No More Thoughts, No More Prayers

Erik Erikson, German-American psychologist and developer of the human growth and development theory, states that at every stage of life, we face a conflict that must be resolved, or else long term social or cognitive damages may occur. The first stage of his theory is the infancy stage, typically from birth to 1.5 years of age. During this time we must learn trust versus mistrust. If one fails to establish trust at this stage, they might experience the inability to trust others, commonly known as “trust issues.” In order to retain trust, the caregivers of the infant must fulfill a child’s basic health needs, promoting physical and intellectual growth.

Similarly, America was born on July 4, 1776. During this time, the American Revolutionary War was taking place and the United States fought against our British ‘parents.’ Rather than providing a newborn country with resources to thrive, America was on its own. While Britain officially recognized America as independent in 1783, we were already stricken with mistrust. Hence, at the creation of the Constitution of the United States, civilians were allotted the second amendment. Considering America was left with no official militia, the second amendment allowed citizens to act as one, in case our European parents ever decided to attack. Perhaps, as America matured into an adult country, those trust issues have remained, just as Erik Erikson’s theory predicts. Only now, our mistrust evolved from one common enemy to our fellow Americans. Gun violence and mass shootings today might be that mistrust coming to intuition. The destruction and division that is caused by American gun violence can be rooted in our failing system comprised by gun politics, ownership laws, mental health, and an inconsistent use of legislation. The worsening issue can only be relieved through discussion and agreement because then we can make changes toward a new system that will protect America’s second amendment, as well as civilian lives.

Thomas Price, American physician and United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, in his article “Gun Violence,” published through the CQ Researcher, decrees that our first mass shooting was on August 14, 1903, “when former soldier Gilbert Twigg fatally shot nine and wounded 25” (642). While other countries made legislative changes after their first mass shootings, the United States only made our first reform in the 1930s, after the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The National Firearms Act was established in 1934, which taxed a variety of guns and gun products, and required registration. A seemingly promising route to safer gun control was formed. And gun control regulations continued to strengthen until the 2000s, when some of those laws were reversed and new pro-gun laws were passed (643). At this time, America regressed back to our trust-issues, and gun laws were weakened. This began the shift of our mistrust, focusing from countries to one another.

Today, society defines a mass shooting as having 4 or more casualties, unrelated to gang or domestic violence. While becoming a victim of a mass shooting is not likely, the violence is increasing at an alarming rate, and more and more become needlessly killed. A team of graphics reporters from The Washington Post, Bonnie Berkowitz, Denise Lu and Chris Alcantara, in their article “The Terrible Numbers that Grow with Each Mass Shooting,” record the history of mass shootings and review the data. According to the analysts, there have been 158 shootings, killing a total of 1,135 just since 1966. Their data clearly shows that mass shootings have increased exponentially, especially in the past several years. By seeing the patterns and data, we can predict that more and more will die every year unless something changes. The reporters point out that 57% of the guns used in those mass shootings were actually obtained legally (Berkowitz et al.). This proves that the problem is more complex, considering many believe that weapons used in mass shootings are obtained illegally. Other popular debates include whether all teachers should be armed and if we can/should allows guns to be 3D printed. We know that the issue is a puzzle made up of numerous pieces, each with a role that together completes our failing system. There is no one cause nor one solution.

