Guns, Masculinity, and Crime: Do We Want Armed in Campuses?

Introduction

Gun control debate took center stage in the recently concluded presidential elections. The presidential candidates had to explain to the electorate on how to deal with this issue once they are elected to the presidency. This debate comes as a result of the rising cases of mass shooting in America especial in the least expected places; learning institutions. It is worrying that the shooters may have acquired the guns illegally or was not in a stable mental condition. It is also important to note that nearly all the incidents were perpetrated by young men enrolled in those institutions or intruders. As a result, it is important to examine the relationship between guns and crime, masculinity and crime, and finally, answer the question of whether it is advisable to have guns on campus.

Correlation between Gun Ownership and Crime in America

The correlation between guns and crime is an intense debate not only among the political elite but also human activists in the United States. There are varied claims that guns are a cause of crime or a mechanism to deter crime or are completely unrelated to crime in the United States. Even though numerous studies have been carried out in the past to establish the significance relationship between firearm ownership and crime, there is no clear consensus established yet (Curry et al . 2014). For instance, some studies have established that there is a correlation between firearm availability and crime or homicide while others have not. Others have entire contrasted this studies by asserting that increasing gun availability will eventually reduce crime rates in the United States. Nonetheless, these establishments have received substantial scrutiny and its findings consequently challenged.

Statistics of Gun Crimes or Violence

According to Gun Violence Archive, more than 13,286 persons died in the U.S by gunfire by the end of 2013, and about 27000 people injured. Moreover, there was a total of 64 school shootings in the same year. Even with the campaign for stringent laws to curb gun ownership by civilians in the U.S., the gun murders per capita in America in 2012 were almost 30 times than that in the United Kingdom (Truman & Jennifer, 2014). Studies also show that America recorded 60% gun murders as compared to 18.2% in Australia, and as low as 10% in the United Kingdom.

According to reports, Australia has not had any major gun shooting since 1996 when a man with an AR-15-style rifle shot indiscriminately to citizens in a popular historical site. The incident left 35 persons dead and 19 severely injured (Black & Hausman, 2008). In reaction to this incident, the country's leaders have made dramatic changes to gun laws. Among the main changes are the total ban on gun ownership and mandatory buyback of guns. As a result, over 600,000 various types of guns have been confiscated and eventually melted down. Since then no major incident of gun violence crime has ever been reported.

Most officials wonder why America cannot emulate such example of eliminating or rather lowering gun crime rates. One main reason brought forward for not emulating the example of Australia is the political aspect. Proponents of gun ownership rights point out that this kind of action may trigger a civil war; bearing in mind that these rights are enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution. 

Another reason is that America's gun problem is on a larger scale than the Case of Australia back then. In the US, over 10,000 Americans are likely to be killed in gun-related incidents every year, and another 20,000 likely to be caused by gun suicide (Truman & Jennifer, 2014). This accumulates to a total 100,000 gun deaths and violent injuries. Even before the confiscation and ultimate meltdown the Australian government had already put in place stringent handgun control laws. America by any chance has a higher number of guns than was Australia before the confiscation. As such, for the US to collect and destroy the same quantity of guns the Australian government brought back it will require a buyback of $90 million, if the American government pay a fair market value for the guns then it will require a substantial amount of money that will range into billions.

Racial Disparity in Gun Violence

Gun violent crimes in the U.S are concentrated in the poorest regions and the most segregated neighborhoods. These places are with high rates of unemployment, struggling school systems, and high levels of distrust among security agents and society members. The blacks, who represent about 13% of America’s total population, often take more than half of the total gun murders. An estimate of about 15 of 30 Americans killed with firearms daily is blacks (Truman & Jennifer, 2014). 

According to criminologists, some black’s neighborhoods have experienced so much gun violence to the point that the residents report signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress at rates equivalent to veterans of war. Since daily gun crimes are concentrated in racially isolated places, it is simple for most Americans to believe that they may not be affected. However, they are mistaken since gun crimes affect all the American citizens in one way or another.

