Gun Crime: Will Senseless Shootings Remain Inevitable While Firearms Remain So Available
Posted: Saturday, November 21, 2009
by Julian Price
http://www.uk-freelance-content-writer.co.uk/
With yet another recent spate of shootings in the USA and gun crime generally on the rise the world over, the same old questions, the same old arguments and counter arguments and the same old answers come bubbling to the surface once more.
Let us just for a moment, perhaps, try to avoid falling into the usual squabbles that result from such heated and passionate debate and the mud slinging that occurs as soon as nationality and geographical location are introduced. The tragedy of gun crime and the shattered lives that result could happen to any of us, at any time. No one country is entirely immune, as it only takes a solitary moment of madness, a single act of intended evil or a completely random accident for a trigger to be pulled and a life to be lost.
Perhaps all views are correct in some way, but what is a gun really designed for in its concept? Is it not its main purpose to be loaded with a bullet or ammunition of some kind, aimed at a target (whether it is animal, vegetable or mineral) and fired with the intention of destroying or at least hitting the intended target? In operation at least, at gun's sole purpose is to cause damage, even if it's simply to a red bulls eye a few hundred yards away.
We live in violent world filled with many who are prepared and willing to cause harm to others through the use of violent acts and others who will snap in outbursts of anger and rage. These are unfortunate, basic facts and if guns and weapons of mass destruction were eradicated altogether, humanity would still have a violent and malicious streak, but if a choice had to be made would we rather that the unhinged youth intent on causing harm went on the rampage in our children's schools with a baseball bat (because that's all they could get their hands on) or with a bag full of automatic and semi automatic weapons? Is the scale of the weaponry directly increasing the scale of the tragedy?
Perhaps technology is as much our worlds undoing as it is its crowning glory. Weapons are intentionally created and manufactured with increasing levels of destructive power. We hold our heads in dismay when another high speed motor accident leaves a young family dead and wonder why a driver would be travelling at over a hundred mph! The simple answer is, because they can. The vehicles have been manufactured, despite all the laws of our lands demanding we travel below a certain speed limit, with the potential to do speeds of more than double that legal limit.
Humanity is its own worst enemy, both in the tools it creates with such violent potential and the using of them so arrogantly and irresponsibly. So, could guns and other firearms be made less available (if so, how?) and is it that availability that is causing the massive problem in the first place?
Is it logical to suggest that if the vast majority couldn't so readily get hold of a gun when that crisis point arrived, that we would have less gun crime?
This Article has been viewed 433 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (5 total)You raise some interesting points, as always. I figure people who want to own guns should have to do some kind of psychological testing to see if there are any 'triggers' (no pun intended) in the individual which would make him use a gun in a moment of stress. That would never work, of course, since that also is my answer to the problems with some people having children: parents should go through some kind of test.It would never work since owning a gun (and having children, of course) are rights guaranteed. And, if all of the guns were taken off the street, the people who would turn to guns to commit atrocity would then turn to hammers or their cars in order to make their point. So it's basically a no-win situation. We in America sure love our guns, and they aren't going anywhere. It's just another example of a few making life miserable for the rest of us.Nicely done.Thanks for reading Michael, and of course you are right and I totally understand your feelings on the "parenting" issue as well. Appreciate your comments.
Julian, this is one of the best articles I've seen on guns and violence in general. Personally, I do think that if guns were no longer available we would have less gun violence. Sadly, I don't see that happening for a very, very long time. Here in America the 'cowboy' mentality is still way too prevelant to allow meaningful gun control, much less the abolishment of guns. Meaningful gun control would not totally eliminate the problem, but I do think it would decrease it some.Hi Joyce, thanks for reading and commenting, and for your input on what is a very delicate subject. Much appreciated.
The premise of your argument is that if evil people did not have access to guns, they would not do evil things. This argument is obviously based on emotion, because logically these evil people will continue to do evil things regardless of their weaponry. Just look at the entire history of man.Hi, I think you may have skipped a few lines to have arrived at this judgement of the article, "These are unfortunate, basic facts and if guns and weapons of mass destruction were eradicated altogether, humanity would still have a violent and malicious streak". Hope that clears up the "emotion" issue and suggests the "premise" is not as as you hve concluded. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Yes it is. It's also logical to suggest that those who would rape, murder, or thieve would be far less fearful of the repercussions if they could be fairly certain that the victim could not kill them on site, regardless of their own abilities.Who would you feel safer robbing? Grandma with a shotgun or grandma with a baseball bat?
Good article. Should provoke some interesting discussion.Hi Anthony, Appreciate you joining the discussion and the good points you make above. Thought provocation was the aim, glad you spotted that! Julian :)
Hi Julian, this is a great article, but I am one of the same old arguement fellows. What you and most of your commenters reflect is the thought that, once guns are outlawed, everyone would be without one. That is wrong. Only the nice guys and old ladies would turn them in. All your crooks would still have them and use them. And, incidentally, I'm like the old saying...the only way they'll take mine away is by prying it out of my cold hand. I can't even bring myself to kill an animal, but let someone break into my home and threaten my wife, or me, and I'll shoot him. That is the way it is.Hi Joel! Thanks for your comment, really appreciated! I hear what you are saying and totally understand the logic but looking at the larger picture and trying to take the "individual" out of it I can't get away from thinking less might be less and more might be more. Even at the outset of writing the article I knew it was one of those issues that will always rumble on without much common ground, which is why i tried to approach it a little bit differently(or at least i hope i did). Thanks again for your views.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.