11/6/2021
For the 2020-2021 year, Los Angeles spent a total of $3.14 billion on the police department out of a total budget of $10.5 billion. This was by far the largest expenditure, and reflects the budgeting priorities of most large cities throughout the US.
In 2020, 43,634 people died from a gun violence-related cause and it's estimated that over 40 million people in the US carry or own firearms in their home according to Small Arms Survey
There are two main assumptions that these facts can give us, or at least give me:
1) As a society, we have become accepting of a nation-state that spends more on military and police law enforcement than any other government expenditure.
2) More people in the United States than any other country feel like they must possess a firearm for their own safety and security.
Throughout this post, I am going to address various arguments that are against gun restriction and control as well as arguments which defend such high police funding and explain why and how they fall short.
Arguments for 2nd Amendment Protection
The main argument for 2nd Amendment preservation typically goes as follows: 'In America, we want the people to have power against the potentially oppressive forces of the government, so we must protect individual rights to obtain weapons against the threat of this military or authoritarian control.'
Defense for the protection of the right to possess weapons can also be articulated through the argument of safety against other citizens or members of society. Both of these justifications suggest a feeling of membership where all gun owners/buyers are essentially protecting themselves from other gun owners/buyers (including the police and military).
Under this understanding and desired protection of the 2nd Amendment, people feel as though possessing weapons will help protect them against the oppressive forces of the government if necessary. While the perspective of this need is very different for different groups of people, the feeling that one needs protection against the potential forces of the government is valid considering the US spends most of its budget on military and police who have much bigger and better killing machines than any "ordinary" American could ever possess. Even with more guns per capita than any country in history, we as citizens are still no match for the forces that are supposedly 'keeping us safe.'
This argument ultimately falls short because even with so many guns and armed citizens, individuals can still easily be outnumbered and outpowered by the weapons that currently exist under military control. The entire point of this amendment was to ensure that the people could form a militia to protect themselves, but if this was the case, the "people" would be fighting against a force with nuclear power and surveillance that completely inhibits potential for successful combat against the government. The weapon/destruction disparities in 1776 between the guns obtained by the military and/or by individual citizens were much smaller than they are today. If war or combat was to occur between US (gun-possessing) citizens and military power, the mass destruction that would take place and the required semi-automatic and nuclear power would likely entire regions of people.
The unfortunate reality of this relationship between heavy militaristic police control and power and gun ownership, is that one cannot be diminished without the diminishing/control/limitation of the other. People will not feel safe enough to be without firearms if the police and military can assert such a great amount of control over them at any moment. Gun owners will also never give up on possessing a weapon if the other individuals around them (who may or may not be a danger to their safety) don't give up on possessing their weapons.
It's a direct relationship where the feeling and association of guns/firearms and safety is contagious among entire communities and regions of the US. You cannot expect people to give up on something that puts them in a compromised or excluded positioning among their peers and network. Further, you cannot expect people to willingly give up the only thing that makes them feel powerful and safe against the police and government.
Sadly, this is why guns have only increased in danger and proliferation, because their is a falsified sense of safety associated with guns which works opposingly to the reality. This idea would be exemplified through the idea that a mass shooting may not have happened/that person wouldn't have died if everyone in that school, restaurant, club, etc. also had guns when the mass shooter entered.
This is a dangerous and threatening thought to society because collateral damage (which is already rampant) only increases with more gun use long term as people become desensitized and reliant on their weapons for problem or tense scenarios.
People will not stop carrying guns until the police and military are defunded significantly. However, the police and military will never decrease significantly in budget until citizens themselves contain less firepower and there is less gun violence related death.
Here inlays the main dilemma of these discussions, where it is difficult to approach such a systematic problem that involves change for so many people's lives. The "how" in gun control is also problematic, because the government coming to "confiscate" everyone's firearms only makes them a more powerful and militaristic force against the potential wishes of the people, so that simple method of decreasing gun use and violence wouldn't be viable.
Ultimately, it has to start at the institutional level to assert change in the threat of gun violence. If protecting citizens is the main goal, there must be systematic change to the reliance, comfort, and naturalness of possessing a gun in all potentially hostile or emotional situations. This not only is legislative, but also a complete shift in the culture of American "individualism" which can only be achieved through patience, compassion, and leadership.
Comentarios