Category: Gun Control

Introduction

The right to own and use guns is considered one of the most important rights by many American citizens. The significance of this right can be seen from the fact that it is included in the Second Amendment and successive governments have continued to protect the right. However, this right has become controversial in recent decades due to the many incidents of gun related violence observed all over the United States. In response to the increase in gun related violence, the government has enacted a number of gun regulations.

These gun control regulations are meant to reduce the ease with which civilians can obtain guns. Gun control policies are based on the premise that tighter control will reduce the prevalence of weapons. In turn, this reduction will result in the decline in the violent crime carried out using firearms. This paper will set out to ascertain the impact that gun control laws have on violent crime prevalence and the number of guns available to civilians in the US.

Guns and Crime

Crime is one of the most important problems affecting modern society and governments and policy makers are constantly looking for ways to reduce crime. Among the various types of crimes, violent crime is considered the most serious and its prevalence has a negative impact on the entire society.

Guns are associated with violence since they are lethal weapons that can inflict deadly damage. Gun availability might encourage a weaker attacker to confront stronger victims. Guns also make it possible for an attacker, who would not have the courage to attack at close proximity to engage his victim from a distance.

Due to their effectiveness, guns are the weapon of choice for most criminals. Research indicates that more than 60% of the homicides in the US are carried out using firearms (Moorhouse and Brent 106). Guns are also used to carry out non-lethal crimes such as sexual assault, robbery and simple assault. Reports by the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that in the non-lethal crimes where weapons were used, 40% of the offenders used firearms (Walter 5).

Federal Regulations

Due to the significant negative impacts of firearms, the federal government has implemented some major statutes to regulate firearms. The first major Federal statute is the National Firearms Act of 1934.

This regulation was designed to limit the ability of individuals to obtain guns that were perceived to be especially lethal. The regulation controlled the types of firearms that civilians might purchase making it impossible for high caliber assault weapons to be freely traded. Walter documents that since 1934, the US government has imposed strict control on fully automatic firearms and shotguns (3).

These restrictions were tightened even further when fully automatic firearms were banned from private possession since 1986. This ensures that the law enforcement officials have a monopoly on powerful automatic weapons that can be used to cause significant damage.

The second major Federal statute implemented to regulate guns was the Gun Control Act of 1968. This regulation was meant to assist law enforcement agencies in their efforts to reduce the crime and violence attributed to firearms. The regulations imposed restrictions on the trade in small arms and imposed age restrictions on gun sales.

A major change in the GCA was made through the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. This amendment required thorough background checks to be carried out before a person could purchase a firearm. Intensive background checks are carried out to ensure that the individual who wants to purchase a firearm does not have a criminal record.

There is a waiting period that a person must endure before the gun sale is complete for the background check to be complete. Gun control laws also specify the minimum age requirement for gun possession. To further limit the number of guns available, a person is not allowed to purchase more than one firearm per month.

Effect of Gun Control and Violence

Comparisons between crime rates in areas with strict gun laws and those with more relaxed gun control laws undermine the effectiveness of gun laws. For example, there are stricter regulations of guns in urban areas than in the rural areas. As a result, there is a prevalence of guns in rural America with rural residents being more likely to own firearms than urban dwellers.

However, violent gun crime is heavily concentrated in cities while there is minimal gun violence in the rural areas despite the overrepresentation of firearms in these regions (Blocher 85). This suggests that there are other factors responsible for crime prevalence other than the presence of guns.

Decades of research have failed to provide convincing findings that gun control measures lead to a reduction in crime rates. The US stands out as the industrialized country with the highest rate of gunfire related violent crime and the largest number of guns in civilian hands. These facts have led to the wrong conclusion that gun ownership leads to crime and as such, a stricter control of gun ownership will reduce the rates of violence (Tomislav, Kovandzic and Kleck 1).

