With the use of non lethal weapons and guns. Two examples of this are an airsoft gun, and a tranquilizer. This helps decrease almost all deaths by guns but still allows people to protect themself. Since the second amendment discusses people owning firearms for their safety, this would be able to solve that problem and get rid of the majority of the mortality rate.
While problems still arise with these technologies, if we are able to develop a safe enough weapon that immediately knocks out an opponent, it would be a great substitute for guns. See more blogs. July 8, By Venus Aradhya.
Like Post Submit a post. Another recent mass shooting occurred at Oregon Umpqua College in Oregon which claimed the lives of seven people. Of the two incidences, the shooters carried out the evil and afterwards committed suicide.
Of late, legislators have been agitating for the citizens for them to get a permit to use the firearms everywhere without restrictions including their places of work, homes and even learning institutions. The security demands of the contemporary society are such high, and therefore, every citizen should be permitted to carry a gun anywhere for their security purpose.
A citizen, a premise or an institution that is armed prevents itself from receiving security threats and thus reduces crimes. It is a common belief that being an armed citizen will aid in lessening crimes.
This notion has gained many arguments as of whether carrying of guns will improve safety for people especially for those in learning institutions. The definite advantage of carrying a weapon is that a person is armed any time and ready for anything. Robert 8 points out that as a result of the increase in crime rates, people desire to protect themselves and increase their security by carrying a weapon in a place within reach.
It is the responsibility of the state to mobilize institutions and other governing bodies to educate the citizens to maintain accountability and subsequently to keep safe from terror.
A citizen of above 21 years should thus be certified to have a license to a gun because they are perceived as responsible grown-ups who are a target for crime. As a privilege stated in the constitution, carrying a gun ought to be beneficial to all citizens to enable them to uphold their security.
The adjustments made in the law sought to protect the freedom of the licensed gun holders and the correct use of the weapons. According to Gary 10 , one way to put into practice this constitutional right and freedom is by permitting all citizens to carry the guns in any manner depending on their choices. It is essential to allow citizens to have their voice by proclaiming that their guiding principle is the Constitution of the States. It is claimed that even though it is a right, carrying a gun be it concealed or open is also a critical adjustment to the gun laws.
If this adjustment is allowed to all the citizens, it will enable them to cope with emergencies for instance in case of a sudden mass shooting.
A citizen who is responsible will use the gun effectively with care whenever such a crisis erupts. Statistics indicate an increase in the cases of mass shooting in the United States, and as the case, every citizen is worthy of the right to protect themselves. Employing every tendency for Gun Safety's examination, of the institutions and premises that are known to be well armed, there have been zero reported cases of mass shootings and killing Jonathan 9.
All Americans irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity have the chance to make sure that they are safe and make use of the opportunity secured by the Bill of Rights. Therefore, denying some citizens guns and making some places gun-free zones amounts to denying a fundamental right to citizens. Also, everyone deserves the right to defend themselves and as a way of doing that they should carry guns. Gun ownership and non-ownership are therefore dynamic states that may not reflect static ideology.
With existing research heavily reliant on comparing gun owners to non-gun owners, a psychological model of gun attitudes in the US will have limited utility if it relies solely on gun owner stereotypes based on their most frequent demographic characteristics. Just so, looking more closely at the diversity of gun owners can reveal important details beyond the kinds of stereotypes that are often used to frame political debates. Foremost, it must be recognized that not all gun owners are conservative white men with racist attitudes.
For example, those with low levels of gun empowerment were more likely to be female and to own long guns for recreational purposes such as hunting and collecting. Other research has shown that the motivations to own a gun, and the degree to which gun ownership is related to fear and the desire for self-protection, also varies according to the type of gun Stroebe et al. Owning guns, owning specific types of guns e.
A study reported that new gun owners were younger and more likely to identify as liberal than long-standing gun owners Wertz et al. Although Kalesan et al. It would also be a mistake to equate gun ownership with opposition to gun legislation reform or vice-versa. Although some evidence supports a strong association Wolpert and Gimpel, , more recent studies suggest important exceptions to the rule.
Women tend to be more likely than men to support gun control, even when they are gun owners themselves Kahan and Braman, ; Mencken and Froese, Older age 70—79 Americans likewise have some of the highest rates of gun ownership, but also the highest rates of support for gun control Pederson et al. According to a survey, the majority of the US public also opposes carrying firearms in public spaces with most gun owners opposing public carry in schools, college campuses, places of worship, bars, and sports stadiums Wolfson et al.
Despite broad public support for gun legislation reform however, it is important to recognize that the threat of gun restrictions is an important driver of gun acquisition Wallace, ; Aisch and Keller, As a result, proposals to restrict gun ownership boosted gun sales considerably under the Obama administration Depetris-Chauvin, , whereas gun companies like Remington and United Sporting Companies have since filed for bankruptcy under the Trump administration.