As per 2013 The Color of Crime report, the Asians have the lowest crime rates, whites follow closely, and then the Hispanics (Opoliner et al. 2014). Blacks were noted to have high gun crime rates. The report shows that blacks are six times more likely to commit murder than a nonblack, and 12 times more liable to kill someone from a different race as compared to being killed by someone from another race. Out of the 600,000 gun crimes of interracial violence involving whites and blacks reported in 2013, the blacks were behind 85% of the total crimes committed. This implies that a black is 27 times more likely to assault a white person than vice versa. Notably, if New York City residents were all whites, then the murder rate would decrease by 91%, robbery by 81% and shoot by 97% (Opoliner et al. 2014). As a result, gun crimes seem to be concentrated in places where black Americans dwell than other races.

Gun Crimes in States

States with less strict laws on gun control and greatest gun availability recorded the highest number of gun crimes in 2014. According to Violence Policy Center, those states with low gun crime rate have less gun ownership and with some of the most stringent gun control laws (Opoliner et al. 2014). Nevertheless, in these states, the registered gun crimes are way above the rates in many other industrialized nations across Europe. As per the report, the crimes included gun suicides, homicides, and general unintentional gun shootings. 

Alaska and Louisiana are among the states with the most laxity gun deterrence laws. They also have the highest rate of gun ownership. As such, they have reported the highest number of gun crimes in 2014 (Opoliner et al. 2014). Hawaii and Rhode Island, on the other hand, are states with severe gun deterrence laws as well as very low gun ownership. These countries subsequently, reported low gun crime rate. Across the years it is evident that states with fewer guns availability and strict gun ownership consistently record fewer cases of gun-related crime per year. In contrast, the states with easy access to guns and lax gun control laws time after time register higher gun crime rates.

Although gun crime declined nationwide in the year 2014 in comparison to 2013, the rates are still way too high as compared to other developed nations. For instance, developed countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia had recorded very lows gun crime rate in the same year (Opoliner et al. 2014). This difference is has been attributed to the weak laws that govern the acquisition and regulation of gun use, whether open or concealed carry in public. Unlike the American government, the two countries have set minimum safety standards for guns, permit to the acquisition of a gun and restricting the open and concealed bearing of guns in public.

Correlation between Masculinity and Crime in America

America has the highest rates of crimes than any other developed nation in the world. Statistics show that majority of the offense are perpetrated by males (Bird, 2008). This does not come as a surprise since men are consistently represented in large numbers nearly in all crimes that happen within the US territory, since the start of the collection of official crime data. It is important to point out that this data also include that obtained from arrests, victimization, and self-report data. Theories associating openly to the reason why men often commit crime have from time and again concentrated in focusing on innate characteristics of women. As such, it is taken for granted that males are more criminogenic hence theories of crime use this as an underlying assumption and seldom attempt to explain this trend. Nevertheless, male traits have not been considered in examining the relationship between masculinity and crime.

Recent studies suggest that masculinity is an essential aspect for examining and understanding crime. Toughness, willingness to resort to violence as a way to resolve a conflict and dominance are the influential features of masculine personality (Barker, 2005). Based on the fact that gender roles are socially constructed, not all men have equal masculine characteristics. As such, evaluation of male's tendency to crime is not complete unless the meaning and influence of masculine gender are defined.

Masculinity and Crime

Masculinity and its relationship with criminal tendencies have been pointed out in both the past and the present. Generally, masculinity is internalized during the adolescent period, and this leads boys to involve themselves in delinquent behaviors than their female counterparts. Moreover, boys are taught from an early age to be tough and rough. Thus this influences them to become felonious (Norman, 2007). Equally, masculine characteristics such as dominance and toughness that are considered basic in asserting extreme masculine reputation and are learned through observation and contact with older males. As a result of these connections, young boys are influenced to perpetuate crime when they have reached the adolescent stage or as young adults in the age bracket of 15 to 24 years of age.

Recent studies argue that socialization, media, military influences and peer pressure are aspects that affect males of involving themselves in crimes, or violent behaviors become tolerated in men. Peer pressure relations and masculinity are seen in gang activities. For instance, group activities in most cases emphasize on masculine features of achievement, daring behaviors and aggressiveness (Norman, 2007). Studies also show that men who are gender oriented are more likely to engage in a violent exchange. Additionally, the study correlates masculinity and crime by examining incidents of violence found in media, films, and video games, as well as in sporting activities. 