However, the evidence offered to show that gun control laws and regulations reduce the crime rate is rather weak. In one study, it was found that when gun controls were utilized, only 3 deaths per 100,000 were avoided (Moorhouse and Brent 108). This marginal benefit was not guaranteed since the studies did not consider socioeconomic factors that might affect the crime rate in a region

The supposed correlation between crime and gun availability continues to provide the greatest impetus for implementing even more restrictive gun laws in the country (Moorhouse and Brent 119). More stringent gun control measures are always demanded for following tragic incidents where the attacker uses firearms to kill many people. However, Domenech asserts that gun control policies will not prevent violent individuals from engaging in their destructive actions (25).

While guns are the most common weapon used in homicides, the rate of firearms related murder has decreased significantly since 1993 A report by the FBI states that the number of firearms-related murders and non-negligent manslaughter rate per 100,000 of the population decreased from 6.6 for 1993 to 3.2 for 2011 (4). These statistics suggest that an increase in gun availability does not necessarily contribute to gun related homicides since the number of guns in the US has increased by over 100million between 1993 and 2011.

The focus on firearms as the major cause of violence ignores the other variables that contribute to the prevalence of crime in the society. Various social and economic variables influence the prevalence of crime in a place. To increase the accuracy of the findings, any study of the relationship between firearms per capital and violent crime must consider these variables.

Crime rates are influenced by the effectiveness and efficiency of the police force in the region. Regions with similar gun control laws will have differing crime statistics depending on the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies and the judicial system in the particular region.

Some studies indicate that relaxation of certain gun control policies reduces violent crime rates. The right-to-carry laws can offer greater protection to civilians who are given the opportunity to defend themselves. These laws afford relatively greater protection to minority groups and women who are more vulnerable to criminal attacks (Trotter 26).

Reports by the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that firearms are used for self-defense purposes by a significant number of civilians (Walter 5). However, precise statistics on the number of times civilians use firearms in self-defense are not available since law enforcement officials do not collect this information.

When right-to-carry laws are implemented, there is a higher probability that a criminal will encounter an armed civilian. This increases the risk that the criminal might be injured or killed as he attempts to perpetrate a violent crime against the armed victim. This generates a significant deterrent effect, as criminals are likely to substitute confrontational crimes for non-confrontational crimes (Tomislav 2).

Effect of Gun Control on the Number of Firearms

Gun control laws have failed in their attempt to decrease the private civilian gunstock in the US. Some gun control laws effectively limit the ability of individuals to access firearms. Due to the strict background checks and age restrictions, the policies lead to differing rates of access to firearms. However, this has not led to an overall decrease in the number of guns possessed by the civilian population over the years.

The number of guns in the US has been steadily increasing over the past three decades in spite of the stringent gun control measures implemented by state and local governments. A national survey carried out by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in 1994 revealed that there were 192 million firearms owned by 44 million people (Walter 4). This meant that 35% of households in the US owned one or more firearms.

By 2000, the number of firearms had increased substantially with more households reporting to own one or more firearm. Walter documents that there were approximately 259 million guns in the US in 2000 (4). This figure increased even further with approximately 294 million firearms being possessed by civilians in the US by 2007. It is estimated that the number of guns in civilian possession is 310 million. This implies that the number of civilian gunstock in the US has almost doubled in the US since 1968.

The gun regulation policies used by many States control the number of guns released to the public by imposing strict rules during the purchase process. Only licensed dealers are allowed to trade in firearms and the eligibility of a customer must be ascertained before a purchase is made.

However, these measures fail to cause a significant decrease in the total number of guns available to Americans. To begin with, firearms are long-lived capital assets that can last for decades. Guns purchased by civilians many years ago are still functional today. Moorhouse and Brent declare, “The stock of privately owned firearms in the US is large relative to annual sales” (122).

Discussion

High crime rates have often been used as the justification for more and stricter gun control laws in the country. Moorhouse and Brent reveal that there are literally hundreds of state and local gun control statutes meant to control the availability and ownership of firearms by the general population (104).

However, research evidence does not support this causal effect between gun control and crime rates. From the research findings presented herein, it appears that gun control in its current implementation is ineffective. There is little evidence supporting the positive impact of gun control on the crime rate or the number of guns possessed by the public.