That broken system plays a major part in the exponential increase of gun violence and mass shootings. Part of the problem with our system of gun control is our legislation and ownership laws. Robert Spitzer, political science professor at the State University of New York, in his article, “Gun Law History in the United States and Second Amendment Rights,” establishes 20 categories of gun laws. Perhaps some of the most widely recognized include restrictions on dangerous or unusual weapons (semi-automatic), felon restrictions, firing location, time and place restrictions, access by minors and trafficking regulations (62-81). While there are many laws and restrictions currently set in our country that may sound constructive, violent citizens have still been able to purchase legal guns. The problem isn't the need for more laws, but that the current laws are not effective. Additionally, since every state has different laws, they become meaningless. If we really want to make our country a safer place, then guns would be used only for protection, and our laws would be consistent. Perhaps our priorities are crooked. Aside from the guns themselves as part of the issue, we must also consider the shooters. Gun ownership as well as mental illness have been on the rise in the United States. While laws pertaining to guns are a significant part of the violence, we must also question the perpetrators. Amy Barnhorst, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Davis and author of “California Firearms Law and Mental Illness,” wishes to “destigmatize people with mental illness” as a cause for mass shootings and gun violence (254). She clarifies that while some shooters were diagnosed with a mental illness, others were not. Meanwhile, there are many mentally ill Americans who are not violent, and should not suffer the consequences of the few who are. And although California legislation is often especially thorough, deciding who is and who is not potentially violent is an impossible task. Even though there are laws that prohibit dangerous citizens from owning a firearm, such as 5150 holds and the Assembly Bill 1014, no one can predict whether someone is or could eventually become dangerous. And like many of America’s mass shootings, that danger was not predicted.

The consequences of gun violence are increasing and devastating to all Americans. The destruction, death and injuries caused by mass shootings ruin lives. The Washington Post graphic reporter team for “The Terrible Numbers that Grow with Each Mass Shooting,” mentions that 68 Americans have been killed just in 2018. The family, friends and loved ones of those 68 victims are left to suffer from a preventable loss. Secondly, The controversial topic creates division, miscommunication and misunderstanding between us. An increasing number of the population is experiencing the violence in some way, yet we still see it differently. And if we cannot agree on the causes, there can be no solutions. Susan Orfanos’ 27 year old son, Telemachus Orfanos, survived the Vegas shooting in October 2017, but was killed in the November 2018 Borderline Grill shooting in Thousand Oaks. She stated to ABC news channel 7 reporters, “I don’t want prayers. I don’t want thoughts. I want gun control, and I hope to God nobody else sends me any more prayers. I want gun control. No more guns.” (qtd. in Miracle). The wildfire that is mass shootings is becoming an epidemic, spreading far and wide and devastating more and more citizens throughout the country.

To create a solution, we must look at our possibilities. Since America is one of the highest ranking countries for mass shootings, we know that our system is corrupt. Around the world, other countries don’t seem to have this problem at all. Let’s begin with Australia. John J. Donahue, economist and Stanford law professor, in his article, “How US Gun Control Compares to the Rest of the World,” tells that “Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since 1996” (2). This is a dramatic difference from America. Since then, the U.S. has had nearly one hundred mass shootings (Berkowitz et al.). The difference between with Australia in the past 22 years is that they accomplished a major gun reform. With many weapons banned completely, organizing a mandatory gun buy-back, and repealing ‘self-defense’ as a legitimate reason for purchase, gun ownership was astronomically reduced. Some may think that with less guns, there could be even more crime. But along with the suicides and homicides, robberies have also decreased (Donahue 3). While America and Australia began on similar paths of gun control, 1996 put the two countries on completely different paths. Could America copy Australia's success?

In Germany, citizens must be 18, prove reliability and an expertise, have 5 years of residency and a legitimate reason in order to buy any sort of weapon. They also separate weapons of war and civilian use and enforce safe storage laws. Similarly, Finland has tightened their permit process with higher costs, fixed rules, higher age requirements and an aptitude test. Italy and France also have extensive application processes that investigate criminal records and mental health histories. (Donahue 2). According to Catherine Foster and Michael Perry, in their article published through the Christian Science Monitor, “Nations Around the World Try to Get a Grip on Guns,” Canada has banned big rifle magazines and semiautomatic weapons. They also require testing, licenses and registration for every gun. They interview family and neighbors, making the waiting period up to six months (Foster et. al 2). And in Japan, almost no one owns a gun because the process is so complicated and illegal for many citizens. While each country is different, everyone seems to be doing better than America. What could we be missing? Americans do not need to prove their danger or necessity nor need to pass any kind of physical test or training. Each of these countries were researched in CNN’s article, “How US Gun Culture Compares with the World in Five Charts” written by producer Kara Fox. After looking at gun death rates in 23 different countries, Japan is ranked second, Australia sixth and Germany seventh. Finland is ranked twenty second with 36 per 1 million gun related deaths and America comes in last with a significant jump to 102 per 1 million gun related deaths (Fox). Notice that each of these countries, who made significant legislative changes, came in close together, and America stands as an outlier to the violence, far from its closest competitor.

