Trevor Watson, 14, says he hears gunshots in his Oakland neighborhood so often that "it doesn't even affect me anymore."
15 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Roxana J. The main problem that I can identify in this topic is that for the society of Oakland, the reality of being able to live life as others societies show to be out to be, is not what they live by. The main problem being that the society in itself is creating chaos, it may be that there may be gangster culture within the city. The problem is not that there is gangster cultures, it is more of the children not being able to be children because they have to worry about not getting shot, as well as these kids not feeling safe in their own schools, where they should feel safe. This would be a interactionist theory within society and police because the city itself is not feeling protected by who they believe should be taking care of them, as they do in time is have three securities is not enough they should be taken care of the city. A theory that can be applied to this problem would be the interactionist theory which is individual interactions between people influence their behavior and how these interactions affect society. These choices of certain individuals affects how other people in their society are being threatened day by day because they never feel comfortable to even go outside because they never know when there is going to be another shooting . Interactionist would say that problem behavior is learned by others, and that humans are social animals and require interactions. In other words people seek attention and many of the problems within a society like this one, get created by people whom are seeking out problems, they are the ones creating shootings and are not aware of the consequences of the other ones surrounded there as well. I think that the cause of these shootings in this city is because of gangster culture, in the majority of other cities they have the causes of shooting because of gangster culture. I think that this is being taken care of in many cities but in others it is harder because gangsters take over, even the police. I commented on this specific topic because I find it hard to believe that there is still people out there playing the part of who is better leading innocent people into their own troubles. I feel that if putting more control and more security in those areas would decline the shootings that are happening now, because without some type of security for those people who are afraid to go out of their own homes , they are with no solution , they will not know whether they will be ok that day or what not.
Vazgen M. Gun violence in schools has long since passed the realm of personal trouble and into a social issue. This is nothing new. Every year we hear the stories on the news and those are only the most violent ones. Shootings are a common place for many poor communities like Oakland. They affect not only the victims but also shake the entire community to its core. In some cases even the entire nation. It's an issue that has plagued us for many years and by using the conflict theory this murky issue becomes crystal clear.
According to conflict theory the root of this issue is the lack of opportunity that the youth of Oakland and similar poverty stricken communities have to improve their lives. A conflict theorist view of this issue would be to blame the system created by the rich and powerful. A system which suppresses the poor and strips them of any opportunity to move up the social ladder. In the case of the kids in Castlemont High who have no power, it forces them into the world of gangs and guns. This world that gives them a false sense of power is the only opportunity some of these kids have to improve their lives.
I think gun violence in schools is an epidemic and no amount of gun control laws will put a stop to it. I think this issue is rooted far deeper in our system than most will like to admit. I commented on this topic because of how rampant this issue is. I think these violence prevention programs that the article speaks so highly of doesn't do squat. What these kids need are opportunities. A way for them to go to college or to get training for good jobs. Some kind of a way to improve their lives and to pull themselves out of the slums. With this kind of help these kids will avoid gangs and needless violence and instead focus on self improvement. All they need is a light at the end of the tunnel.
Anahit G. The problem in this news story is that gun violence has reached the point where it has surpassed being a personal problem and moved on to become a major social problem. This is a major problem because it is affecting everyone in the community even if they are not directly involved. It has reached the point that people don't feel safe in places that are meant to be free from harm. If students cannot go to school without fearing that there may be a shooting taking place that day, then it is time that something was done about it. Interactionists have a theory called the labeling theory which states that the acts and those who commit those acts are not the important parts of society, but those who label them as criminal. Interactionists also believe that criminal behavior is learned from interactions with others. According to interactionists, the reason why the crime rates go up and the reason why there are so many shootings is because of the environment that the people committing these crimes were brought up in. They would believe that if the behavior was not acknowledged then there would not be as many criminal acts. I think that that is not a good way of dealing with this problem. Those who are committing the criminal acts have already been conditioned to act the way that they do, if the community ignored the problem they would most likely take advantage of that fact. I chose this story to comment on because I think this is a topic that should be addressed and dealt with as quickly as possible because the longer this stays a problem the more people are killed or injured unnecessarily. I think that the Castlemont High program is a good idea and that more schools and communities should have similar programs. Gun violence will not go away that easily, and having a program there that will teach students and community members the way to deal with it and what to do in those types of situations can make a real difference. These programs may even help lower the rates of homicide by teaching people how to protect themselves and others around them.
This article clearly describes how gun violence has grown from being a personal problem to a social problem. The issue of gun violence has been brought into the national spotlight due to many school shootings as the one in Connecticut. Although the school shooting is what grabs the attention of national media, the more important issue is gun violence in poverty stricken neighborhoods. In neighborhoods where poverty is the norm you tend to see a direct correlation in the rates of gun violence. Communities that have a lower socio-economic standing are unequipped in how to deal with the increasing violence in their neighborhoods, schools implement gun prevention programs in hope of informing and preventing an increase in violence. But this does not solve the core of the problem.Gun prevention programs are just that, they are designed to prevent the up and coming youth from promoting violence. But what about the violence that is currently occurring? Many people suggest stricter laws but in my opinion the best way to fight against violence is a higher police presence in those neighborhoods with high rates of violence. This article mentions a very eye opening fact in which lower income neighborhoods are those who suffer from gun violence. From a conflict perspective, we would say that this issue is the fault of the rich being rich and staying rich by suppressing the poor. In poorer neighborhoods there are very few opportunities for people to move up in class so the youth turns to gangs and violence in hope of an easier life. We as a society need to give people in these neighborhoods more opportunities to escape the cycle of poverty by increasing job readiness and making higher learning an option and priority.