Conclusion

In spite of the charged debates on gun control, little is known about the effect of gun policy. This paper set out to highlight the effect that gun policies have on the prevalence of guns in the country and the level of crime and violence. The paper began by highlighting the relationship between guns and crime. It then highlighted some of the Federal regulations imposed to control guns.

The paper has shown that there is no support for the presumption that gun control reduces crime rates in the country. When socioeconomic and law enforcement agency efficiency factors are controlled for, there is little evidence of gun control implementations in their current form reduce violent crime rates.

While it is possible that gun control laws can have a positive effect on crime reduction, it is clear that the currently employed laws are ineffective. It would therefore be of use to determine the gun control laws that can be effective in reducing crime rates. Such laws should then be implemented in order to achieve the desirable outcome of crime reduction in the country.

Works Cited

Blocher, Joseph. “Firearm Localism.” Yale Law Journal 123.1 (2013): 82-146. Web.

Domenech, Benjamin. “The Truth about Mass Shootings and Gun Control”. Commentary 135.2 (2013): 25-29. Web.

Moorhouse, John and Brent Wanner. “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?” Cato Journal 26.1 (2006): 103-124. Web.

Tomislav, Kovandzic, Schaffer Mark and Kleck Gary. Estimating the Causal Effect of Gun Prevalence on Homicide Rates: A Local Average Treatment Effect Approach. Berlin: Institute for the Study of Labour, 2008. Print.

Trotter, Gayle. “Should Congress Pass Stronger Gun Laws?” Congressional Digest 92.3 (2013): 25-31. Web.

Walter, Brown. “Gun Control Overview.” Congressional Digest 92.3 (2013): 3-7. Web.

Introduction

Guns are the most widely used weapons today. The fact that they both cause and prevent violent crimes brings about a serious debate on how to properly regulate their ownership. It is notable that most violent crimes, especially in more developed countries, are committed using firearms. Gun control involves laws and policies aimed at regulating the selling, possession and use of firearms.

A number of people opposing gun control believe that it will only provide the criminals with an opportunity to possess guns hence living local citizens at risk (Spitzer 219). Majority of the Americans also feel that they have the right to possess firearms hence the issue of gun control will only be against their constitutional rights. Conversely, it is important to appreciate that gun control will have a greater benefit, especially to the college students who have recently experienced a spate of killings.

Importance of gun control

Considering the spate of mass killings in various learning institutions, especially in America, it is important to note that gun control will be the only viable solution to the problem. The idea that gun control will only provide the criminals with an opportunity to possess guns hence living local citizens at risk is not true. This is because criminals have possessed guns even before the introduction of gun control.

Therefore, gun control will reduce the number of criminals bearing arms. It will also reduce the rate of killings or criminal activities. America is the country which has experienced many school shootings over the last years (Valdez 126). This clearly explains why the country has been in the forefront in the fight against illegal possession of firearms. Currently, there is a debate on gun control where majority of the Americans have boldly come out in its support.

The issue of gun control should also be extended to the learning institutions where students should not be allowed to possess guns. Over the past years, there have been a number of reports about students killing each other.

Consequently, this problem would only be solved through controlling the use or possession of firearms. Those individuals who believe that it is their constitutional right to possess guns are not realistic. It is almost impossible to imagine that every individual in a society can possess one or more firearms as this will only increase the rate of criminal activities and killings.

Therefore, such claims are generally not genuine, but based largely on self- interest. Recent report by the small arms survey indicates that the majority of firearms in the world are owned by civilians both legally and illegally. The United States tops the list with private ownership as high as 88.8 %, while some countries like South Korea have about 1%. With continuous manufacture and limited destruction of the firearms, the figure is on the rise.

Gun control is aimed at improving public safety by enacting effective laws and policies. Since many developed countries believe in democracy, their governments always consider public opinion when making their decisions. However, gun control has been a highly controversial subject. The increased rate of killings in the learning institutions have been linked with high number of students currently possessing firearms.

Additionally, it has also been connected with the unrestrictive gun laws. Even though many students are still not allowed to possess guns, they are able to obtain firearms from their parents. Therefore, the issue of gun control should first be made effective on parents. A number of individuals opposing the move still believe that it is against the constitution. For instance, the Americans who oppose gun control believe that it is against the second amendment which authorizes individuals to possess and keep firearms.

