The Issue Of Using Guns And Bombs

I keep reading in various places about shootings in Texas and perhaps in other places too and at the same time we are reading about the atrocities happening in Ukraine and the fact that Russia is using some forms of fire arms and bombs that have been declared forbidden in international humanitarian law. Without being in such places and without seeing anything, our inboxes are taken up with reports, arguments, information and newspapers are covered with sad faces and women and children crying.

One thing that keeps coming to my mind throughout all of these things is the question: why did the person doing the shooting have a gun? If he had no gun, he could not have shot people. At the same time we read about people killed in bomb blasts and I wonder: why do people have bombs and why are they permitted to use them?

Some forms of weapons and warfare are forbidden:

Some types of bombs are forbidden in warfare apparently, such as cluster bombs , poisonous bombs and gas bombs because they are considered “inhumane,” and often kill people in horrible ways. However, I wonder what bomb kills people in “humane ways,” and is then acceptable to be used to end the lives of many people – often innocent people. “Innocent people,” are often held to be women and children, however, men can be just as innocent when they do not choose to fight and perhaps do not want to be there.

Bombs always cause disaster. They destroy lives in one blast and with them families, and the hopes and dreams of people. They destroy trees, plants and livestock that people may live off. Wars often lead to inflation in the economy because things get destroyed and prices increase.

If nothing good or beneficial come out of using bombs, why should they not be all banned? Before bombs armies would fight each other with swords face to face and that would avoid the killing and maiming of innocent lives. They also stood an equal chance of getting away or of winning the battle. On the battlefield it is possible to run even, but when you are bombed I think it is not.

Guns are not reducing crime:

I had thought it was perhaps my own ideas, but maybe because I grew up and was raised in London, United Kingdom I see no benefit in the use of guns. I have realised that there is a difference in perspective in America. American people argue that they carry guns for protection, in case they are attacked. They think guns prevent killing and crime. In fact, in the prisons in some parts of America anyway, we hear that there is the death penalty and electric chair for certain crimes such as killings.

At the same time, in England, the perspective is different. It is not permitted to carry or use guns. That does not mean that nobody does. There is also no death penalty in the prisons. Therefore, it seems that Americans may support the taking of life for some purposes such as in self-protection or to punish a crime. In England however, life should not be taken even to prevent crimes.

Personally I cannot imagine feeling safe with a gun in my bag or on my person, and I would be worried that it may go off by itself or someone may use it against me. I would also feel afraid to deal with people if they had guns. In fact, despite carrying guns there still seems to be a high level of killing and shootings in America. These cases are examples. So would these shootings had happened if these people had no access to guns ? Probably not. For this reason I still feel that not only do I not support the use of guns but I would personally prefer all people dispose of guns and weapons and find other non violent ways to deal with issues.

Can we educate people away from violence:

When people have relationship issues or marital problems or any other issue there are often people who try to educate such people to deal with problems and conflict in better and more productive ways. I wonder why people do not attempt to educate people in general to deal with conflicts and problems in none violent ways and with less brutality. Even suicide might be prevented if people saw an alternative solution to problems. Therefore, education surrounding conflict and how to deal with issues through negotiation and other tactics might be a way to decrease the rise of violence in the world at large. The only problem is, will there be many people who accept this way and try to abide by it or will there be people insisting on violent solutions to problems along with the continued use of bombs and guns?