The problem as I see it is a disproportionately large amount of gun violence and early deaths in a less affluent area of Oakland, CA compared with even the Oakland Hills area just one mile away. The report mentioned that the life expectancy in Castlemont is on average ten years shorter than in Oakland Hills. This is a disparity that cannot be ignored or simply written off as an individual problem. The fact that it affects so many individuals simultaneously as well as the many different types of people it affects makes it a social problem. There was even a quote from a six year old describing his encounter with gun violence near a playground. Trevor Watson mentioned that he feels nervous in his own neighborhood, fearing the prospect of violence breaking out at any time.
This begs the question, why is this neighborhood so violent? Interactionist theory can be used to answer this question. Social Learning Theory states that people conform to their surroundings and adopt behaviors they observe through vicarious reinforcement. This means that if a child grows up in an area like Castlemont they are more likely to engage in violent activity because it is literally all around them. Another contributing factor may be the way that violence is portrayed in various forms of media. Because violence is glorified and rewarded in some video games, movies, and music, this may encourage someone to engage in the same kind of behavior to receive the same rewards they see celebrities getting. Finally there is the subject of fear. The fear alone of having to live with, “the possibility of being shot at any point in time”, could drive someone to want to have a gun themselves. It could be that a gun provides a sense of security that being unarmed in a sea of civilian-warriors does not.
On the subject of what to do about it there is one solution that could be a great starting point for further interventions—stricter gun laws. If there were fewer guns available, on the street or otherwise, there would be less shootings. I am aware of the argument, “guns don’t kill people, people do”. I am also aware that you cannot shoot someone without a gun. If there were no guns allowed in the United States, I believe there would be less gun violence and possibly even less murders in neighborhoods all over the country, including Castlemont. If the next generation of Americans were to grow up without the option of buying a gun, it may never cross their mind and they may never shoot anyone—effectively fixing the problem of gun violence.
Having heard numerous news stories regarding gun violence in schools, I always felt that similar incidents occurred in other places. In my imagination, these crimes were committed in deserted areas where no one but gangsters lived, and that my neighborhood was the safest place to live. Then, my high school was evacuated for what we were told was a bomb threat, and I heard about the same issue at a nearby elementary school. Now, none of these incidents resulted in injuries or death; in fact, they were false threats that were probably made by students who wanted to skip class. However, the point is that no one is really safe anywhere, which seems to be one side of the argument surrounding these issues. The actual problem on the other hand is figuring out how much truth there is to these arguments. Gun violence is a social issue, because not only it affects the people involved directly, it also affects the society they live in by instilling fear regarding physical safety and creating a lack of trust in other people and the government. This then leads to racial profiling, prejudices and discrimination against people who "look" suspicious, which result in more violence. Another way of viewing this as a social problem is that the process of trying to eliminate gun violence raises other concerns for the people who are against gun control laws. I have heard arguments that taking away the right to bear arms may lead to governmental oppression, since public safety can be used as an excuse to limit other rights such as freedom of speech. This may not be considered relevant to the violence in schools, but think about this: Where do these juveniles get the guns from? There are many different sides to every situation, but the theories that take positions to make sense of these social issues do not thoroughly examine them. For instance, the functionalist perspective doesn't encourage much change; the belief is that even crime serves a function, because it sets an example of what is right and what is wrong to do. On the topic of gun violence in schools, they would probably believe that the criminals realize what society expects from them; yet, they don't have the resources to fulfill these expectations, resulting in their deviant behavior. These theorists would be the ones to say that even at the safest places you can expect violence, as it was mentioned in the article, because it's just the way life is. The other extreme theory is the conflict perspective, which focuses on the power struggles between higher and lower social classes. Regarding this issue, conflict theorists would argue that our justice system and society in general do not treat the disadvantaged classes justly. Another statement that stood out for me in this article was that it's possible to determine the length of an individual's life based on where they live. That to me sounds like something a conflict theorist would say. The functionalist and conflict theories take solid positions. While the first believes being disadvantaged is what leads to crimes, the second argues that the wealthy are treated better than the poor, which I think is what leads to the lack of opportunities and this then becomes a cycle. But, is this the main cause of violent crimes such as shootings in schools? This is when the interactionist theory comes into play, and in my opinion it is the best fit to such societal issues. This theory focuses on individuals and their daily interactions with others. Behaviors can be learned, and although there are rationales such as poverty, cultural norms, and the media's influence behind them, it always comes down to the personal experiences of individuals. Therefore, I believe that potential solutions for issues like gun violence in schools should focus on each offender individually. For instance, it is more productive to set up one on one counseling programs in schools, which would be a resource these disadvantaged students lack, than to try and change the law for the entire nation every time another shooting takes place.
Gun violence fulfills all 4 criteria for a social problem; Social damages(1), offensive to a powerful groups standards(2), persistence(3), overabundance of solutions(4).
Objective reality: There is chronic Gun Violence in the school setting with in the United states.