It is important to note that this right should not be denied, but must also be safeguarded from abuse by criminals. This objective can only be achieved by putting viable safety measures. In fact, some proponents of gun control argue that it only gives people the right for defense, but does not explicitly give them the authority to carry concealed weapons.

Proper gun control should start with understanding the relationship between those students possessing firearms and those without firearms. This is because unarmed students are more likely to be victimized while those who are armed are likely to commit serious crimes. Arguably, increase in the rate of crime in the learning institutions will only be solved by disarming students and putting up strict rules on gun possession (Gold 197). Consequently, this will ensure that both the learning institutions and the students are safe.

According to a number of researches carried out, it is believed that most of the students illegally possess the firearms. This is because they are still considered to be immature to handle such weapons. This clearly explains why majority of the Americans are supporting gun control. Therefore, they believe that their governments should act faster by implementing strict gun control measures. Those individuals who are against gun control still argue that the mass killings in learning institutions are linked with mental problems.

For instance, they believe that those students who use guns to kill each other are not mentally upright. According to them, the issue can be addressed medically and not regulating the possession of firearms (Crooker 315). As the president of Oglethorpe University stated in response to the December 2012 Connecticut Sandy Hook Elementary School’s shooting, increasing the number of guns in campuses would endanger rather than safeguard the safety of the fraternity.

Since firearms ease execution of a crime, disagreements can easily escalate to a bloody aftermath. This is because most students at this level are quite sensitive. However, it is also important to note that most of the learning institutions are always peaceful hence many crimes are always committed outside campuses.

Very little effect will be felt in campuses after the courts shall have provided their position on the issue of gun control. Since the possession of firearms by students is not considered to be safe, college presidents should also implement laws that would regulate this vice. If the students must be allowed to possess guns, then they should keep them at home when going for their studies.

Conclusion

Conclusively, Proper gun control should start with clearly defining who should be prohibited from possessing firearms. Mentally unfit persons should be identified and taken care of, while ex- convicts and those individuals who have been dishonorably discharged from the forces should be monitored.

Additional restrictions will reduce the number of people allowed to possess guns. Moreover, concealed firearms should be limited to inside homes. The type of gun licensed should also consider public safety. A combination of these steps would greatly reduce gun violence in leaning institutions and the society as a whole.

Works Cited

Crooker, Constance E. Gun Control and Gun Rights. Westport (Conn.: Greenwood press, 2003. Print.

Gold, Susan D. Gun Control. New York: Benchmark Books, 2004. Print.

Spitzer, Robert J. Gun Control: A Documentary and Reference Guide. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2009. Print.

Valdez, Angela. Gun Control. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 2003. Internet resource.

The Virginia Tech Massacre changed the way people look at college campuses (CNN.com, 2007). It is no longer considered as a perpetually safe haven for young students who can go there and never think of anything else except classes, teachers, and classmates.

The peace of mind that parents use to have when they drop their children to school was shattered. Parents now worry what will happen to their children the moment they step out of the house to go to school. It is unthinkable to imagine that murderers are present in the campuses.

But school shootings have become a common occurrence. There is a need to stop this deadly carnage. It is time to make schools safe once again. The appropriate response is effective gun control policies in college campuses. But there are still so many loopholes because this is a nation that considers it an individual right to carry firearms. The question therefore remains: How to study the evolution of gun control policies in college campuses in order to develop more effective gun control policies in the future?

This sociological question can be answered using the principles that can be gleaned from studying the sociological theories of Max Webber. For this particular study it would be helpful if the focus is on Webber’s idea regarding the utilization of historical data in order to predict what will happen in the future.

This is a good starting point because there is a desperate need to understand the way students think and behave. This is the only way that the community, the local government in tandem with parents and school officials can create an effective gun control policy in order to prevent students from bringing guns into school premises.

Webber’s framework of understanding human behavior can be understood by studying his methods and an overview of his methods will reveal that he is a student of history. It can therefore be argued that a careful analysis of what preceded the campus shootings in the past decades will give clues on what can be done to solve this dilemma.

