Gun Violence: How Many Eyes Will it Take?
Author Omar Nasr
Mahatma Gandhi once said that “an eye for an eye will only end up with the whole world blind”. This global visionary had the tension between peace and violence in mind when it comes to society, so how many eyes will it take before real change is implemented? In a world where no one really sees eye to eye, conflicts are bound to occur.
Even then, if every conflict became an armed one, then the world would become a battlefield of bloodshed and destruction. When it comes to the United States of America, gun violence has always been an issue of wide discussion; while some citizens encourage the use of arms as a constitutional right, others think otherwise.
But when it comes to the dire consequences of this violence, there is not much room for discussion. In an attempt to reduce gun violence in US communities, there must be a balance between law enforcement and citizen liberty.
On one hand, the States have been witnessing a steady rise of gun violence with a 33% increase from 2014 to 2023 according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Both possessing and utilizing arms must be a last resort and a reaction to life-threatening situations rather than a preventative or criminal measure.
This is because criminal activity, murder attempts, and mass shootings start with the legislation of one gun after another and whatever society normalizes nowadays becomes a new human right. For instance, according to CNN, among the 47 mass school shootings in the US only this year, Texas has been the state with the most overall cases, suggesting a need for specific legislation that caters toward a higher criminal tendency and motive of citizens.
With proper law enforcement in Texas, officers can regulate the purchase of arms for limited age groups and uses, such as above 21 years old and purchasing only hunting rifles with.
Additionally, states like Texas require stricter laws and policies that can save countless lives every day, which permits the planning and execution of arms control as a necessity to maintain social security.
Amnesty International recognizes that citizens must all have an equal right to life and not feel threatened in any way when attending schools or health facilities, as once mere human decency and dignity ceases to exist, the public trust of government officials and decision-makers will crumble.
Thus, the US's situation with gun violence must be placed under a global spotlight that sheds light on the realities of possessing and using arms, and eventually, solving it.
On the other hand, gun violence can also be exceptionally necessary when dealing with other armed citizens as a form of self-defense. It is only logical to bring a gun to a gun fight and not a kitchen knife, for example, and in cases where a citizen is either ready to kill or ready to die, the US legislators and authorities ought to take that into account.
Due to these rising crime rates and namely, armed ones, having and using a gun to protect one’s life becomes a basic necessity; if the government fails to protect its citizens as the case with Charlie Kirk and thousands of others, then they quite literally take things into their own hands.
Ironically, the political figure himself, Charlie Kirk, was a firm believer in using guns as a right supported by the 14th amendment of civil liberty, taking terrorism and mass shootings as “the price that must be paid for liberty”.
To illustrate this idea, while the easy access to guns in a household increases the risk of domestic lethalities, the US federal law recognizes that in domestic violence cases, restraining orders against gun possession and use for self-defense is banned, as gun access is limited to intimate contexts like husband and wife or armed robberies. This balance is the solution to avoiding uncontrolled gun violence in US communities, especially to bridge the gap in relationships between individuals. Fostering a society of high moral and ethical standards, the US government can leave space for gun violence in specific cases where fleeing the scene or retreating is not realistic. While this point of view is reasonable, there are other ways to defend oneself without using guns and causing much less damage and social outcry, making gun violence mostly unnecessary and otherwise chaotic. If every US citizen can use a gun and frame it as self-defense in the concept of an eye for an eye, then once again the nation and the world will end up blind.
All in all, gun violence like many social issues ought to be recognized and treated accordingly regardless of how and when it is permissible under the law’s discretion. To end this global controversy, the US and international organizations like the United Nations may work hand-in-hand to promote global security amidst rising threats, establishing international conventions that take into account a holistic view of citizenship and civil rights.
The only difference between a human civilization and a jungle, is the law and its provisions, maintaining a stability that is much-needed in a rapidly evolving world, in which rights and justice are conserved without needing power and violence to take root.
It is high-time to allow laws to work for us and not against us, especially in countries like the US.
It is high-time to call for safety before anything else… Make America Safe Again.
Sources of information:
https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/nics https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4553-an-eye-for-an-eye-will-only-make-the-whole https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78n0e83ye0o https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us-gun-culture-world-comparison-intl-cmd https://txgunsense.org/
