Therehave been heated arguments regarding the issue of gun laws in theUnited States for some time now, especially after the Connecticutincident where several people lost their lives as a result of massattack. One side of the debate features a group involved incontinuous lobbying to facilitate the process of implementing austeregun legislation, while the other side of the contention insists thatsuch regulations must not be adopted to permit free firearmpossession by the citizens of the United States. To be precise, therehas been a legal privilege for the ownership and use of guns in theUnited States in such areas as national protection against tyrannicalgovernment, safeguarding the family, sport hunting, and personalsafety. That legal acknowledgement, which is spelt out in the SecondAmendment, has been the focus of gun legislation debates, with theskeptics of firearm legislation insisting that the people’s rightsmust never be infringed through the introduction of gun controlpolicies. On the other hand, the proponents of gun laws posit that bypermitting the citizens of the United States to own guns freely,crime incidences are likely to skyrocket, with such acts as massmurders, homicides, and suicides becoming part and parcel of thecountry (Spitzer177-178).Obviously, there are some benefits of owning guns in the country, butthe notion of having the lives and safety of the citizens jeopardizedin the view of safeguarding the provisions of the Second Amendment isan utter irony this paper aims to outline reasons why there shouldbe strict gun laws in the United States. However, it starts off witha concession in which the views of the critics to gun legislation areprovided to form a background for the discussion of thejustifications in place for gun legislation needs.
Evidently,the most important grounds upon which the critics of gun laws basetheir arguments relates to the provisions of the Second Amendment ofthe constitution. The Act spells out that the citizens are at libertyto possess and use firearms in protecting the nation againsttyrannical governments, individual and family security, sports, andhunting. It goes on to clarify that such a privilege must not beinfringed, an implication that any move to bar people from possessingguns is provocative and contradicting the provision (Winkler132).Another leading reason brought forth by the skeptics of gun controlrelates to the fact that the actions of a few groups of criminalsshould not be the cause for abusing the rights acknowledged by theconstitution in preventing the citizens from owning firearms. In anycase, they argue that the justice system, which is stable in thecountry, should devise methods of preventing such crimes withoutcompromising the majority by imposing laws that deny gun ownershipand use. Furthermore, the anti-gun law lobbyists point out that gunsdon’t kill, and that it is people who initiate and commit such acts(Winkler135).In tandem with that, they explain that murder cases performed by theuse of weapons such as clubs, spears, machetes, and knives have beenreported, and no action has been taken to outlaw the possession ofsuch tools the same should apply to gun ownership! In theirsincerest of appeal, the skeptics firearm legislation recommend thepractice of moral and ethical education in instilling disciplineamong the citizens rather than taking away their dearest right to gunpossession and use, which has been in place in the country fordecades. Indeed, the arguments by the opponents of gun laws appear tobe real and meaningful. However, here are the issues why firearmlegislation should be adopted with urgency in the United States:
First,it must be noted that there is considerable bias in the way anti-gunlobbyists view the Second Amendment there is total partiality intheir judgment. To be impartial, the Act acknowledges the ownershipand utilization of firearms, but that right was allowed under theconditions of a well managed militia focused to safeguard the countryagainst tyrannical governments. In entirety, the provision should notonly be viewed from the perspective of the citizen’s liberty topossess guns, the militia part must also be considered. On thatregard, it is arguable that the concept of militia was introduced itthe 1979 to guarantee national safety, a period during which itseffectiveness and relevance was put to experimentation and fairscrutiny (Spitzer179-180).Regrettably, over time, the state government has come to terms withthe fact that the ideology of militia is unwarranted and baseless anindication that making readjustments to the Second Amendment toregulate the number of individuals owning guns would be a sound stepgiven the lack of relevance as far as the concept of militia isconcerned. If that is not taken into consideration, then all groupsof people, from the mentally challenged through to those undersubstance influence, will gain access to firearms, and that isdetrimental to the security state of the country. Lest it beforgotten, allowing people to possess guns on grounds of self-defenseis a tricky (if not sloppy) decision. What are they likely to dounder the conditions of ambush by individuals who are weaponless? Theanswer is rather obvious-shoot to kill. At this point, it isconceivable to buy the idea of making modifications to the SecondAmendment to include stern gun possession and utilization measures toincrease the security scope within the United States.