Hundreds of school related shootings in United States history (3) (persistence) and resulting deaths(1)(social damages). The offensive nature of this problem is evident in the creation of groups like Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Stop Handgun Violence and many more groups that are a product of this particular social issue(2). There is an over abundance of solutions is evident in the numerous bills proposed to address the problem such as H.R. 3018: Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013 (4)
Functional conflict Causes: unintended consequences of institutions social assistance and public policy. War On Drugs,welfare, Damaged family institutions,lack of mental/emotional health infrastructure. Welfare system creates dependence, limits upward social mobility, encourages pregnancy, in low income welfare dependent communities by mothers that are unfit to foster values, norms, skills and connections that would aid in upward mobility. Anomie is a product of this cultural circumstance and results subsequently in gun violence as a dysfunction. Damaged family institutions lead children to seek solace in gangs in which violence is a common occurrence. War on drugs turns an industry that would otherwise have government oversight into a black market. Controlling areas in which drugs are distributed is a large part of organized crime. Lack of Mental health availability In education system as well as public assistance programs. Functions of gun Violence: Draws attention and funding towards institutions addressing mental health. Provides a need for a variety of jobs. mortuary, health, law enforcement, manufacturing and scholarly jobs are all indirect products of gun violence. Draws support to select politicians. Creates programs that raise community awareness that can motivate and provide guidance to children and adults who wish to move out of any particular social class. Programs can foster leadership skills and people skills that benefits the children throughout their entire life. Dysfunctions. Fear for safety in school setting may reduce attendance. Deaths of children that could have otherwise contributed to society as a whole.
One solution to this problem would be ending the war on drugs and releasing non violent drug offenders from prisons. Then to utilize the money that would have gone toward to prisons and law enforcement to provide better in-school mental health education(of teachers, staff and students) and resources for students in need mental/emotional health care. Mental health care accessibility is critical in addressing underlying reasons for gang membership, drug abuse and can even address things like birth control and safe sex education. Addressing gun violence via Fire arm prohibition does not address underlying causes and further more does not prevent other non firearm related acts of violence. Gun violence is not the problem but only a symptom of the underlying problems in our mental health system.
I agree with Vazgen that gun violence has long passed personal trouble and is entering the realm of social issues. I was shocked reading the article that gun violence was so common in their area that most of them in the community are no longer surprised. I also believe that it is not only the victims that are affected, but the community. I’m sure that the community is feeling a loss of security and comfort, and something should be done about it. I decided to reply on this topic, because living in Burbank, I have never really dealt with gun violence in school or any community for that matter. I was shocked reading the article, and thought I would give my opinion on the matter. This is a social problem, because I don’t think people should be fearful every day of their lives in their own neighborhood. I think people should be entitled to live in a safe neighborhood, but sadly that is not the case. An interactionist would say that gun violence in the community is due to the type of social upbringing that is presented in Oakland. It is difficult for lower-class communities to move up the social ladder. Their poverty may be based on a culture of poverty, that being that the norms, values, and beliefs encourage and perpetuate that same lifestyle over and over again. These people are likely to pass their values to their children, and so on and so on. Crime is more likely to occur in areas of poor neighborhoods, and therefore the people who have been brought up in this “gangster lifestyle” resort to guns and violence to solve their problems.
I think that Vazgen is on point with his proposed solutions. I also think that if they want to reduce gun violence in schools and their community, the people themselves should be presented with opportunities that will help them move up the social ladder. Whether it is getting a higher education or a better paying job, they should work on improving themselves, if they want to make progress. They can work hard to support themselves until they can pull themselves out of their slump and move to a safer community. I think with the right resources and guidance that this is a possible solution. Another solution could be what they’re already working on, is keeping up with their programs on educating the students on gun violence and safety. They need to bring awareness of the danger, and hopefully one day gun violence won’t be such an issue anymore.
I agree with Nigel, this article states an obvious social problem because it affects many individuals. Gun violence in Castlemont has people living in fear, and the life expectancy in this area is ten years shorter than the average. I chose to respond to his comment because his solution to this social issue stood out to me. I do not agree that outlawing guns will solve this problem. I do believe that, “guns don’t kill people, people do.” Yes, guns may make it easier to kill, but a killer will find his/her way to kill with or without a gun. If guns were banned in areas with gangs, they would either find a way to illegally get a hold of a gun, or another way of killing. For example, a criminal could stab a person to death; no is gun needed. I think a more effective way to solve the violence issue in these areas is to focus on the youth and educate them to make better decisions. There should be more programs to encourage peace, and programs with good role models for the kids. It will take a very long time, but targeting the youth and educating them on violence will lead to a better future for these communities.
A functionalist would say that crimes are necessary in our society. It shows people right from wrong. It gives our society structure, and structure is needed in order for our society to work properly and not fall apart. Our society needs both good and bad in order for it to function. Therefore, violence in some areas are necessary to set an example for others about what is wrong.
I do absolutely agree with Anahit G.’s perspective and analyses, I think that interactionalist theory is a good way to explain sociologists’ perspective of this problem. Her brief yet meaningful and understandable blog caught my eye therefore I decided to write in respond to her post. I think gun violence is one of the most controversial topics these days but often it’s pushed aside because of political reasons. The consistent gun violence in Oakland is a public issue because it’s a threat to every individual’s life living in that neighborhood and also the surrounding neighborhoods. It’s terrifying to learn that students in some neighborhoods are not safe at schools and have to worry about their and their family’s safety instead of concentrating on their education. Conflict theory would be another great perspective to view this problem in hopes of finding a solution. Conflict theory emphasizes that society is held together by power to benefit the ones in power. The conflict is accused as a result of misunderstanding in the society based on social class, race or ethnicity. In this case the social conflict is caused by gangs fighting to remain in control. Gangs set their own set of rules in communities and they have their own unique way of punishing the ones who fail to follow those rules. The ordinary community members have no power in their neighborhoods and are being played by the big guys. I believe that the only solution to this problem is the government’s strict regulation and plans to breakdown the gang community. In order to create a safe community for society it’s critical to take control and not allow gangs to dominate by harming others. Increase in police force would help decrease the violence in theses neighborhoods and also would create a safer environment for the community; therefor many young teens would not join the gangs for protection but would lean on the government’s power to keep their neighborhoods safe from gunshots.
i agree with Desiree that we do see a lot more gun violence in neighborhoods in poverty because thats where we tend to see where gangs have formed. Gun prevention programs do not really work they just sort of advice the younger ones to be against violence. But through a Interactionist perspective gun violence in this neighbor hood in oakland occurs due to the surroundings and how the child/teen is brought up. In neighborhoods like this we see alot of gangs and these gangs start to recruit young kids and make them feel like they belong. This is when they start to assimilate to the gang life which comes with so much gun violence.
