Gun Violence in America

Gun Violence in America

There are raging political debates about gun control in America. Most poor urban cities are characterized by gun violence always attributed to gang violence. These gangs always comprise of young adults and juvenile males. Increased cases of highly organized mass killings have orchestrated gun laws, even as the scenarios become rare. Reports released by researchers indicate that gun murders in the U.S. totals to 7,000 using firearms. Rifles using telescope sights in concealed sites committed assassinations of high profile individuals such as Martin Luther King (Strain, 2010).

Gun violence is a major problem in America. This is a common phenomenon in America; it is gaining a lot of attention in the mainstream media. The U.S. is struggling with the poor political anthropology trying to develop strategies to address issues pertaining to gun crime and violence. Anthropologists have been defeated and are calling for more stakeholders to help investigating this deadly issue. Anthropologists have not attained a comprehensive position on the issue of guns. They hold diverse opinions on contentious issues. This is an accurate indication of how anthropologists feel and react towards gun violence in America. The U.S. must fight to ban and reduce all semi-automatic weapons just as Britain did. This involves reaching people with a spontaneous negative response towards gun control (Gullotta, Adams & Ramos, 2008).

Anthropologists must actively participate in this issue because they have permanent assumptions regarding human nature, history, and culture, which need to be challenged. The lens of ethnography is founded based on firearms. For long, this has been an underestimated feature of the remarkable indifference of anthropology to the main sources of suffering and mayhem in the contemporary America. Anthropologists have been reluctant in writing about firearms, but research reveals that these firearms are responsible for the deaths of approximately 40,000 American citizens per year. Out of the deaths, it has been estimated that 19000 are out of suicide, 14000 homicides, and the rest accidents. It is evident that many Americans are dying from suicides, gun homicides compared to the last 30 years in terrorist attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined (DeConde, 2009).

Political perspectives

When politicians are in the late stages of life, they have little conversations as they undertake the governments' mandate of their jobs. Visitors are guided programmatically to their relevant electronic signing points given the bureaucracy requiring them to follow long queues. Desks where politicians sit are positioned beside the framed photos bearing the portraits of president Obama and another of his vice Biden. It is very easy to understand that politicians would rather any other pictures than those ones (Strain, 2010). Politicians are devoted members of their parties and one of the issues that he first brought up in political debates was about gun control. The new limitations restricting restrict their guns with one, which they safely keep at home and are not a threat to society. Politicians did not start shooting recently. In fact, most politicians grew up shooting. Besides, this is unacceptable as they perceive it as government invasion. They announced openly while in a security uniform working as a security guard. Never would politicians or the police succumb to these new policies. Such policies are only a strategy by the government limiting guns at the time of their death and denying their children to inherit. They disobediently refuse to obey his slogan, 'they are not taking our gun away' (Strain, 2010).

Politicians have offered their views about maintaining the safety of their home and family, still sustaining their friendly attitude as most of them are disapproved every point logically. However, their stand was firm. They had made a decision to hide their gun if the government attempted to knock at their doors. This had no difference with the case of street gangs who were in possession of guns regardless of the law. Arguments erupted because of differing positions, politicians on the media lies and me on the news then the reality that the constitution held as a document, which required change and growth and protection of the society it guarantees (Cook & Ludwig, 2007).

Simply because the purposes of the gun lobby are served best by persuading the owners, a part of the minority hate gun ownership. There cannot be a better reason for contributions of money to the gun lobby and addicted hatred for the proposals of gun law, whatever the apparent reason. Those in possession of guns are persuaded to understand that gun laws will be governed resentfully and enforced unfairly. As significant as it is, gun owners are detestable to people and organizations like ACLU to whom citizens of United States can turn to when the state mistreats them. Owners of guns hilariously disagree with the regulations significantly similar to the ones that they already have accepted for prescription of medicines and cars. This is natural considering the bitterness in which the regulations are supported, and functions affirmed by their advocates who in this case are extreme. Would licensing of drivers and registration of automobiles have been implemented in case they were supported on the basis of owning a car is proof of sexual, intellectual or moral incapacity (Sheley & Wright, 2005).

Gun ownership and aggression

It is obvious that some of those in possession of guns are very aggressive: this is the main factor behind the increase of gun crimes every year in United States. Some questions need to be answered: are the criminals who use guns recognized substitute of all who are possession of guns? Do they substitute a tiny unusual minority of criminals who, whether or not in possession of guns? Do many violent crimes occur every year in every corner of the United States? Based on the recent survey of NIJ felon, it seems that the criminals who use guns in their criminal acts whether regularly or randomly are in the list of the notorious offenders. Averagely they were not only involved with vast numbers of criminal activities as compared to the other offenders, but many other crimes of all men (Strain, 2010). However, the accumulating literature on anti-gun sage craft depicted crime of gun as both more necessary and less necessary impact on possession of guns. Prof. Berkowitz stated that guns enhance emotional hostility and aggressiveness of the owner. He proved this by conducting a series of laboratory tests, which show the hostility levels of the subject, rose specifically when others who made them get annoyed were in association with guns in many ways. Proof of the effect of the weapons is erratic and limited. Some psychologists have tried but in vain to imitate the results of Berkowitz; indeed, others found out that subjects were not willing to expose their hostility against people they knew were in possession of weapons (Cook & Ludwig, 2007).