Aside from other countries, there are two sides to the solution here at home. The National Rifle Association, a nonprofit organization advocating for gun rights, sees that American citizens are entitled to gun ownership through the second amendment. Typically teaming with the Republican side of politics, they fight against gun control legislation and promote NRA members to stand up for their rights. The gun-control side of politics is more Democratic, who fight for more laws and regulations to control gun ownership. These sides have very different perspectives. An anonymous article published through the NRA Institute of Legislative Action, “Midterm Elections Offer Motivation to Continue the Fight For Our Rights,” explains, “We know the new anti-gun leadership in the House and in many states will come after the Second Amendment. And anywhere they try, the NRA will be there defending the rights of our members - and all Americans. As always, we will unapologetically fight to defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” (“Midterm Elections Offer Motivation to Continue the Fight For Our Rights”). What this statement neglects to see is that gun-control advocates are not seeking to abolish one of America’s first constitutional amendments. Rather, these leaders aim to protect the lives of innocent americans.

It is important to mention that the second amendment actually states that the people are a ‘regulated militia,’ hence the right to bear arms. 200 years later, we have an army, which specializes in the protection of American citizens against foreign threats. Times have surely changed. And if the citizens are no longer the militia, is the amendment relevant at all?

Secondly, to ‘bear arms’ does not specifically entitle everyone to guns. This is a right to protection, in which any other, non lethal weapon could accomplish (like a taser or pepper spray). Take it from Molly Ivins, political commentator and journalist, in her article “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns,” who declares, “[...] no sane society would allow this to continue. Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog” (386). While the deep desire to own a firearm is understandable in a sense to protect oneself and their loved ones, this logic has other solutions. Whether that be a dog or a knife, like Ivins suggests, it is guns that we are having to protect ourselves from. More guns will not make things better. We cannot fight fire with fire.

In reality, there is so much more that America could be doing to prevent gun violence and mass shootings. Our politics have become stagnant whilst we disagree. Truth is, there is no single system that has been proven perfect. Without a doubt, any regulations will have pros and cons. But the lives we can save from gun violence far outweigh buyer inconvenience and some rumbled opinions. Even though Japan is successful, it is not realistic for Americans to give up guns entirely. Instead, we should look at the buyback in Australia. And we should look at how many of these countries question a buyers purpose. This is an idea that America lacks. These might be uncomfortable questions to ask, but based on our country’s statistics, the questions are necessary in order to control our guns. By combining the ideas of other countries, we can be successful. We can find a balance between having a right and knowing its limits. Other countries can serve as models to us. We do not need to erase the amendment, but we do need to overcome our mistrust.

An adult suffering from trust issues typically endures therapy in order to later experience trust that was not instilled as an infant. As a country, we must do the same. We need to talk about the issue, even if we argue, even if we disagree, even if we’re uncomfortable. It is the only way to reach a solution. The mistrust in our past to today’s gun legislation and mental health have led to the destruction and division that gun violence brings. Because we perceive the second amendment differently, we will not agree on its regulations. Discussion about a new system will be the only way to resolve America’s mistrust. While the second amendment is significant to many, it is essential to question it for the greater good. Indeed, sometimes rules must change to make them better. It is vital to the safety of our population to discover the balance between rights and human life.