West and Zimmerman were able conceptualized an idea of doing gender as a routine achievement, which is created and maintained in daily interaction (Norman, 2007). This assertion aims at identifying the manner in which articulating masculinity is directly correlated to criminal attitudes, more so the use of violence. In this respect, masculinity is seen as a thing that men do, rather than what occurs in men or done to them. Unique aspects are acquired in the socialization process, and they have represented masculinity.

Notably, masculinity is performed and frequently presented in various circumstances that occur throughout in every social interaction that men are involved. Repeated re-creation is a defining characteristic of masculinity. Re-creation happens at work, in the family, in educational institutions and other social settings. The bottom-line of this re-creation is the confirmation of dominance and control (Barker, 2005). As such, the involvement in crime becomes ease. In fact, crime is often used to support and maintain status in the male cohort and nurture a sense of identity. Hence the use of crime and aggressiveness helps men to maintain status in their group.

In America, men are more likely to commit a crime and get incarcerated than their female counterparts. According to statistics men are nine times more likely to be incarcerated in a Federal or State prison (Truman & Jennifer, 2014). Statistics show that in 2013 about 73% of total arrests in America were men. They also accounted for 84% of arrests made for crimes, with 69% representation in property crime. Data from the United States Department of Justice show that in 2011 men were convicted of the majority of homicides in America. This represents about 90% of the overall number of offenders in this category. 

Young adult men aged between 15 to 24 years of age took the highest percentage of homicide conviction rate. Black males were, however, the majority in comparison to other races. Making a comparison to females, statistics show that white females of all ages registered the least conviction rate than any other race in the United States (Truman & Jennifer, 2014). The majority of males were convicted of a drug-related crime as well as gang-related homicides whereas female victims were majorly domestic homicides and sex-associated homicides. Trends show that crime rate has decreased overall from past years and majority of these crimes were still perpetrated by males, with a representation of about 86% of homicides, and 74% of all other illegal crimes.

This case is not different from those in other countries, for example, Canada; an adjacent neighbor to America also reports high cases of males committing crimes in comparison to females. Statistics indicate that in 2013 and 2014 females accounted for only 15% of the total legal offenses, whereas male accounted for 85% of crimes committed (Government of Canada, Statistics, 2015).

Do we need armed campuses?

Guns and schools or rather learning institutions usually do not relate to each other. However, if they do relate, it has to be in tragic situations. For instance, in 2007 Virginia Tech University and Northern Illinois University, armed students gunned down their unarmed classmates. These incidents attracted much attention from the public, leading some to argue that students and teachers should be permitted to carry guns to school and campuses (Barone, 2016). Before these incidents, it was unimaginable for guns to be allowed in a school environment. These incidents opened doors to letting guns into the learning premises. For instance, Texas State allows the carrying of concealed guns into the school premises under certain conditions.

Major arguments for guns in learning institutions are particularly based on self-defense. It is argued that students, teachers, and staff members have the chance to not only defend themselves but also deter the assailant before other persons are injured or murdered. However, this argument has often received criticism from different quarters.

Essentially, campuses and colleges are among the safest public places in America. According to statistics, campus homicide rate is nearly one death in a million persons as compared to 57 deaths per a million in the common population (Barone, 2016). Moreover, homicide is the second cause of mortality in campus and colleges and is the equally uncommon occurrence. Nevertheless, no campus is free of crime in totality. But would more firearms on campus deter crimes? It is important to note that no witnessed or a recorded event in which a victim or a witness has deterred a crime on campus by merely brandishing a gun.

In cases of a violent active shooter, which rarely happen, campus police officers who often bear arms move in quickly to contain such shooters (Brady Center 2007). Additionally, when campus police officers are reacting to these kinds of crimes in campus, and someone is in civilian clothing with a gun, the officers might mistake the right guys for a bad guy. The officers will also have a low rate of accuracy under these circumstances; in the case where the target is moving and the officer is running as well as the victims are taking off in all directions. This kind of situation can ultimately raise the number of innocent victims.