I chose to further discuss Nigel's comment since he very effectively summarized and analyzed the social problem of gun violence in schools and communities. Using the interactionist theory to analyze the issue gives an interesting perspective into the issue and its causes. I definitely agree with Nigel's argument of the social learning theory, since your surroundings and media indeed have a big influence on individuals. Stereotypes of violent rich drug dealers portrayed in movies and simply the daily exposure to violence, reinforces violent behavior in individuals. This poses a threat to society as a whole since it disrupts several layers of society. Guns and deviant behavior are usually associated with underground markets and illegal activities, which hurt the economy. Another factor, is the fear that is instilled in community members, which might lead to anxiety due to the constant fear of being shot, which in severe cases can lead to suicide, depression, jobloss and homelessness. Thus, gun violence is a persisting issue that affects society as a whole and can be considered a social problem.
While Nigel focused on the micro level, I want to take a macro level approach using conflict theory to get a broader picture. Looking within the community itself, a conflict theorist would argue that those owning guns try to keep their power within the community as the alpha male by instilling fear. Being feared gives those individuals the feeling of respect. If they are disrespected, however, they take action, which results in shootings. If we look at society as a whole, those living within minority communities are those being oppressed by the dominant culture. The powerless are not given any resources to move out of poverty into a “better life”, so many individuals turn to violence and deviant behavior since it is the only option offered to them. Meanwhile, the dominant group focuses its resources on its own community ensuring that they will continue to stay in power.
Nigel proposed the ban of guns as a solution to end gun violence. I do not believe this is a realistic solution since recent developments in politics prove that despite high rates of school shootings and homicides, the majority of Americans believe it is their constitutional right to be able to defend themselves with a gun. Additionally, the solution does not touch the root of the issue, which is the lack of opportunities for minority neighborhoods. I believe it is important to provide local schools with more funds and programs that both educate children and bring them on a path without violence. Many children within the community often do not realize there are other options for them out there. Therefore, I think there should be a greater focus on opening up more doors for children and exposing them to possible career paths, which could improve their lives and break the cycle of violence.
I agree with Roxanna because she makes viable points. Gun violence in these lower income cities seems to be a reoccurring problem. The kids on the streets of Oakland do not fear gunshots or see them as a threat towards their own lives. That is a major problem and can create many unsafe situations. These gun shootings are also causing the young children to grow up faster and not truly enjoy a normal and proper childhood. I agree that she argues that the gangster culture is the main cause of these multiple shootings. I also concur that by adding more control and security in those areas would decline the amount of shootings that are taking place. If the law enforcement was increased then safety should increase as well. The more police on the streets will cause fear among gun holders so they will not shoot their weapons nonchalantly.It is vital for the society to feel safe in their own community. It is not appropriate for people to live in fear of their lives and their families. Choosing the interactionist perspective for this certain social issue is appropriate as well. Many people get influenced by their surroundings and can change their behaviors. The violence can be learned from either the household and even the media.
I agree with Anahit G., that gun violence has emerged from a personal problem to a major public issue and her viewpoint on the article as an interactionist helped me understand the article further. She helped me understand that the society must do something to prevent these criminals from taking more lives, otherwise they will not fear to stop and the death rate in this community will keep increasing. In my opinion, after reading this article, I imagined how it must be traumatizing living in Oakland and going to school knowing that you have a high rate of being the next victim. It damages the minds of these students that can motivate them in the future to join gangs or equip guns for self-defense, thus one of the reasons why it makes it a major public issue. Functionalist would say that this issue can provide work for social policy, advocates, and innovations. This can also be a lesson to the students to learn how to acknowledge the good and bad. I think that proposing a program as a solution to help the students deal with this issue is not enough to solve this case. Yes, the program can cure the symptoms of this community, but the disease(gun violence) still exist and it will look for a new host. The gun violence continues to affect the students and neighborhood. I think that the best solution to this problem is to increase the law enforcement in this community, to take actions to the criminals to prevent more killing and violence.
Celina A. In response to Nigel’s comment, I completely agree with the points he brought across. This problem affects so many different types of people it cannot be identified as an individual problem, but more as a social problem. What stood out more to me from Nigel’s comment was on the solution he offered, stricter gun laws, and the comment he made of the argument “guns don’t kill people, people do.” This stood out to me the most because he is completely right if there were less guns available for people, I can almost guarantee there will be less shooting happing. Now I am not saying that the crime rates would go down, but the percentages of homicides because of gun violence will definitely drop. Since Nigel viewed this problem from an interactionist perspective, I will take a turn and view it from a conflict perspective. I believe that a functionalist would say that the reason why there are not stricter gun laws is because there are people benefiting one way or another from guns being out. This gives police men more work, it also helps keep gun sales men in business. Going back to Nigel’s solution to this gun violence I think his solution is somewhat realistic. Making the laws on guns more strict may help with future sales of guns. But how about the people that already own a gun? Or the people that own a gun illegally? To try to take the guns from these people will take lots of time and patience. Even though I agree that this solution could work, I believe that it will be a very long process.
15 comments:
Roxana J.