It is important not only to study the events that transpired in the United States but even shootings that occurred in other countries. The information will be collated and then the researchers must determine if there is a pattern that links these various incidents involving students going berserk and using handguns to kill fellow students and teachers.

|The methodology can be simple at first and can be enhanced further as data come in and researchers are able to make sense of the quality of information that they are receiving. The basic requirement is to create some sort of a database that will gather all pertinent information.

The most crucial piece of information that researchers must focus on would be the age, gender, ethnic background, religion, and economic status. The next level of information that must be gathered is the social background of the students. The researchers must take a closer look at their parents, their siblings, and the community where they lived. The next level is to probe even deeper into the shooter’s personal history and no stone must be left unturned and this means gathering information even with regards to their grandparents and relatives.

The next step is to determine the social life of the shooter. There is a need to find out who are there friends, interests, hobbies, and if they belong to a particular group. It is important to know if they have membership in a particular gang. It is also important to know if they have mental problems and what type of drugs they are using. Finally, it is imperative to find out more about their health if they are sick and if they are taking medication that has known side effects.

The next step is to determine how they were able to acquire weapons. This comes in two stages. The first stage is the physical acquisition of the weapon meaning if they bought it then what are the pertinent information related to gun purchase, easy access to handguns, and how they are able to conceal when they bring it to school. If they stole it from their parents then it must be determined the level of negligence needed for a student to steal weapons or use it without the parents ever knowing.

In this regard it is also important to find out if they belong to family of gun enthusiasts. It would be of great help if researchers are able to find out if the parents exposed their children to firearms as a sport or if they taught them about how to handle firearms for safety purposes. It is also important to know if the parents or one of the parents have membership in a gun club. The purpose of this investigation is to find out why the student is adept at handling firearms and how was he able to learn how to do it.

The next type of information that must be collated is with regards to the level of mental and emotional distress that the shooter went through before they went past the point of no return and began shooting the students and teachers. There is a need to figure out what triggered the event.

There is also a need to know the kind of assistance and help that was made available to them. If they reached out to their parents then it must be determined what kind of response was given. If they reached out to school official or fellow students then it is also imperative to figure out what was the result of that interaction – if they brushed him off or if they pointed them to specialists who can help them cope with their problem.

If at the end of the investigation the researchers are made aware of a pattern that the shooters were bullied or ridiculed by their classmates or even their teachers then there is a need to study the phenomenon of bullying in classrooms. It is important to understand how serious it was and why it has such an impact and convincing the student that there are is no other recourse but to kill.

This methodology will provide researchers needed information to predict the probability of an event happening. If Max Webber will be given the task to formulate an effective gun control policy then it is very possible that he would use the same techniques of gathering pertinent information in order for him to see the pattern of human behavior in any given area.

If these steps were applied to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University there will be several pieces of information that will be hard to miss. It will be discovered that in the state of Virginia American citizens can legally purchase firearms as long as they have proof of residency; if they can pass an immediate automated background check; answer a questionnaire; and if they are 13 years old and above (Burtinshaw, 2007, p.1).

A quick glance at these facts will suggest that it is relatively easy to purchase handguns. But there is more. If a college student from Virginia Tech desires to buy a second hand weapon at a gun show, there is no required waiting period, not even a background check (Burtinshaw, 2007, p.1). This means that the only thing needed is for a highly dysfunctional student to buy a handgun and mayhem will ensure because apparently, in Virginia it is easy to arm a madman.

In order to develop more effective gun control policies it is not enough to gather information and attempt to predict the tell-tale signs that a student or teacher is about to draw a gun and begin shooting people. It is also important to understand the institutions within the campus that can hinder or promote new policies that will come out from the sociological research.

If this principle is applied to Virginia Tech then it will be discovered that the university does not allow their students to carry firearms (Burtinshaw, 2007, p.1). Nevertheless, one former student, Seung-Hi Cho was able to carry handguns inside the campus and murdered in cold blood more than 30 people (Burtinshaw, 2007, p.1). There is a need to find out what kind of obstacles will be encountered if the university will install metal detectors. There is a need to understand how the university works.

