Modify the paper
Kyle369
YangkaiHuangResearchEssay.docxHuang 5
Yangkai Huang
Prof. Tusay
Eng 108
22 June 2020
What is the impact of gun crime in the United States?
According to the recent reports, one of the major issues that are being experienced in the U.S. is the involuntary forms of violence and crimes that happen as a result of the possession of weapons by the American citizens. Gun violence has officially been given the status of a serious public health issue because of which the lives and health of the U.S. are under threat. Data analysis pointed to the increasing rates of the fatalities and casualties of children killed or injured by the gun wound shots annually. The world sees the U.S. as a prospering country based on the dimensions of freedom and democracy where an individual is free to make decisions and to choose the direction of one's life (Lu, Yu & Temple, 2019). However, it has been seen that over time the average citizen has developed a fear of violation of crime and security and does not trust that the government and the forces of authority will be able to protect them. This loss of faith and concept has given rise to the average citizen to possess and hold arms and weapons in houses and, in some cases, the transportation to protect themselves and their families to stay secure and use the weapon whenever necessary.
However, as people are becoming self-sufficient and are putting thought into taking care of themselves and the protection of the families, what the crime rate reveals is the opposite of what the implications of the action should be. More significant is that there has been an increase in crimes where the weapons are used involuntarily, and the identified owners have revealed that the actions were not intended and that they could not control the urge to fire the victims. What is further alerting is that in this fight of pointing the gun's direction towards the victim, there have been times where innocent victims have died only because they were present at the occasion, were minding their own business and were hurt in the process because the owner did not mean to hurt them and was trying to protect themselves. These types of cases indicate that the fears and beliefs are spreading, and the average and modern citizens do not think that they are safe anymore (Banks, 2017). Also, as per rules, there is a distinction between people who are the ordinary citizens and the people who are the protectors of these citizens.
Both groups have specific functions and should aim to perform their jobs. Whereas, the reported number of incidents and actions taken by the citizens indicate that the average citizen does not feel safe which leads us to two main conclusions; the first is that the protecting group is either not performing their duties effectively or the second that the citizens are not satisfied from their services. The result of this form of collision is that the average citizen takes it upon themselves to protect them and their families and perform any action that they deem to be necessary for the process, thus taking the law in their own hands.
I believe that the most powerful dilemma involves both sides of the issue's psychological aspect. This means that people feel stronger and safer when they believe they will be able to protect themselves in case of emergencies when their lives are at risk (Rhonda et al., 2016). The widely regarded phenomena are that the mass shootings and the crime caused by gun violence are increasing in the U.S. Furthermore, this also points to the phenomenon that people today are more prepared for incidents where their lives may be at risk. This means that the psychological fear has a much wider impact on the thinking of the citizens, which is developing an increased fear of meeting risks both outside and inside houses. The main threat of all is that the dimensions of this fear are being passed onto the young generation i.e., mainly college and university students. These students today are engrossed in mass shootings both inside and outside the premises of their universities. The population and the law bodies of the U.S. are currently caught in the dilemma of measuring and valuing the benefits and disadvantages of making a young population liable and responsible for carrying guns around the campus in order to protect themselves.
The main implication is that this fear is growing. The young minds who should be concerned with their future and their ideas of revolution and transformation are today caught up in the phenomena that their lives may be in constant danger. And that they face potential threats from their fellow student bodies and their teachers and professors. The world has witnessed two different sides to the legalization and the prohibition of allowing guns on campuses. The students have been involved in mass shootings, which have resulted and have enlarged only because the gun gave certain students the power to control the situation and to create fear in the areas. In these cases, the lives of young students have been lost (Brein et al., 2013). What is characterized as mainly resulting from the behaviors and acts of the criminal minds of the students who choose to react and kill others in this attempt to show their power? However, it cannot be argued that had the student not been carrying a gun, there had been lives saved, and the effects may not have been catastrophic.
The implications for society are far greater and more challenging. The impact that the society perceives from this attribute is that as more and more people begin practicing one form of behavior, the more the society adapts to it. The more common it becomes in the sociological and societal dimensions. Therefore, the possession of holding weapons in households has become common, and society has become used to it and considers a necessary component of life. The implications are that society is getting used to the deaths and injuries of innocent victims that are hurt in the process.
The authorities can perform a few steps to improve the security and safety facilities in terms of protecting the citizens. The main concern is that the access for the citizens is not restrictive. If the weapons are not available in one state, they can be purchased from another state through circulation (Kwon, Whan G & Baack, 2007). The primary reason why the concern amongst the citizens is growing is because of the rate at which the shooting incidents amongst the youngsters are increasing. Young children do not understand the implications; rather, they associate more with the power a gun can give to a person. Therefore, to maintain law and order, the access needs to restrictive.
Work Cited
Banks, Gina et al. “Gun Violence and Substance Abuse.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 34 (2017): 113–116. Web.
https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/science/article/pii/S1359178917300654?via%3Dihub
Kerry O'Brien et al. "Racism, Gun Ownership, and Gun Control: Biased Attitudes in US Whites May Influence Policy Decisions." PLoS ONE 8.10 (2013): e77552. Web.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/?tool=EBI
Kwon, Ik-Whan G., and Daniel W. Baack. "Gun Control Laws Can Reduce Gun Violence." Gun Control, edited by Tami Roleff, Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/apps/doc/EJ3010140306/OVIC?u=asuniv&sid=OVIC&xid=bbfc66db. Accessed 10 June 2020. Originally published as "The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage: A Holistic Measure of Gun Control Legislation," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, vol. 64, Apr. 2005, pp. 533-547.
Lewis, Rhonda et al. “College Students Opinions on Gun Violence.” Journal of Community Health 41.3 (2016): 482–487. Web.
https://link-springer-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/content/pdf/10.1007/s10900-015-0118-x.pdf
Lu, Yu, and Jeff R Temple. “Dangerous Weapons or Dangerous People? The Temporal Associations Between Gun Violence and Mental Health.” Preventive Medicine 121 (2019): 1–6. Web
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6456300/.