The main problem that I can identify in this topic is that for the society of Oakland, the reality of being able to live life as others societies show to be out to be, is not what they live by. The main problem being that the society in itself is creating chaos, it may be that there may be gangster culture within the city. The problem is not that there is gangster cultures, it is more of the children not being able to be children because they have to worry about not getting shot, as well as these kids not feeling safe in their own schools, where they should feel safe. This would be a interactionist theory within society and police because the city itself is not feeling protected by who they believe should be taking care of them, as they do in time is have three securities is not enough they should be taken care of the city.
A theory that can be applied to this problem would be the interactionist theory which is individual interactions between people influence their behavior and how these interactions affect society. These choices of certain individuals affects how other people in their society are being threatened day by day because they never feel comfortable to even go outside because they never know when there is going to be another shooting . Interactionist would say that problem behavior is learned by others, and that humans are social animals and require interactions. In other words people seek attention and many of the problems within a society like this one, get created by people whom are seeking out problems, they are the ones creating shootings and are not aware of the consequences of the other ones surrounded there as well.
I think that the cause of these shootings in this city is because of gangster culture, in the majority of other cities they have the causes of shooting because of gangster culture. I think that this is being taken care of in many cities but in others it is harder because gangsters take over, even the police. I commented on this specific topic because I find it hard to believe that there is still people out there playing the part of who is better leading innocent people into their own troubles. I feel that if putting more control and more security in those areas would decline the shootings that are happening now, because without some type of security for those people who are afraid to go out of their own homes , they are with no solution , they will not know whether they will be ok that day or what not.
Vazgen M.
Gun violence in schools has long since passed the realm of personal trouble and into a social issue. This is nothing new. Every year we hear the stories on the news and those are only the most violent ones. Shootings are a common place for many poor communities like Oakland. They affect not only the victims but also shake the entire community to its core. In some cases even the entire nation. It's an issue that has plagued us for many years and by using the conflict theory this murky issue becomes crystal clear.
According to conflict theory the root of this issue is the lack of opportunity that the youth of Oakland and similar poverty stricken communities have to improve their lives. A conflict theorist view of this issue would be to blame the system created by the rich and powerful. A system which suppresses the poor and strips them of any opportunity to move up the social ladder. In the case of the kids in Castlemont High who have no power, it forces them into the world of gangs and guns. This world that gives them a false sense of power is the only opportunity some of these kids have to improve their lives.
I think gun violence in schools is an epidemic and no amount of gun control laws will put a stop to it. I think this issue is rooted far deeper in our system than most will like to admit. I commented on this topic because of how rampant this issue is. I think these violence prevention programs that the article speaks so highly of doesn't do squat. What these kids need are opportunities. A way for them to go to college or to get training for good jobs. Some kind of a way to improve their lives and to pull themselves out of the slums. With this kind of help these kids will avoid gangs and needless violence and instead focus on self improvement. All they need is a light at the end of the tunnel.
Anahit G.
The problem in this news story is that gun violence has reached the point where it has surpassed being a personal problem and moved on to become a major social problem. This is a major problem because it is affecting everyone in the community even if they are not directly involved. It has reached the point that people don't feel safe in places that are meant to be free from harm. If students cannot go to school without fearing that there may be a shooting taking place that day, then it is time that something was done about it.
Interactionists have a theory called the labeling theory which states that the acts and those who commit those acts are not the important parts of society, but those who label them as criminal. Interactionists also believe that criminal behavior is learned from interactions with others. According to interactionists, the reason why the crime rates go up and the reason why there are so many shootings is because of the environment that the people committing these crimes were brought up in. They would believe that if the behavior was not acknowledged then there would not be as many criminal acts. I think that that is not a good way of dealing with this problem. Those who are committing the criminal acts have already been conditioned to act the way that they do, if the community ignored the problem they would most likely take advantage of that fact. I chose this story to comment on because I think this is a topic that should be addressed and dealt with as quickly as possible because the longer this stays a problem the more people are killed or injured unnecessarily. I think that the Castlemont High program is a good idea and that more schools and communities should have similar programs. Gun violence will not go away that easily, and having a program there that will teach students and community members the way to deal with it and what to do in those types of situations can make a real difference. These programs may even help lower the rates of homicide by teaching people how to protect themselves and others around them.
Desiree A.
This article clearly describes how gun violence has grown from being a personal problem to a social problem. The issue of gun violence has been brought into the national spotlight due to many school shootings as the one in Connecticut. Although the school shooting is what grabs the attention of national media, the more important issue is gun violence in poverty stricken neighborhoods. In neighborhoods where poverty is the norm you tend to see a direct correlation in the rates of gun violence. Communities that have a lower socio-economic standing are unequipped in how to deal with the increasing violence in their neighborhoods, schools implement gun prevention programs in hope of informing and preventing an increase in violence. But this does not solve the core of the problem.Gun prevention programs are just that, they are designed to prevent the up and coming youth from promoting violence. But what about the violence that is currently occurring? Many people suggest stricter laws but in my opinion the best way to fight against violence is a higher police presence in those neighborhoods with high rates of violence.
This article mentions a very eye opening fact in which lower income neighborhoods are those who suffer from gun violence. From a conflict perspective, we would say that this issue is the fault of the rich being rich and staying rich by suppressing the poor. In poorer neighborhoods there are very few opportunities for people to move up in class so the youth turns to gangs and violence in hope of an easier life. We as a society need to give people in these neighborhoods more opportunities to escape the cycle of poverty by increasing job readiness and making higher learning an option and priority.
