In the past years, there have been few cases, but a tragic attack by an armed individual on a group of unarmed and non-military individuals has been at the top of the news for days, leading to numerous discussions on how to prevent such atrocities from happening again. Only in 2012, in the United States, 43 people were killed in such shootings. According to statistics gathered from reports by the Federal Police of America, in the past 30 years, 62 mass shootings have occurred in this country, 30 of which were in schools. These statistics are shocking and raise criminal questions such as: What drives a person to massacre children? Is there a lack of control or regulation on the possession of weapons by individuals? What is the role of the government in preventing such incidents? Now, we will delve into a few fundamental questions and also look at some statistics for assistance.

من می خواهم به دانشگاه بروم

I want to go to university.

من به دنبال یافتن راهی برای بهبود زندگی خود هستم

I am looking for a way to improve my life.

Who is being discriminated against by banning the sale of weapons to everyone?

Criminals who are after easier conditions for committing crimes or victims who need to defend themselves? Most advocates of gun freedom insist on the “right to self-defense” and one of the best examples of this can be quoted from Cesare Beccaria: “Laws that prohibit carrying weapons… disarm only those who neither desire nor are inclined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

But we know that violence is the product of fear. Fear of losing something; whether it be property, life, honor, power, etc. So someone who becomes afraid can easily resort to violence. We recently heard in the news that an American shopkeeper suspected a black teenager and, in order to protect the neighborhood and prevent another theft, he interrogated Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old, himself because the police had not arrived at the scene. And because he did this with verbal violence and illegally, the boy defended himself legitimately and, in the end, the shopkeeper, in defense of himself and his loved ones against the hypothetical thief, used a gun and brought down the teenager.

Apart from the issue of fear, being in a position of power is dangerous for humans. By being in a position of greater power, humans are more likely to experience severe psychological disorders. A prominent example of this is political power, and at its highest level, dictatorship and its relationship with the illness of political leaders. Most leaders of democratic countries suffer from depression or severe stress, and in extreme cases, such as Winston Churchill, this can lead to paranoia. In dictatorships, the emergence of schizophrenia in figures like Hitler and Gaddafi was not unexpected. We know that a handgun is not equal to a can of pepper spray. With a firearm, one can target individuals from a distance and with a large number; this means more power compared to unarmed individuals. Therefore, having a weapon is equivalent to having more power, and having more power means the emergence of various delusions and increased psychological pressures for us.

Can the role of weapons in keeping life safe from invaders be denied with these arguments? No! Certainly, one cannot achieve victory against a 9mm bullet with hand strikes; but what statistics show us is nothing less than denial. According to a statistic in the “Journal of Public Health in America”, people who carry weapons with them are four and a half times more likely to be targeted by a bullet than unarmed individuals. Or according to a study conducted by Arthur Kellerman, keeping a gun at home increases the risk of suicide among household members.

So by arming the people, we are essentially serving two groups: those who remain defenseless against other aggressive groups, and those who are targeted by organized criminals who engage in theft, murder, and other crimes for their livelihood. These groups are more easily able to obtain weapons under such laws. The second group suffers from illnesses and mental disorders, and in moments of madness or emotional, economic, or other crises, they are easily confronted with a greater power resulting from possessing a weapon and become more agitated, ultimately leading to massacres such as the Connecticut shooting or the Virginia Tech incident in 2007. However, some individuals who have resorted to arming themselves for self-defense and are relatively mentally stable, in many cases become victims of the greater power of the attackers and their own lack of ability to use the weapon and shoot back.

According to statistics over the past thirty years, in large and media-driven massacres in America, the number of people who have legally obtained their weapons is about five times higher than those who have acquired them illegally. Additionally, the use of semi-automatic weapons has been almost equal to all other types of firearms. These weapons are specifically designed for street and irregular warfare, rather than defense. Interestingly, a report published by the World Health Organization in 2003 showed that the number of gun-related homicides in America is about 20 times higher than similar countries with similar annual incomes. Despite a 20% decrease in recent years, this statistic still highlights the difference in levels of armed crimes in America compared to other countries with stricter gun sale laws.

There remains one question, and that is what can defend unarmed individuals against violent attackers? From the writer’s perspective, there is a simple answer to this question, and that is the taxes collected from the people to equip the police and army forces, as well as the expenses for research in various scientific fields, are enough for governments to not only ensure public safety, but also eliminate the human and psychological roots of crime. However, the will of governments and large weapon-producing companies seem to have different goals in mind. Of course, one should not overlook the potential psychological disorders of these government officials.