More significant is that whatever the results, the model of the experiments did not accept the conclusion of Berkowitz that a weapon is bound to cause an increase in the aggressiveness and hostility of the owner. Not any of the experiments he conducted included a weapon in the possession of the subject (the person's hostility in question). The tests of Berkowitz only included weapon being possessed with the person whose hostility was directed. The tests carried out by Berkowitz were not about gun hostility of the owner but the person who is the victim of hostility. Buss and Brooker tested the level of hostility of the two like non-owners and the owners after the actual firing of guns, but they found no evidence that the existence of gun use in the long-term boosts subsequent aggression (Strain, 2010).

Cultural stereotypes of gun ownership in America

The above debates can be looked at from an entirely different perspective. There are failed attempts by doctors to control and incarcerate evil bi-sexual patients engaging in un-protected and promiscuous sex with innocent people unaware of their HIV / AIDS status. Another example is that of people spreading HIV deliberately of even irresponsibly. In general, liberal and enlightened people are not expected to jump to conclusions from such examples in vilifying that gay rights, gays or bi-sexual. Enlightened people are likely to see this as a stereotype to blaming the wrong deeds of an irresponsive person on responsible and innocent groups of people (Iadicola & Shupe, 2013). Concerning gun control in America, studies have established that there is no correlation between violence rates and gun ownership. This means that countries and cities with high rates of gun ownership are likely to experience reduced violence than demographically similar region with lower rates of gun ownership. It is evident that there is a small fraction of privately owned guns used in unlawful or crime violence in the U.S. Most of these privately owned weapons are mostly used for the purposes of self-protection and recreation. Studies estimate that 99% of private gun owners do not use them in a manner that is against the law (Sheley & Wright, 2005).

Murders are only committed by a small percentage of irresponsible and malignant portions of gun owners. Therefore, it is liberal and enlightened to label American gun owners as deranged and barbaric, as well as anti-citizens engaged in beastly behaviors. Evaluations have accurately described opponents of gun ownership as bloodthirsty demented psychopaths with the primary concept of raining death on innocent citizens of America. These groups of people regard the issue as egregious stereotypes when others blame gay advocates for lobbying against close bath ordinances. Activists of gun ownership have been described as death merchants and murderers dismissing welfare of the community and homeless people as drug barons, retarded or alcoholic. Because opponents of gun ownership are considerably eager to raise opposition against racism, other evils such as gay bashing are also stereotypes. On the other hand, it constitutes to myopia stereotypes or hypocrisy (Webster & Vernick, 2013).

The impact on culture & how culture affects this issue

In the U.S., gun control and gun writes are operating at mutually exclusive premises. While one takes a state of tyranny, the other one assumes a state of benevolence. While on of them argues modern progress, the other rests its claims on tradition. Anthropologist Gary has established that defensive use of guns in deterring crime is more frequent than official data released by the government indicates. Accumulating statistics shows that widespread ownership of guns reduces the rate of crime because the cost of committing this criminal crime is increased. Armed crime victims leads to high stake; limbs and lives. It is evident that gun control has the likelihood of reducing crimes related to gun ownership (Levesque, 2002).

From a cultural perspective, crime rates are not the main point. It appears that the government is committing public resources towards enforcement, legislation and adjudication of gun control laws for classic and unmentionable state reasons. This issue has a cultural polarizing impact likely to become a boom for the nation. This might result in major divisions across government ranks for a combat of symbols absorbing state energies leaving the experts to do the actual governing. Mutual disruptions between working class conservatives and middle class progressives are likely to result in a salutary political impact. This would pre-empt the development of an extremely popular mandate for enormous systemic changes (Strain, 2010).

The recent American history provides an excellent example of how the above polarization impact works. Culture wars and issues of gun control have been referred to as wedge issues. The polarization between the modern and the traditional cultural issues reflects the feelings of the wedged part. In this regard, the wedged part is the middle class vs. The working class political coalitions in the ear of the New delta. Political alliance brought about the Act of Glass-Steagall and more restrictions on capital flow, which would impede the growth of globalization. For anyone to connect these dots, he/she does not need a conspiracy theory. It takes a longer cultural perspective (Sheley & Wright, 2005).

Guns are deadly and if they are owned by anyone, it would mean that all the citizens including non-citizens are at risk. People across the globe are involved in this practice. Therefore, the global stage must focus on this topic and approach it with interested relativism. Depending on an individual, people can be vocal and open about their views, as these troubles are profound. I think anthropologists should react by providing maximum attention on the issue and should not worry about reflexivity and theorizing. This should include more research findings and calls for action on anthro blog posts and feeds. Anthropologists must outreach suggestions; plan conferences, press attention and exercise close activism in displaying a fight for accessing academic scales of payment (Bailey & Peoples, 2010).