In general, campuses and colleges are an unsafe environment for firearms. A good number of campus students are between age-group of 17 to 24 years. This cohort is characterized by emotionally volatile students who often abuse alcohol and drugs (Barone, 2016). As such, many people are left to ponder how many accidental shootings, how many disputes will turn into deadly gun fights and the influence of alcohol and drugs? Or one may consider a more convincing fact that suicide comes second to accidents in causing the death of campus students. As per the statistics from Harvard Injury Control Research Center, nearly 85 percent attempts suicides using firearms, compared to 2 percent who uses other means such as drug overdose (Barone, 2016). Based on this establishment, more guns on campus will only act as a catalyst to more suicide attempts.

Adverse effect of allowing guns on campus

There are adverse effects that come with permitting guns on campuses. One of such negative effect is that in which a student with a gun goes to meet a professor about a poor grade (Barone, 2016). The student may be afraid that his or her poor grade may make the parent angry, or influence other activities such as not getting a scholarship. Thus the discussion between them may get confrontational, which may prompt the student gets out the gun. This can be potentially dangerous for the lecturer. As such, guns on campuses may be used to threaten teachers and professors by the students to get good grades that were not worked for in the first place.

Guns on campus would make campuses even more dangerous

Campus students largely engage in many risky behaviors. These behaviors include drug abuse and binge drinking disorder at an alarming rate. American’s campus student abuses drugs and alcohol at least once a month (Brady Center 2007). This is even higher for those that own guns. Under the influence of drugs and alcohol student with guns are more likely to cause disruption and chaos that may lead to a shootout.

Campus students are more likely to commit suicide than those in the general population. Over 24,000 attempts of suicide and nearly 1,000 successful suicides in campuses are reported every year. In case a gun is used in a suicide attempt, over 90% of the cases are likely to be fatal, as compared to 3% casualty rate for suicide attempts by other ways (Barone, 2016). In fact, this is the reason why guns in the homes increase the risks of suicide by five times. One can only think about how many suicide cases will be witnessed in campuses if guns are accepted in therein.

According to studies, guns in homes are more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting than in self-defense (Brady Center 2007). It is important to note that even a trained gun owner does not realize that a gun is loaded. In many instances, when the magazine is removed, a bullet may be left hidden in the chambers. This bullet can accidentally be shot at someone. Moreover, campus hostels may be an easy target for gun thieves.

Armed students may not be accounted to anyone

It is the duty of college administration to protect and ensure the safety of student, staff members, and visitors on campus environment (Brady Center 2007). Naturally, the administration can be held accountable for failing to ensure the security of all students. As a result, campus law enforcement officers are efficiently trained on how to handle violent situations in campus environments.

Gun owners on campus, on the other hand, operate not under these circumstances. Thus, they are accountable only for their safety. In any case of a shootout, a student is more likely to miss the target bearing in mind that a trained officer is on average is likely to hit the target below 20% of all the time (Brady Center 2007). When such cases happen, the officer will claim to have acted in self-defense or otherwise claim no responsibility. Based on this case, security advisors believe that if students are armed, then they are likely to aggravate campus shootings.

Campus gun owner is also likely to be highly irresponsible. For instance, if they are engaged in alcohol abuse, vandalize property and also get in trouble with the police. As such, the safety of these students is likely not to be accounted for.

Guns on campus will not prevent the occasional campus shooting

Just by allowing guns on campuses will not prevent perpetrators of mass shootings that are suicidal in most case (Barone, 2016). Most of the perpetrators end up killing themselves. In fact, campus gun owners will be the first target in such shootouts before the offender goes on to kill the unarmed students.

Guns in campuses cannot provide good environment academic prosperity

Lecturers and students must be able to discuss controversial topics, subjects, and research without the fear of being challenged or punished by those who feel aggrieved by the discussion (Brady Center 2007). For academics to flourish there must be there free expression by students and professors. It might happen that some students may disagree with other students’ views, consequently the use of a gun to express themselves otherwise. As a result, allowing campus students to have guns will jeopardize the learning process.