The problem as I see it is a disproportionately large amount of gun violence and early deaths in a less affluent area of Oakland, CA compared with even the Oakland Hills area just one mile away. The report mentioned that the life expectancy in Castlemont is on average ten years shorter than in Oakland Hills. This is a disparity that cannot be ignored or simply written off as an individual problem. The fact that it affects so many individuals simultaneously as well as the many different types of people it affects makes it a social problem. There was even a quote from a six year old describing his encounter with gun violence near a playground. Trevor Watson mentioned that he feels nervous in his own neighborhood, fearing the prospect of violence breaking out at any time.
This begs the question, why is this neighborhood so violent? Interactionist theory can be used to answer this question. Social Learning Theory states that people conform to their surroundings and adopt behaviors they observe through vicarious reinforcement. This means that if a child grows up in an area like Castlemont they are more likely to engage in violent activity because it is literally all around them. Another contributing factor may be the way that violence is portrayed in various forms of media. Because violence is glorified and rewarded in some video games, movies, and music, this may encourage someone to engage in the same kind of behavior to receive the same rewards they see celebrities getting. Finally there is the subject of fear. The fear alone of having to live with, “the possibility of being shot at any point in time”, could drive someone to want to have a gun themselves. It could be that a gun provides a sense of security that being unarmed in a sea of civilian-warriors does not.
On the subject of what to do about it there is one solution that could be a great starting point for further interventions—stricter gun laws. If there were fewer guns available, on the street or otherwise, there would be less shootings. I am aware of the argument, “guns don’t kill people, people do”. I am also aware that you cannot shoot someone without a gun. If there were no guns allowed in the United States, I believe there would be less gun violence and possibly even less murders in neighborhoods all over the country, including Castlemont. If the next generation of Americans were to grow up without the option of buying a gun, it may never cross their mind and they may never shoot anyone—effectively fixing the problem of gun violence.
Having heard numerous news stories regarding gun violence in schools, I always felt that similar incidents occurred in other places. In my imagination, these crimes were committed in deserted areas where no one but gangsters lived, and that my neighborhood was the safest place to live. Then, my high school was evacuated for what we were told was a bomb threat, and I heard about the same issue at a nearby elementary school. Now, none of these incidents resulted in injuries or death; in fact, they were false threats that were probably made by students who wanted to skip class. However, the point is that no one is really safe anywhere, which seems to be one side of the argument surrounding these issues. The actual problem on the other hand is figuring out how much truth there is to these arguments.
Gun violence is a social issue, because not only it affects the people involved directly, it also affects the society they live in by instilling fear regarding physical safety and creating a lack of trust in other people and the government. This then leads to racial profiling, prejudices and discrimination against people who "look" suspicious, which result in more violence. Another way of viewing this as a social problem is that the process of trying to eliminate gun violence raises other concerns for the people who are against gun control laws. I have heard arguments that taking away the right to bear arms may lead to governmental oppression, since public safety can be used as an excuse to limit other rights such as freedom of speech. This may not be considered relevant to the violence in schools, but think about this: Where do these juveniles get the guns from?
There are many different sides to every situation, but the theories that take positions to make sense of these social issues do not thoroughly examine them. For instance, the functionalist perspective doesn't encourage much change; the belief is that even crime serves a function, because it sets an example of what is right and what is wrong to do. On the topic of gun violence in schools, they would probably believe that the criminals realize what society expects from them; yet, they don't have the resources to fulfill these expectations, resulting in their deviant behavior. These theorists would be the ones to say that even at the safest places you can expect violence, as it was mentioned in the article, because it's just the way life is. The other extreme theory is the conflict perspective, which focuses on the power struggles between higher and lower social classes. Regarding this issue, conflict theorists would argue that our justice system and society in general do not treat the disadvantaged classes justly. Another statement that stood out for me in this article was that it's possible to determine the length of an individual's life based on where they live. That to me sounds like something a conflict theorist would say.
The functionalist and conflict theories take solid positions. While the first believes being disadvantaged is what leads to crimes, the second argues that the wealthy are treated better than the poor, which I think is what leads to the lack of opportunities and this then becomes a cycle. But, is this the main cause of violent crimes such as shootings in schools? This is when the interactionist theory comes into play, and in my opinion it is the best fit to such societal issues. This theory focuses on individuals and their daily interactions with others. Behaviors can be learned, and although there are rationales such as poverty, cultural norms, and the media's influence behind them, it always comes down to the personal experiences of individuals. Therefore, I believe that potential solutions for issues like gun violence in schools should focus on each offender individually. For instance, it is more productive to set up one on one counseling programs in schools, which would be a resource these disadvantaged students lack, than to try and change the law for the entire nation every time another shooting takes place.
Alexander M.
In my humble opinion:
Gun violence fulfills all 4 criteria for a social problem; Social damages(1), offensive to a powerful groups standards(2), persistence(3), overabundance of solutions(4).
Objective reality: There is chronic Gun Violence in the school setting with in the United states.
Hundreds of school related shootings in United States history (3) (persistence) and resulting deaths(1)(social damages). The offensive nature of this problem is evident in the creation of groups like Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Stop Handgun Violence and many more groups that are a product of this particular social issue(2). There is an over abundance of solutions is evident in the numerous bills proposed to address the problem such as H.R. 3018: Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013 (4)
Functional conflict
Causes: unintended consequences of institutions social assistance and public policy. War On Drugs,welfare, Damaged family institutions,lack of mental/emotional health infrastructure.
Welfare system creates dependence, limits upward social mobility, encourages pregnancy, in low income welfare dependent communities by mothers that are unfit to foster values, norms, skills and connections that would aid in upward mobility. Anomie is a product of this cultural circumstance and results subsequently in gun violence as a dysfunction.
Damaged family institutions lead children to seek solace in gangs in which violence is a common occurrence.
