Mass Shooting In The United States

Each time there is a mass shooting in the United States, especially when they involve schools and children, every media source blows up with articles containing information, photographs of victims, accounts from witnesses, and reactions by outsiders. As mass shootings continue to happen and have raised significant issues, I can’t help but wonder why there have been no further regulations and why these shootings continue to occur as they do. I will admit that I do not have much knowledge on the logistics and existing policies concerning guns, but as a US citizen I can’t help but be concerned upon hearing about shootings at concerts, schools, churches, etc. I have noticed that there are numerous instances of shootings in the United States, but few elsewhere.

Maybe this is simply because we live in the United States and I fail to look at the news of other countries unless it is presented to me, or maybe this is due to the fact that there are fewer mass shootings in other countries.

I struggle to understand the necessity of guns in people’s homes and feel as though faith and trust should be put into our law enforcement as it is their job to protect the people. No one should live in fear of being shot, especially in areas where the crime rate is fairly low. I do recognize that guns are not the only issue, but from the knowledge I currently have, they are one component of the problem that can be controlled and I am fairly certain that this has proven to be successful in other countries as well. I look forward to better understanding the conversation concerning gun control and gaining knowledge in order to judge the situation having looked at differing

perspectives.

Global Comparisons by Council on Foreign Relations
The first article that popped up upon searching the terms “g-u-n-c-o-n-t-r-o-l” was called “U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons” from the site Council on Foreign Relations. This article highlights the differences in the laws concerning guns and the consequences of these policies in various countries. The Unites States is discussed to have gun ownership rooted in the Second Amendment of the Constitution where “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is included but cannot be said as unlimited. It is shown that gun laws have been passed to restrict these rights such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 which “prohibits persons under eighteen years of age, convicted criminals, the mentally disables, dishonorably discharged military personnel, and others from purchasing firearms” (“U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons” par. 3). While laws have been passed, many have been proposed and simply shut down. Canada is discussed to have major gun reforms resulting from gun violence at a school in Montreal. It is also stated that it is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon, with the only exception being it was registered before 1978. After an incident in 1996 in Australia, the National Agreement on Firearms set strict regulations on weapons, however following another shooting in 2002, Australia decided to crack down on even handgun laws, which has proven to be highly affective. In the United Kingdom, they have acted back at gun violence by instituting a temporary gun buyback program in which many guns were taken out of supply. It is evident that guns cause problems worldwide, and most countries, following mass shootings, take strong precautions to prevent any further issues.
As a first source, I would have to say that this was relatively solid. It backed up all of its evidence with graphs and charts to explain how the regulations and consequences of different countries compare. Real statistics are offered about shootings that have taken place in several nations, serving as evidence that this is an issue, not only in the US, but everywhere. This article also does a great job of remaining unbiased. It fails to recognize one nation as better than the others and rather provides a brief description of each. I do think that this would be a more valuable source if it were to provide more of a case study of a few nations that went into more depth and analyzed the laws and consequences thoroughly. As a result, popping up right at the top, in my opinion this would go against Carole Cadwalldr’s argument being that the first sources that pop up are biased and generally unreliable or relevant to the topic at hand. This site shows legitimacy through its various editors, representing a diverse group of people in the field of international affairs, and resources it provides, and proves to be a very valid, useful site.