The crisis of gun violence in America seems to become harder and harder to stomach with every passing month. Incidences of mass gun violence serve as a grim reminder of what we have all allowed our reality to become. Even more of these tragic incidences, categorized as one-off homicides or suicides, go unseen. Our fellow Americans become silent victims of a broken system. For years, debates have raved on regarding what to do about this problem, but an apparent solution has yet to present itself. The politicization of the issue has only worsened governmental feet-dragging, setting us back even further as even more Americans are reduced to statistics.
It seems that at many impasses in the life of a perpetrator (or a self-inflicting victim), preventative efforts could have been taken to prevent the perpetrator from resulting to gun violence. "Woefully insufficient" mental healthcare resources, as the APA describes it, seem to be a significant missing link.
In many cases of death by gun violence, if an at-risk individual had been given the proper resources, death could have likely been prevented. Such resources can come in any number of forms. Resources like mental health services, community outreach, and social work have been shown to be effective as a preventative measure against gun violence. The sad reality is that those not forced to be directly involved in a crisis tend not to take an active role in doing so.
A significant portion of gun deaths that must not go unseen are suicides. In 2020, 54% of gun deaths in the United States were suicides. Deaths like these would likely decrease with the aforementioned access to mental health resources. Sometimes, all it really takes is a trusted loved one to recognize the signs to prevent suicide. I'd like to stress this next part:
Check on your friends.
While researching, I found myself wondering why, considering all of the media coverage and statistics on gun violence, nothing has changed? I wanted to explore why it might be that people seem to stand idly by as this problem becomes worse and worse.
The Bystander Effect, seen in the murder of Kitty Genovese (as explained in bystander effect hyperlink), is a theory that spoke to me while exploring why it is that so many Americans choose not to speak up. The theory asserts that when a person is faced with some type of emergency in which they, as well as others, have the power to help another person in need, they often don't. The thought process behind this lack of action is that someone else will assist the person in need; "Since others have the power to do something, there is no need for me to do anything about it."
Could it be that gun violence in America has been allowed to grow so out of control due to a simple case of the Bystander Effect? And are we all somewhat guilty of being a bystander?
In asking myself this question, I was reminded of a concept I found interesting while reviewing for our final exam: Jean-Paul Sarte and Bad Faith.
Sarte holds that one has 'bad faith' in running from one's freedom. We, as conscious beings, get to make our own decisions. The choice not to advocate for action on gun violence, in my opinion, is a splendid example of being in bad faith. Allowing oneself to remain tuned into the problem only when incidences of mass gun violence make headlines is categorically bad faith.
I do firmly believe that our regard for one another's lives is still very much prevalent, and that we still care if human beings live or die. However, I firmly believe that we have created or at least participated in a society and culture which allows us to disconnect ourselves from the problem, and that is lethal. It would appear that to fully conquer this problem, we need to use a healthy dose of empathy.
Why do you think is it that we continue to tolerate the level of gun violence that we do? Have you taken action on this problem in some way?
The process of identifying a solution and finding a practical application for said solution can only be described as murky. Many solutions have been thrown around over the years. Most commonly, gun control. Gun control boils down to being any legal measure meant to prevent or restrict firearm ownership. This could include anything from stricter, more in-depth background checks to the outright banning of civilian firearm ownership.
In the aforementioned article by the APA, a number of methods of gun control are explored. They identified a number of effective gun control methods such as requiring licenses for handgun ownership, background checks for firearm purchases, close oversight on retailers, and similar checkpoints on ammunition.
There are also whispers of non-traditional solutions such as "Smart Guns", or firearms equipped with technology that ensures they may only be used by their rightful owner. This solution is largely aimed at gun theft, a significant issue in the United States. Gun theft is often committed in order to commit other crimes, including homicide.
Many of the philosophers we've studied over the course of the semester would likely advocate for some form of gun control beyond what currently exists. Even those such as Locke, who had a notable influence on the creation of our nation's declaration of independence, would likely agree that today's policies are outdated and dangerous. This need for more up-to-date regulation stems from advancements in weapon technology. Changes in everything from magazine capacity, to the number of rounds a firearm is able to fire per minute, to the types of ammunition available require policy to be reviewed and amended to fit the modern definition of a firearm.
Essentially, the same laws which oversee muskets and other outdated firearm technologies should not oversee the artillery of the modern era.
The struggle, in my mind, really seems to be about choosing a method or methods and applying them. There is no mathematical formula that will tell our government precisely how much funding to place into which methods in order to end this problem. This means trial and error are absolutely necessary to accomplish the goal. With that being said, this process of trial and error can and should be occurring much faster. The longer we spend trying to appease all sides of the argument, the more human beings lose their lives.
Is there a solution you believe would solve, or at least curb this problem?
No comments:
Post a Comment