd call "weapons of warfare." Even though there are laws in place against semi-automatic rifles and automatic weapons, people still get their hands on them too easily. Those are weapons of war created to kill other human beings efficiently and quickly. Automatic weapons should be deemed completely illegal and banned in every state for any civilian, despite when they are manufactured, including ex-military or police officers or off duty military personnel or officers. The problem is, none of these changes are going to happen anytime soon, because you know, politics. So, I basically hate discussing any form of gun control because it's a major waste of time for the foreseeable future. Americans love guns, they're ingrained in our culture, and I don't know if that will ever change.
That doesn't mean we are hopeless as a society. I think we can cut down on mass killings, shootings, and violence. It won't be easy. Science has suggested that human beings are generally good-natured at heart, but we are also the alpha species on the planet earth, we are the most competitive species, we are the species most governed by emotions, and therefore we are violent. Humans have always been violent. Wars have existed since the beginning of time. Senseless slaughter has existed since the beginning of time. Thousands of people used to gather in stadiums to watch gladiators hack each other to death for sport, and then cheer the victory as a mutilated body was laying right there for all to see. Genghis Khan was responsible for the death and rape of millions. Hitler started a war that killed hundreds of millions and initiated a genocide that killed 6 million Jews. Violence will never cease to exist. Even on large scales. Hell, if there is another planet out there with a full species of advanced intelligent life, I can guarantee you they are violent as well.
Every form of violence is motivated by something different. Some are territorial, some are jealousy, some are love, some are hate, some are greed. Add in thrill killings, sexual deviancy, etc. Mass shootings typically involve some form of deep-seeded hatred or anger brought about by years of mental distress. Whether you are sold propaganda by a terrorist organization or you have just grown up to despise certain people, or possibly even all people, it's all built up animosity that erupts in the ultimate form of violence. To stop mass shootings, if we can't do anything about gun laws, then we need to limit the amount of mentally disturbed people in the United States.
This country has an inordinate amount of sick individuals. The state of California alone has had more serial killers in the state's recorded history than several first world countries combined. And no, it isn't just guns, most serial killers actually don't use guns. They prefer to kill their victims in a more personal way. This country has a mental instability issue, and until we correct that, these issues will never stop. So what causes these mental issues? I think a lot of it stems from bad parenting, for starters. Other countries simply teach better core values to their children, and we pollute the minds of our children with rhetoric at an early age. Too many of our parents teach their kids oppressive ideals in regards to sex, entertainment, and associating with others. It's no coincidence that whenever one of these tragedies occurs, and information about the perpetrator becomes public, we learn about their rough childhoods, abusive parents, being sexual abused when they were young, having strict religious parents, etc. Kids are super impressionable and these issues usually start to develop at a young age and expand over time. All of these factors play a part in people growing up to have serious mental issues. Look at countries like Canada, England, Ireland, Japan, etc. Yes, their gun laws are different from ours, but they also are generally much more peaceful. Let's look at Japan as a comparison to why a first world highly developed country may be less violent than the United States. Japan actually has a very high suicide rate, higher than the United States, but a low crime rate. They suffer from mental illness and distress like Americans do, but by nature their suicide rate in comparison to their crime rate shows their lack of violent tendencies against their common man. They typically are raised with better values, in stronger homes, with stronger parenting and lower divorce rates. Religion in Japan is also much different than the United States. It isn't as strongly enforced and pushed on children in families like it is in the States, and neither Shinto or Buddhism have shown the same history of oppressive or violent ideals of religions that often dominate countries that are prone to mass violence. Japan is just one specific example, and each violent person or tragedy is its own entity, but I think if you compare our country with others, and the values kids are taught and the things they are(or aren't) exposed to as children, we can get a clearer picture of what causes people to become mentally unstable and develop into killers.
Until we become better parents, stop forcing hateful or oppressive beliefs onto our children, build stronger families to raise them, and put more money and passion into mental health awareness and research, then I don't see the problem improving. Mental health is still not taken as seriously as it needs to be in society, and many people mock those who suffer from anxiety and depression making them angrier, more vindictive, and more likely to act in violence down the road. All the pressures in a competitive and cutthroat world we live in today can break someone who didn't develop the mental fortitude to handle it at a young age.
The use of the term "Terrorist"
I don't know how it all started, but for some reason people today seem to be obsessed with making everyone know who should and should not be labeled a terrorist. I don't know the exact motivations for each individual behind this "movement" but I suspect it has something to do with them trying to make it a point to announce to the world that "See?! Other people besides Muslims can be terrorists too!" Everyone knows this.
Whenever you get into labeling people anything, things get tricky. In a nutshell, the federal law defines "terrorism" as an act of violence against the general population that is driven by political motivations or goals. Now, states have their own definitions of what qualifies as terrorism. Point being, the definition varies, so for people to preach to the world about how ignorant someone is if they don't use that term on a specific killer is absurd and incredibly misguided. As long as everyone knows how awful they are, what they did was wrong, then that's what is important at the end of the day. A lot of people simply see terrorists as someone who causes terror to the general population. If that were the case, then Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway, and Richard Ramirez(The Nightstalker) would all be terrorists and not serial killers. They killed dozens of victims, just spread out over a longer period of time, but it all adds up to the same amount of lives lost. Serial killers can terrorize cities and neighborhoods for years. In California, women were afraid to go to sleep at night because The Nightstalker may break into their homes at night and kill them. Does that not qualify as terror? Look, I know Muslims are persecuted all over the world because of some of the awful teachings of Islam, and it isn't fair for good people who happen to believe in a religion that preaches archaic and oppressive ideals to be treated unfairly. They are still people and should have the same rights as anyone else. But it's not exactly without reason or logic for terrorism to be associated with people from the Middle East.
If someone of Middle Eastern descent commits mass murder, the odds that it is going to be in the name of Islam or as part of an Islamic terrorist organization(which only accepts Muslims, or those who convert to Islam) is significantly larger than it would be for a Caucasian or African American, who are statistically much less likely to believe in Islam. That doesn't mean that every Muslim is a terrorist or all Muslims are bad. Many people associate these politically driven acts as the true definition of terrorism, as is the definition of the term under federal law. A Korean guy who shoots up a mall isn't going to be immediately labeled or suspected to be a terrorist by the press, because the statistical odds of that person being associated with a religion or group that often is involved in violent ideals is much lower. However, if all the facts come out and it is found that this person committed that act with political motivations, I guarantee you they will be more commonly referred to as a terrorist. All of these squabbles are ancillary issues to the real problem and getting up on your soap box to tell the world how someone should label or define another is not going to solve a problem and will only cause more of a divide. At the end of the day, we all want the same thing. Regardless of how we get there, we want less violence however we can achieve it. As long as we have that common ground, then there is cause for hope no matter how small it may appear at times.
No comments:
Post a Comment