Evaluation Of The Gun Control Argument

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The feeling of having that extra bit of safety attached at the hip gives that little bit of extra confidence when out and about. The right to bear arms in the USA is guaranteed by the second amendment to the Constitution (MacDonald v. City of Chicago). This is one of the fundamental rights of a citizen. Right-to-carry laws in the United States allow a person to carry legal weapons hidden even in most public places. Different states have different policies, somewhere the government is obliged to issue permission to any adequate applicant, and somewhere it may require additional checks (Rosen 20). Evaluating the theme of gun control reveals the right to store and carry legal weapons leads to a reduction in the number of willful and unintentional murders, attacks, and robberies, however, some restrictive measures are supported.

In the United States, legal weapons are practically not involved in street crimes and domestic conflicts, especially in terrorist attacks (Rosen 17). The arguments of proponents, like Rosen, of tighter gun control are diverse. It is worthy to note when people talk about the constitutional right of Americans to carry weapons freely, they lose sight of the fact that the law on the sale of firearms and their ammunition varies greatly from state to state (Rosen 20). There is, however, one general law: only people over 21 years of age, without conflict with the law and without psychological deviations can obtain the right to carry a gun. One can buy weapons only after verifying the identity of the buyer (Rosen 16).

Otherwise, one may suppose that permitting the free purchase of firearms does not always have a negative impact on public safety. A weapon does not kill; the person who possesses it kills. In turn, opponents of restrictions on the right to weapons indicate that such restrictions have little effect on the general statistics of deaths and violent crimes. The offender will always get some kind of weapon — not a gun, so a knife; anyone who wants to take one’s own life will easily find some other way. There is, however, a “convincing link between gun availability and gun suicide” (Rosen 17). A gun in the home increases the cases a person will commit suicide. Nevertheless, scientists need more data to state it because there is a factor of mental illnesses concerning suicide (Rosen). Many killings are not done with a firearm at all (Rosen 19), but with a kitchen knife or other improvised items.

There is always the likelihood that one will become a victim of an attack. Thus, one must have the right to protect oneself. It is impossible to imagine that a sane person will give up such a right. If one imagines some of the toughest rules for buying weapons in the country and it would be almost impossible for an ordinary citizen to buy a short barrel there, at the same time, the criminals have any weapon: from revolvers to light machine guns (Rosen 17). Therefore, it may happen that ordinary people cannot protect themselves from deliberately armed intruders. The right to carry a gun is an ongoing argument in preventing massacres.

Moreover, it is easier for police to solve crimes dealing with legal firearms. In such a way, people who used a gun for unknown reasons can be quickly debunked. Though, “Police officers who find a gun at a crime scene can’t always look up the owner’s name on a computer. That’s because there is no national registry — no searchable database of guns and their owners” (Rosen 17). Thus, purchase verification mechanisms are imperfect and need to be reviewed.

To conclude, many analysts and professors in the United States agree that possession of weapons by law-abiding citizens impedes many crimes. Expectedly, criminals fear armed resistance and the armed victim has more chances to defend themselves. It is important to understand that society is threatened not by the owners of legal weapons but by psychopaths, extremists, robbers, and killers. The evidence Rosen presents shows that a ban or serious restriction on the arms trade will not reduce the number of violent crimes, but rather will lead to a substantial increase in them. No one doubts the need for more thorough checks of potential buyers, closer supervision of trades along the right to own property.

Click Here To Order Now!

Related