Violence: Our Growing Knowledge
Dr. R. McVeigh
January 21, 2016
After taking this course and learning about all of the different forms of violence and reasons why it occurs, I have learned that there is no acceptable form of violence or time to use it. I can define violence best as: the physical or emotional harm caused by an agent to another agent, animal, or object. We covered a vast range of types of violence preformed in the world and one of the most controversial topics was spanking.
Spanking a child has been a form of punishment and way for parents to teach their children right from wrong for decades. Being able to spank your child is legal, in fact, a guardian, teacher, or person-in-place of a parent can also spank the child. Spanking can only be legally preformed when the guardian is in a calm state and does not hit hard enough to leave marks. Some believe that spanking is wrong and they will never spank their child, while others say that it is an effective teaching method. I understand the controversy over spanking, however, I believe that it is an effective method of teaching a child right from wrong. That being said, it should only ever be done by a parent — never a guardian, grandparent, or teacher. The parent should also be in a calm and collective state because if the parent is angry than the spanking can be seen as a reaction and that is not the point of spanking — it is not to release the parent’s frustration, it is teach the child right from wrong. Furthermore, spanking is only appropriate when the child has severely misbehaved. An example of this was preforming a violent act, saying something inappropriate that they knew they should not have said, etc. Spanking should never be preformed over relatively pointless matters such as eating a cookie after the school when the parents specifically told them to eat celery. I believe spanking is acceptable because it enforces knowledge into the child that they are responsible for their actions and that their actions were inappropriate.
Another topic that I learned a lot about was gun violence. Most of it occurs in the United States of America, however, we are all humans and we all know that guns have the potential to kill somebody. The fact that people can go to Target with a fully loaded assault riffle is astonishing. Why people feel the need for this level of protection is necessary is beyond me. They may feel like having a loaded projectile is the best way to protect themselves, but one bullet fired from the riffle can end somebodies life. These guns hold a minimum of 30 rounds in a clip, that is 30 lives taken by simply holding the trigger. If there is a need for protection as drastic as having a gun on you (and that is a big if), certainly you do not need this much ammunition on your personal as well, we are not living in the middle of a war zone. Furthermore, why do these people feel the need to own a gun for everyday protection? What is happening in that country that is so bad that their citizens are being pushed to such extremes that they feel the best way to protect themselves is with a loaded assault rifle? The Columbine shooting at a high school and the Aurora shooting at the premiere of a movie certainly come to mind when asking the citizens why the feel the need to carry guns around. These shootings do not only happen in the United States, they happen worldwide by very unstable individuals. This leaves one reoccurring question: why are guns so easy to get a hold of, especially after all the damage they have done since their invention? After taking this course, I have learned that there needs to be far more strict policies on guns so they remain out of the hands of impressionable and unstable people.
These two topics were covered at large in the course and both are acts of violence. My knowledge of the subjects expanded through the conversations in class — this allowed for several perspectives that I may not have understood before to be kept in mind when coming to personal conclusions and therefore expanding my knowledge of the subjects.