War on drugs turns an industry that would otherwise have government oversight into a black market. Controlling areas in which drugs are distributed is a large part of organized crime.
Lack of Mental health availability In education system as well as public assistance programs.
Functions of gun Violence: Draws attention and funding towards institutions addressing mental health. Provides a need for a variety of jobs. mortuary, health, law enforcement, manufacturing and scholarly jobs are all indirect products of gun violence. Draws support to select politicians. Creates programs that raise community awareness that can motivate and provide guidance to children and adults who wish to move out of any particular social class. Programs can foster leadership skills and people skills that benefits the children throughout their entire life.
Dysfunctions. Fear for safety in school setting may reduce attendance. Deaths of children that could have otherwise contributed to society as a whole.
One solution to this problem would be ending the war on drugs and releasing non violent drug offenders from prisons. Then to utilize the money that would have gone toward to prisons and law enforcement to provide better in-school mental health education(of teachers, staff and students) and resources for students in need mental/emotional health care. Mental health care accessibility is critical in addressing underlying reasons for gang membership, drug abuse and can even address things like birth control and safe sex education. Addressing gun violence via Fire arm prohibition does not address underlying causes and further more does not prevent other non firearm related acts of violence. Gun violence is not the problem but only a symptom of the underlying problems in our mental health system.
Peter P.
In response to Vazgen:
I agree with Vazgen that gun violence has long passed personal trouble and is entering the realm of social issues. I was shocked reading the article that gun violence was so common in their area that most of them in the community are no longer surprised. I also believe that it is not only the victims that are affected, but the community. I’m sure that the community is feeling a loss of security and comfort, and something should be done about it. I decided to reply on this topic, because living in Burbank, I have never really dealt with gun violence in school or any community for that matter. I was shocked reading the article, and thought I would give my opinion on the matter. This is a social problem, because I don’t think people should be fearful every day of their lives in their own neighborhood. I think people should be entitled to live in a safe neighborhood, but sadly that is not the case.
An interactionist would say that gun violence in the community is due to the type of social upbringing that is presented in Oakland. It is difficult for lower-class communities to move up the social ladder. Their poverty may be based on a culture of poverty, that being that the norms, values, and beliefs encourage and perpetuate that same lifestyle over and over again. These people are likely to pass their values to their children, and so on and so on. Crime is more likely to occur in areas of poor neighborhoods, and therefore the people who have been brought up in this “gangster lifestyle” resort to guns and violence to solve their problems.
I think that Vazgen is on point with his proposed solutions. I also think that if they want to reduce gun violence in schools and their community, the people themselves should be presented with opportunities that will help them move up the social ladder. Whether it is getting a higher education or a better paying job, they should work on improving themselves, if they want to make progress. They can work hard to support themselves until they can pull themselves out of their slump and move to a safer community. I think with the right resources and guidance that this is a possible solution. Another solution could be what they’re already working on, is keeping up with their programs on educating the students on gun violence and safety. They need to bring awareness of the danger, and hopefully one day gun violence won’t be such an issue anymore.
Nairia A.
In response to Nigel:
I agree with Nigel, this article states an obvious social problem because it affects many individuals. Gun violence in Castlemont has people living in fear, and the life expectancy in this area is ten years shorter than the average. I chose to respond to his comment because his solution to this social issue stood out to me. I do not agree that outlawing guns will solve this problem. I do believe that, “guns don’t kill people, people do.” Yes, guns may make it easier to kill, but a killer will find his/her way to kill with or without a gun. If guns were banned in areas with gangs, they would either find a way to illegally get a hold of a gun, or another way of killing. For example, a criminal could stab a person to death; no is gun needed. I think a more effective way to solve the violence issue in these areas is to focus on the youth and educate them to make better decisions. There should be more programs to encourage peace, and programs with good role models for the kids. It will take a very long time, but targeting the youth and educating them on violence will lead to a better future for these communities.
A functionalist would say that crimes are necessary in our society. It shows people right from wrong. It gives our society structure, and structure is needed in order for our society to work properly and not fall apart. Our society needs both good and bad in order for it to function. Therefore, violence in some areas are necessary to set an example for others about what is wrong.
I do absolutely agree with Anahit G.’s perspective and analyses, I think that interactionalist theory is a good way to explain sociologists’ perspective of this problem. Her brief yet meaningful and understandable blog caught my eye therefore I decided to write in respond to her post. I think gun violence is one of the most controversial topics these days but often it’s pushed aside because of political reasons. The consistent gun violence in Oakland is a public issue because it’s a threat to every individual’s life living in that neighborhood and also the surrounding neighborhoods. It’s terrifying to learn that students in some neighborhoods are not safe at schools and have to worry about their and their family’s safety instead of concentrating on their education. Conflict theory would be another great perspective to view this problem in hopes of finding a solution. Conflict theory emphasizes that society is held together by power to benefit the ones in power. The conflict is accused as a result of misunderstanding in the society based on social class, race or ethnicity. In this case the social conflict is caused by gangs fighting to remain in control. Gangs set their own set of rules in communities and they have their own unique way of punishing the ones who fail to follow those rules. The ordinary community members have no power in their neighborhoods and are being played by the big guys. I believe that the only solution to this problem is the government’s strict regulation and plans to breakdown the gang community. In order to create a safe community for society it’s critical to take control and not allow gangs to dominate by harming others. Increase in police force would help decrease the violence in theses neighborhoods and also would create a safer environment for the community; therefor many young teens would not join the gangs for protection but would lean on the government’s power to keep their neighborhoods safe from gunshots.
