Gun control is not an unpretentious simple issue, but a complicated one. It is rather the issue related to human rights and crime. In the United States, citizens look at gun control from different perspectives. In many ways, it is a political or racial concern, an educational problem and a matter of safety. Even though these could be very separate and vital issues, they compel American citizens to desire a new gun control legislature. On the other hand, some Americans are against the introduction of the tougher gun control policy. Their opinions concerning the issue range from extreme ones to moderate in relation to the gun control policy. In many ways, the issue of gun control basically lies on the right to maintain ones legal right to bear firearms that is guarded via the 2nd Amendment. However, Congress is currently in the process of changing these human rights.
Gun control enables an accountable civilian a privilege to possess a gun, however, at the same time reducing the use of firearms not to harm others (Halbrook). During an interview with Deputy Terry Carter, a local sheriff deputy of the East Baton Rouge Sherriff Department, he stated that an accountable resident who respects gun possession is a resident who is respectable, has no previous criminal background, cannot misuse drugs and/or alcohol, cannot be emotionally challenged or ill, cannot have been disreputably liquidated from the armed forces and has to be a legal American citizen. This basically means that the component of trust is emphasized by East Baton Rouge Sherriffs Department manual as well as Louisianas concealed law.
It is worth noting that most American citizens are not properly instructed on the appropriate ways of safely carrying guns. Therefore, this poses a big problem for the lawmakers, especially when introducing new laws. As a matter of fact, some American citizens wrongly choose to use firearms, provoking a situation which necessitates the implementation of directives. In many ways, these are individuals who need new gun control regulations to be passed or have their rights taken away for their own sake.
The government of the United States has enacted legislation that not only regulates the ownership or the use of firearms, but also restricts the rights of individuals to use or possess firearms. That is an idea that practically goes too far. By and large, some of the regulations are necessary; however, the absolute restriction of gun possession is a violation of the rights that the American nation should be guaranteed.
The Second Amendment supports the possessors of firearms stating that there has been concrete data that only ensures anything other than that, which is definitely untrue. Supporters of the firearm control were requesting for the passing of Brady Bill for almost a decade, which had a mandatory waiting period in order to make domestic gun purchases. Oddly, the bill that was passed in 1993 has done little to decrease criminal activity. As a matter of fact, there has been a steady increase in violent activities irrespective of the fact that the bill was passed.
This is a clear indication that the mandatory waiting period for gun purchases did not help the current state of affairs. This casts doubts on whether it will work today (Halbrook). The founding fathers of the country intended that its citizens would possess and utilize guns. Therefore, any type of regulation and directive in relation to human rights would be illegal, not to mention the fact that it is unconstitutional.
Advocates of gun control have faith in the Second Amendment due to the fact that it warrants solely to the militia that has the privilege to carry a gun.
According to Halbrook, militia is able bodied men organized into companies, regiments, brigades, with officers...and are required by law to attend military exercises of certain days only and are left to pursue their usual occupations. They are also regulated and subject to rules or restrictions. This indicates that the founding fathers of the United States thought it was right for the American society to own guns. A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed (Encyclopedia Britannica). Halbrook indicates that a well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not soldiers. Nevertheless, it seems like the Congress goes to great lengths to nullify the ideas of the founding fathers.
Even though the debate around the issue of gun control seems to be very heated, complicated, and emotional, it is necessary for the Americans to effectively address the problem.,The debate over gun control is not new, especially with all its constraints on the right to possess firearms that began a long time ago. In 1850, the Supreme Court in Louisiana made a ruling concerning the carrying of concealed weapons. According to it, the constitution did not grant this right. This ruling came after the earlier one was passed and protected by the Constitution. In many ways, the Dred Scott case was actually the legislation that denied freed blacks as well as salves the right to possess firearms. Many states in the South supported the fact that the blacks could not be considered as citizens since they did not have the rights of the citizens (Raskin).
The issue of gun control has been for a long time affected by political stands. This legislation actually came into practice when the Civil War came to an end. This was also the time when the thirteenth as well as the fourteenth Amendments were approved. This awful legislation was actually based on prejudice against the entire race and ought to be considered harmful to the society as a whole. Throughout the history, gun control has been a major topic in many discussions in the country.
A number of people believe that the entire society should have the right to guard their property. This makes the firearm a tool to be used in the spheres of protection of life and possessions. Just like it is with any tool, an individual needs to be responsible and taught on the effective ways of proper usage of the firearms. It is worth noting that guns do not kill people, but it is people who use the guns to perform various dangerous activities with their help..
It should also be mentioned that measures regarding gun control typically try to impact the process of buying guns at the places of their sale. This takes place between the clients and licensed merchants. The state as well as federal background checks, waiting periods, and registration are usually the parts of the same process.
Gun Control as a Potential for More Crime
The government should not enforce gun control because it is real potential for crime. For quite some time now, it has been suggested that being in possession of a gun allows would-be victims to defend themselves against the criminals (Kleck 67-72). Inasmuch as those, who are in support of gun control policy, they point to crime statistics as an indication that gun control will be beneficial to the society. The truth is that by having a gun, an individual is in a position of preventing many of these crimes (LaRosa).
Guns Do Not Provoke Murders
People who are in support of gun control claim that availability of guns provokes normal people to resort to violence and crime. However, this is far from being the truth (Mauser 8-9). While it may be true that peoples hearts are full of evil, the truth is that very few individuals can attempt to kill anyone (Mauser 8-9).
By and large, a murder is a very rare occurrence with serial murders not being typical at all. It is, therefore, unrelated to the possession of guns. In the developed world, most of those who own guns are either target shooters or hunters (Mauser 8-9). For instance, a research indicates that in Canada, two thirds of those who own guns say they do it in order to hunt.
In most cases, gun laws are meant to decrease the rate of gun crimes; however, the most important question is whether they are able to reduce criminal violence (Mauser 8-9). In this regard, since gun crime forms such a minute fraction of criminal violence, it is very misleading to use gun crime to evaluate the impact of any legislation when it comes to public safety (Carter 78-89)
It is worth noting that in other parts of the developed world, criminal activities involving guns are usually limited to a very small percentage of people. For instance, in Canada, out of about 4.5 million gun owners, only paltry 10,000 violent crimes annually involve guns (Mauser 8-9). In this regard, even if these violations were committed by citizens that previously strictly followed the law, this would still represent a minute fraction of gun owners.
The research indicates that gun control laws that end up in disarming the public have not been effective in reducing criminal violence in any of the countries where they have been enforced. In all the cases where anti-gun legislation was carried out, it has been found to be futile, costly, and often counter productive. It is, therefore, vital for the authorities to be able to do away with strict regulations regarding gun control. It will help ensure the safety of innocent citizens as well as reduce the rate of crime.
Purchase an Essay on gun control from us and get plagiarism free papers!
|Environmental Health: Air Pollution|