Secondly,the reality has surfaced that some practices of mass murders utilizethe legally owned guns to perpetrate such massacres as those of theConnecticut in the year 2012, where a number of school-goingchildren, 20 to be precise, lost their lives in painful shootings(Spitzer179).The simple question that arises is whether the simple hand-heldpistols could have resulted in the execution of such murders, and themost immediate answer would be negative. Only the military weaponslike the AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles are capable of bringing downmany individuals at a single scene, and from long range. With thatsaid, here is the unbearable reality: without potent gun control lawsin the United States, people will continue to acquire militaryfirearms on the basis of using them for security, sports, andhunting. An AR-15 assault rifle for hunting that would be ratherridiculous! Evidently, the country must implement legislations toregulate undue possession of firearms, or it risks experiencingseveral (and worst for that matter) cases reminiscent of whathappened in Connecticut in the future, which is unbearable to dreamof. Even if the guns are playing an important part in hunting, thenext area to address would relate to how legitimate the activity isregarding the conservation of the wild fauna. The practice isexecuted in oblivion of the fact that it is posing significant threatto the natural order of the species being hunted, especially the elkand deer (Andrésand Katherine 102).Although it can be argued that legislations are in place to guide thesex and total wild animals people can hunt per operation, it israther obvious that there is a higher probability of disregarding theprovisions. That worsens the adverse outcomes of free gun possessionas the country will not only lose human life, but also risk thepotential reduction in population of the precious wild animalspecies. Simply put, it would be more benefitting to have strict guncontrol policies than to blatantly adhere to the provisions of theSecond Amendments.
Third,there are convincing country to country evidence of the existence ofa direct interconnection concerning the prevalence of homicides andpassion of firearms. In other words, a reduction in the rate offirearm possession will in turn lead to a fall in the instances ofviolent acts. There may be a need to give a case example of theinterrelation before questions arise. In Australia, where theimplementation of gun laws occurred in the year 1996, amazingoutcomes have since been reported. Following a campaign in whichabout 650,000 firearms were confiscated and acquisition and ownershiprestricted, there has been a reduction in firearm-related homicide by59 percent and the cases of mass shootings are no longer witnessed(Squires99).It is time for the United States to emulate that example and adoptstrict gun laws so as to contain the challenges that come with freepossession such as homicides. Although the skeptics may argue thatcountries such as Switzerland and Israel report low homicideincidences with the citizens enjoying the liberty to acquire and ownguns, the experience the United States has had regarding the criminalacts involving guns is a clear indication that policies are required,and the earlier the nation responds, the better it will be for humansafety and discipline.
Fourth,it is beyond doubt that the more the country tolerates the possessionof guns, the higher the rates of suicide it will continue to witnessin the future (Andrésand Katherine 101).Realistically, suicide is a complex decision, often defined by theway it is it is an urge-of-the-instant decision! Nonetheless, instates where many people are allowed to own firearms without anyregulations, reports of suicides have been higher than areas withsome measures. The bottom line is that people who are emotionally ormentally disturbed are more likely to commit suicide if they haveaccess to firearms than if they are limited from owning suchweaponries. Although the critics posit that the majority group’srights to own guns should not be abused based on the decisions by theselected few to commit suicide, the reality that follows relates tothe ethics that human life must be protected, and that does notmatter whether it is the minority or majority category. Therefore,the only lucid way to safeguard the emotionally disturbed minoritygroup from committing suicide is to regulate gun acquisition and usethrough stern laws.
Fifth,the public views show that the idea of controlling the ownership ofguns is supported in the United States. In fact, most citizenspropose that the policymakers should consider introducing stricterlaws with respect to gun acquisition and use. Additionally, eventhose who do not support the move feel that moderate legislation isnecessary because firearms are very sensitive and life-threateningweapons that can kill from a distance (Winkler133).Having mentioned about the majority, and with the idea that thepolitical world is in an era of democracy characterized by theconsideration of the opinions of the majority, the country shouldconsider introducing gun laws as proposed by the citizens. Even theskeptics to gun legislation have acknowledged that a majority of thecitizens recommend for background checks concerning gun ownership,which is only possible if firearm legislation is implemented.
Finally,the United States reports the highest rate of firearm possession inthe entire globe, and estimates indicate that for every 100 citizens,there are 89 guns. However, countries such as Britain reports verylow ownership statistics whereby there are only 6 guns among 100citizens (Andrésand Katherine 99).Therefore, it is time for the country to reconsider controlling thepopulation of people accessing guns, or it will continue to registerhigh murder rates, which was as high as over 8,000 individuals in theyear 2011.
Evidently,the United States needs gun laws to regulate gun acquisition,ownership, and use. The country will derive a wide array of benefitsby adopting such legislations. For example, the number of people whowill engage in suicides and homicides will decrease. Moreover, theunethical incidences such as the mass shootings that resulted in theloss of 20 lives of school children in Connecticut will be managedwith the enactment of gun policies. Nevertheless, there is a pressingneed for the legal arm to structure laws for gun use in the country,and that urge must not be overwritten on the grounds of theprovisions of the Second Amendment.
Andrés,Antonio Rodríguez, and Katherine, Hempstead. "Gun control andsuicide: The impact of state firearm regulations in the UnitedStates, 1995–2004." HealthPolicy 101.1(2011): 95-103.
Spitzer,Robert J. Politicsof gun control.Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2015.
Squires,Peter. GunCulture Or Gun Control?: Firearms and Violence: Safety and Society.Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2012.
Winkler,Adam. Gunfight:the battle over the right to bear arms in America.New York, U.S.: WW Norton & Company, 2011.