Fabiola B.
i agree with Desiree that we do see a lot more gun violence in neighborhoods in poverty because thats where we tend to see where gangs have formed. Gun prevention programs do not really work they just sort of advice the younger ones to be against violence. But through a Interactionist perspective gun violence in this neighbor hood in oakland occurs due to the surroundings and how the child/teen is brought up. In neighborhoods like this we see alot of gangs and these gangs start to recruit young kids and make them feel like they belong. This is when they start to assimilate to the gang life which comes with so much gun violence.
Anahid M.
In response to Nigel:
I chose to further discuss Nigel's comment since he very effectively summarized and analyzed the social problem of gun violence in schools and communities. Using the interactionist theory to analyze the issue gives an interesting perspective into the issue and its causes. I definitely agree with Nigel's argument of the social learning theory, since your surroundings and media indeed have a big influence on individuals. Stereotypes of violent rich drug dealers portrayed in movies and simply the daily exposure to violence, reinforces violent behavior in individuals. This poses a threat to society as a whole since it disrupts several layers of society. Guns and deviant behavior are usually associated with underground markets and illegal activities, which hurt the economy. Another factor, is the fear that is instilled in community members, which might lead to anxiety due to the constant fear of being shot, which in severe cases can lead to suicide, depression, jobloss and homelessness. Thus, gun violence is a persisting issue that affects society as a whole and can be considered a social problem.
While Nigel focused on the micro level, I want to take a macro level approach using conflict theory to get a broader picture. Looking within the community itself, a conflict theorist would argue that those owning guns try to keep their power within the community as the alpha male by instilling fear. Being feared gives those individuals the feeling of respect. If they are disrespected, however, they take action, which results in shootings. If we look at society as a whole, those living within minority communities are those being oppressed by the dominant culture. The powerless are not given any resources to move out of poverty into a “better life”, so many individuals turn to violence and deviant behavior since it is the only option offered to them. Meanwhile, the dominant group focuses its resources on its own community ensuring that they will continue to stay in power.
Nigel proposed the ban of guns as a solution to end gun violence. I do not believe this is a realistic solution since recent developments in politics prove that despite high rates of school shootings and homicides, the majority of Americans believe it is their constitutional right to be able to defend themselves with a gun. Additionally, the solution does not touch the root of the issue, which is the lack of opportunities for minority neighborhoods. I believe it is important to provide local schools with more funds and programs that both educate children and bring them on a path without violence. Many children within the community often do not realize there are other options for them out there. Therefore, I think there should be a greater focus on opening up more doors for children and exposing them to possible career paths, which could improve their lives and break the cycle of violence.
Vanessa M.
In response to Roxana:
I agree with Roxanna because she makes viable points. Gun violence in these lower income cities seems to be a reoccurring problem. The kids on the streets of Oakland do not fear gunshots or see them as a threat towards their own lives. That is a major problem and can create many unsafe situations. These gun shootings are also causing the young children to grow up faster and not truly enjoy a normal and proper childhood. I agree that she argues that the gangster culture is the main cause of these multiple shootings. I also concur that by adding more control and security in those areas would decline the amount of shootings that are taking place. If the law enforcement was increased then safety should increase as well. The more police on the streets will cause fear among gun holders so they will not shoot their weapons nonchalantly.It is vital for the society to feel safe in their own community. It is not appropriate for people to live in fear of their lives and their families. Choosing the interactionist perspective for this certain social issue is appropriate as well. Many people get influenced by their surroundings and can change their behaviors. The violence can be learned from either the household and even the media.
Davy P.
In response to Anahit G:
I agree with Anahit G., that gun violence has emerged from a personal problem to a major public issue and her viewpoint on the article as an interactionist helped me understand the article further. She helped me understand that the society must do something to prevent these criminals from taking more lives, otherwise they will not fear to stop and the death rate in this community will keep increasing. In my opinion, after reading this article, I imagined how it must be traumatizing living in Oakland and going to school knowing that you have a high rate of being the next victim. It damages the minds of these students that can motivate them in the future to join gangs or equip guns for self-defense, thus one of the reasons why it makes it a major public issue. Functionalist would say that this issue can provide work for social policy, advocates, and innovations. This can also be a lesson to the students to learn how to acknowledge the good and bad. I think that proposing a program as a solution to help the students deal with this issue is not enough to solve this case. Yes, the program can cure the symptoms of this community, but the disease(gun violence) still exist and it will look for a new host. The gun violence continues to affect the students and neighborhood. I think that the best solution to this problem is to increase the law enforcement in this community, to take actions to the criminals to prevent more killing and violence.
Celina A.
In response to Nigel’s comment, I completely agree with the points he brought across. This problem affects so many different types of people it cannot be identified as an individual problem, but more as a social problem. What stood out more to me from Nigel’s comment was on the solution he offered, stricter gun laws, and the comment he made of the argument “guns don’t kill people, people do.” This stood out to me the most because he is completely right if there were less guns available for people, I can almost guarantee there will be less shooting happing. Now I am not saying that the crime rates would go down, but the percentages of homicides because of gun violence will definitely drop.
Since Nigel viewed this problem from an interactionist perspective, I will take a turn and view it from a conflict perspective. I believe that a functionalist would say that the reason why there are not stricter gun laws is because there are people benefiting one way or another from guns being out. This gives police men more work, it also helps keep gun sales men in business. Going back to Nigel’s solution to this gun violence I think his solution is somewhat realistic. Making the laws on guns more strict may help with future sales of guns. But how about the people that already own a gun? Or the people that own a gun illegally? To try to take the guns from these people will take lots of time and patience. Even though I agree that this solution could work, I believe that it will be a very long process.
Post a Comment