There can be better ways to secure campuses

It is important to note that campus environment is much safer than an off-campus environment. Nearly, 90% of reported violence against campus students often happens outside campus premises (Barone, 2016). To deter future shootings in campuses and other learning institutions, there must be strict gun control laws in place. These laws will make it difficult for criminals to get guns to perpetuate crimes. Since the incident at Virginia Tech, Congress has enacted laws to prevent the acquisition of guns. Background checks should be extended to private sales of guns with an aim to curb selling of guns to prohibited persons. These persons may be barred due to their mental health reasons or their poor conduct with the general public. 

Despite all the risks and negative effects of permitting gun owners on campus premises, some states allow concealed gun holders into their premises. For instance, Utah State allows campus students, visitors, faculty, and visitors to carry guns on their campuses if they have permits to carry such weapons. Texas and Colorado states also allow campus students to have guns in the university environments. 

Supporters of armed campuses suggest that students and other individuals should be allowed to carry guns on campus premises if they have permits to do so. They also argue that those permitted to carry guns have the responsibility to keep their firearms with them wherever they are. As such, they have frequently referred to the case of a high school shooting in Pearl in 1997. In this case, a student shot and killed his mother before proceeding to shoot his fellow students. The Vice Principal got out of his truck with a handgun and confronted the shooter; he managed to contain him even without firing. However, two students were killed in this incident.

Conclusion

From the foregone length discussion, it is evident that guns, masculinity, and crime correlate. It has been established that guns facilitate the perpetration of a crime. Notably, states with the highest number of guns per capita translated into the highest number of the crime rate. In contrast, the states with less availability of guns reported few cases of crime. Regions with the poor population in the USA registered high gun ownership as well as high crime rate. These places are characterized by the high unemployment rate, struggling school education systems and other social amenities. Surprisingly, these places are highly inhabited by black Americans, who according to statistics record high crime rates as compared to other races. High crime rates are also witnessed in states that have lax gun control laws. With these kinds of laws, guns are easily available to any individual whether mentally sane or otherwise. States with stiff gun control laws, on the other hand, reported least cases of gun violence and gun-related crimes.

As established from above discussion, masculinity is also related to crime in some aspects. Statistics show that men are more likely to commit a crime that women. This is based on their societal up bring, in which the society constructs them to be aggressive, tough, rough and aggressive. Across all the US States men are highly represented as compared to women in crimes. Most men incarcerated are aged between 15 to 24 years of age. This cohort is particularly characterized by high emotions and high peer influences. Moreover, for men to exert dominance and power, they tend to use violence to achieve it.

Campuses in general consist of students, teaching staff, subordinate staff and visitors. Allowing guns to be carried in and around campus premises can increase cases of crimes as established from above. This is because a majority of students may not be responsible enough with their guns. Individuals in the age bracket of 15-24 are still growing and may experience difficult in emotions control. Thus, they may use these guns once they are provoked by their fellow students. As such, there is no need to have armed campuses.

Reference

Barone, P. A. (2016). Plausible Solutions to School Violence and Disturbance in America.

Barker, G. T. (2005). Dying to be men: Youth, masculinity and social exclusion , First Published by Routledge.

Bird, S.R (2008). Masculinity studies, In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd edition Ed. William A. Darity, Macmillan Reference USA/Thompson Gale.

Black, S., & Hausman, A. (2008). Adolescents' Views of Guns in a High-Violence Community. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 5, 592-610.

Brady Center (2007). No Gun Left Behind:The Gun Lobby's Campaign to Push Guns Into Colleges and Schools Retrieved from www.bradycampaign.org/gunsoncampus 

Canada, Government of Canada, Statistics (2015). "Adult correctional statistics in Canada, 2013/2014". Retrieved from www.statcan.gc.ca. Retrieved 2015-12-15

Curry, G. D., Decker, S. H., & Pyrooz, D. (2014). Confronting gangs: Crime and community .

Norman, L. (2007). Masculinity, Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender , Edit. Fedwa Malti-Douglas 2007 The Gale Group 965-972

Opoliner, A., Azrael, D., Barber, C., Fitzmaurice, G., & Miller, M. (December 01, 2014). Explaining geographic patterns of suicide in the US: the role of firearms and antidepressants. Injury Epidemiology, 1, 1, 1-7.

Truman & Jennifer L. (2014). Nonfatal Domestic Violence, 2003-2012. Bureau of Justice Statistics: US Department of Justice.