Developing a psychological understanding of attitudes towards guns and gun control legislation in the US that accounts for underlying emotions, motivated reasoning, and individual variation must avoid the easy trap of pathologizing gun owners and dismissing their fears as irrational.
Although the research on fear and gun ownership summarized above implies that non-gun owners are unconcerned about victimization, a closer look at individual study data reveals both small between-group differences and significant within-group heterogeneity.
For example, Stroebe et al. Fear of victimization is therefore a universal fear for gun owners and non-gun owners alike, with important differences in both quantitative and qualitative aspects of those fears.
In addition, biased risk assessments have been linked to individual feelings about a specific activity. Whereas many activities in the real world have both high risk and high benefit, positive attitudes about an activity are associated with biased judgments of low risk and high benefit while negative attitudes are associated with biased judgments of high risk and low benefit Slovic et al.
For those that have positive feelings about guns and their perceived benefit, the risk of gun ownership is minimized as discussed above. However, based on findings from psychological research on fear Loewenstein et al.
Consistent with this dichotomy, both calls for legislative gun reform, as well as gun purchases increase in the wake of mass shootings Wallace, ; Wozniak, , with differences primarily predicted by the relative self-serving attributional biases of gun ownership and non-ownership alike Joslyn and Haider-Markel, Psychological research has shown that fear is associated with loss of control, with risks that are unfamiliar and uncontrollable perceived as disproportionately dangerous Lerner et al.
Although mass shootings have increased in recent years, they remain extremely rare events and represent a miniscule proportion of overall gun violence. While some evidence suggests that gun owners may be more concerned about mass shootings than non-gun owners Dowd-Arrow et al. There is little doubt that parental fears about children being victims of gun violence were particularly heightened in the wake of Columbine Altheide, and it is likely that subsequent school shootings at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook Elementary, and Stoneman Douglas High have been especially impactful in the minds of those calling for increasing restrictions on gun ownership.
However, such responses may not only be ineffective, but potentially damaging. As with the literature on DGU, the available evidence supporting the effectiveness of specific gun laws in reducing gun violence is less than definitive Koper et al.
Crucially however, this perspective fails to consider the impact of gun control legislation on the fears of those who value guns for self-protection. In other words, gun control proposals designed to decrease fear have the opposite of their intended effect on those who view guns as symbols of personal safety, increasing rather than decreasing their fears independently of any actual effects on gun violence. Such policies are therefore non-starters, and will remain non-starters, for the sizeable proportion of Americans who regard guns as essential for self-preservation.
In this essay, it is further argued that persisting debates about the effectiveness of DGU and gun control legislation are at their heart trumped by shared concerns about personal safety, victimization, and mass shootings within a larger culture of fear, with polarized opinions about how to best mitigate those fears that are determined by the symbolic, cultural, and personal meanings of guns and gun ownership.
It likewise suggests a way forward by acknowledging both common fears and individual differences beyond the limited, binary caricature of the gun debate that is mired in endless arguments over disputed facts. For meaningful legislative change to occur, the debate must be steered away from its portrayal as two immutable sides caught between not doing anything on the one hand and enacting sweeping bans or repealing the 2nd Amendment on the other.
In reality, public attitudes towards gun control are more nuanced than that, with support or opposition to specific gun control proposals predicted by distinct psychological and cultural factors Wozniak, such that achieving consensus may prove less elusive than is generally assumed. Finally, the Dickey Amendment should be repealed so that research can inform public health interventions aimed at reducing gun violence and so that individuals can replace motivated reasoning with evidence-based decision-making about personal gun ownership and guns in society.
Aisch G, Keller J What happens after calls for new gun restrictions? Sales go up. New York Times. Accessed 19 Nov Altheide DL The Columbine shootings and the discourse of fear. Am Behav Sci — Article Google Scholar. American Psychological Association One-third of US adults say fear of mass shootings prevents them from going to certain places or events. Press release, 15 August Anglemeyer A, Horvath T, Rutherford G The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ann Int Med — Google Scholar. Accid Anal Prev — PubMed Article Google Scholar. Stanf Law Rev — Soc Sci Med — Am J Public Health — Bhatia R Center for American Progress. Braman D, Kahan DM Overcoming the fear of guns, the fear of gun control, and the fear of cultural politics: constructing a better gun debate.
Emory Law J — Cook PJ, Ludwig J Guns in America: National survey on private ownership and use of firearms. National Institute of Justice. J Risk Uncertain 39 3 — J Quant Criminol — Cramer CE, Burnett D Tough targets: when criminals face armed resistance from citizens. Craven J Why black people own guns. Huffington Post. JAMA — Am J Epidemiol — Defilippis E, Hughes D The myth behind defensive gun ownership: guns are more likely to do harm than good.
J Pub Econ — Doherty B How to count the defensive use of guns: neither survey calls nor media and police reports capture the importance of private gun ownership. SSM Pop Health Homicide Stud —
0コメント