The shooter wants to inflict harm and pain to not only the victims, but parents, friends, family, and the nation as a whole. They intend to make others feel unsafe. The most effective way for them to accomplish this sinister goal is within a place that parents expect their children to be safe in. But what possesses the shooter to want to inflict this type of harm? Many factors, both internal and external, preventable and unavoidable, contribute to why school shootings occur so often in the United States and why we are forced to record more gun-related deaths than any other country.
There are other instances when the harm principle has been invoked but where it is more difficult to demonstrate that rights have been violated.For example, hate speech. Most liberal democracies have limitations on hate speech, but it is debatable whether these can be justified by the harm principle as formulated by Mill. One would have to show that such speech violated rights, directly and in the first instance. (I am interested here in hate speech that does not advocate physical violence against a group or individual. If it does, it would, like the corn dealer example, be captured by Mill 's harm principle as speech that can be prohibited).
Security matters in most of the campuses are threatened by the continuous attack by thugs with less attention from the security personnel. People who are in the campus feel danger and fears from the weapon of the gun. students use their gun on campus to save own life once there is no security personnel, therefore the demand for the self-defense has grown significantly in various campuses. There are three different articles, but these have same point that is antagonizing of the gun on campus. In article of “Guns, Campuses and Madness”, Frank Bruni thinks that how the students of the University of Texas think about misbehavior of firearms.
Most mass shooters have no solid reason or any emotional ties with their victims, but they all have access to firearms. For some mentally unstable people, having the gun by itself might be tempting to try something new. According to washingtonpost.com, “The places change, the numbers change, but the choice of weapon remains the same. In the United States, people who want to kill a lot of other people most often do it with guns.” This makes the issue about gun control. Beside the loss of lives, the number of gun violence the country has experienced in a short period of time makes the issue more serious.
The case of Hae Min Lee was originally only prominent within Baltimore County of Maryland. It has the trappings of a typical high school murder; a teen is angry at their ex-boyfriend/girlfriend for breaking up with them and as a result, would murder them. However, the case has gained international attention largely due to the investigations from ‘Serial’, which revealed an abnormal number of inconsistencies within the case against Adnan Syed, allowing Syed to be granted a new trial. Based on evidence that is present, Adnan is most likely innocent of the murder of Hae Min Lee because of the lack of concrete physical evidence that would signify his guilt. After all, if there is no physical evidence that would prove a suspect’s involvement in a crime,
Now in a normal scenario, an officer is not supposed to open fire until he is imposed by an immediate threat usually when the opponent is armed. Evidence showed that they were indulged in a hand to hand encounter when Michael tried to reach Wilson within the car (unjustified use of force) where 2 shots were fired with hitting the thumb of Michael. Evidently, Michael did not obey what the officer commanded and tried to ignore but still using force (gun) does not seem to be the solution and is not justified in my view. I agree that the person being chased stole some cigarillos but shooting him for not abiding by the provided command and assaulting with an officer is not justified. According to the law (Section 565.082-565.083) assaulting with an on-duty officer with intention of causing physical harm with bare hands and no deadly weapon and not on drugs is a class C felony which punishes the perpetrator for 7 years in jail but not ‘shoot on
"Bowling for Columbine" is a documentary about the controversial issue of legal firearms ownership in United States. Michael Moore investigates the reason for these events (purchase/sale of weapons, racism, poverty, fear, etc), addressing the government and mass media, as the main causes of these consequences. Throughout the documentary shows various scenarios that attempt to clarify why in US there is an extremely dependency on firearms. Facts and figures are presented, contrasted with rates of gun ownership and crime in other countries such as Canada. Moore interviews people questioned as the famous singer Marilyn Manson, who was accused of inducing violence at Columbine boys through their lyrics; or Charlton Heston, president of the National Rifle Association; without neglecting to authorities, ordinary people, teachers, intellectuals, and so on.
This film provides the viewers with a lot of eye opening material on gun violence in America and will make any viewer question the gun laws of our society and how to make further change. One of the most eye opening ideas presented in the film can be seen in the very first scene. Moore walks into a bank and in opening up a bank account, he acquires a gun. Why is a bank selling guns in the first place?
The history on the second amendment and gun control is that everyone has the right to bear arms but now it has been getting out of control with the mass shootings and how people can go online and purchase a gun illegally. The states in America do not have to allow the people to keep the Right To Bear Arms. If a state does not accept the bear arms then the people do not have the right to bear arms and if caught they can then be placed under arrest and be charged. ‘’This situation, however, changed during the years of Chief Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974). Warren was the chief justice from 1953 to 1969, when most of
Sometimes he takes a bold step and actually interviews people, such as James Nichols, who happens to be the brother of the infamous Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols And shows the viewer his arguments for the right to bear arms and explosives, though stopping short of permitting private ownership of nuclear materials since “there are a pile of freaks out there.” Moore then interviews young people in the area and is shocked at the casual views on the role of heavy weapons and explosives. He talks about the various problems caused due to the country’s prevalent gun culture and he also tries to provide us with some insight of maybe why Americans are so infatuated with their