Conclusion

The sociology principles espoused by Max Webber is a good framework to use in understanding human behavior. This is especially true when it comes to his idea that a historical approach will allow researchers to predict future behavior.

When applied to the question regarding how to improve current college gun control policies it was discovered that researchers must gather pertinent information regarding college campus shootings in recent history and collate with regards to the shooters as well as the circumstances surrounding the incident. In this way the researchers can have a fair idea on what to expect and they can in turn make suggestions on how to improve current policies.

Works Cited

Burtinshaw, Justin. College Shootings and Gun Control. Suite101. 2007. Web.

CNN.com. Massacre at Virginia Tech. 2007. CNN International. Web.

Gun control refers to proposals, policies, practice, and laws that govern use, sale, shipment, importation, production, and ownership of fire arms like guns by private citizens.

Gun control refers to limiting or restricting personal ownership of firearms, especially long guns, shot guns, automatic weapons, and hand guns. Laws and policies governing ownership of guns vary from one state to another.

For instance, in the United Kingdom, ownership is governed by strict rules whereas in the United States most of the citizens own personal guns for self-defense at their homes. Gun ownership is legal in the United States with about 40% of the population owning guns.

Despite this, legalization of guns has remained a hot debate because of its associated negative effects like accidents, which causes injuries and deaths. The issue of gun control is a debatable issue in many countries with its proponents arguing that gun ownership is dangerous whereas opponents hold that it is an effective tool for self-protection.

Gun control is an effective tool for controlling crime although like drug prohibition, no country has controlled successfully the use of guns mainly because of availability of guns in the black markets (Bijlefeld, 1997).

Reasons in Support of Gun Control

According to Bijlefeld (1997), gun control reduces suicide, homicide, and crimes related to gun use. For instance in the United States, guns use is the main cause of most of the suicidal and homicide cases.

The estimated number of children, men, and women dying annually because of gunshot wounds is 30 000 out of, which 1500 deaths are caused by accidental shooting.

Many Americans think that limitation of use and ownership of guns in the United States would reduce homicide and gun violence. Gun use is associated with series of assassinations in the United States.

For instance in 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Other violent incidents involving gun use include the 1999 Columbine High School Massacre, and the 2007 Virginia Tech Massacre. In both incidents, students, teachers were shot dead.

Gun control makes it easy for the government to manage use of fire arms. The government is in a position to tell the kind of guns used is a particular area.

This is important, especially in cases when the government wishes to recover some kinds of fire arms like assault rifles. Gun control prevents the occurrence of accidents. Children are likely to injure themselves or others when they get hold of guns and begin playing with it.

It also prevents suicidal cases. People may be tempted to shoot themselves, especially when they are emotionally, mentally, and physically stressed. This does not imply that gun owners get more depressed than other people but because suicide through the use of gun is considered quick, easy, and effective means of death.

Whether or not guns are used for used for committing a crime or self-defense lack of a murder weapon makes it hard for an individual to participate in murder. In addition, this reduces deaths of rivals and conflicting enemies.

In the United States of America, suicide is a major cause of death. In 1998, the approximated number of suicidal cases from use of guns was 17 424.This shows that an average of 50 people commits suicide daily (Bijlefeld, 1997).

Reasons against Gun Control

Opponents of gun control argue that gun ownership is an effective tool for self-defense. Possession of guns prevents homicide and gun violence.

For instance criminals take the advantage of unarmed citizens to rob them their properties because they are confident that they will not be attacked back.

If citizens are allowed to own guns, the likelihood on injuries and loss of properties to the would-be victims will be low compared to those victims who did not or defended themselves without guns.

The production and supply of guns is not prevented by gun control, but shifts the production of guns to the black market.

This is a disadvantage to law-abiding citizens who find it hard to own them because it is against the law. Criminals will break the laws, buy, and use guns to cause destruction to people (Carter, 2006).

Carter (2006) argues that guns play an important role in the sports industry. Firearms are used for sporting purposes, control of pests, hunting, and target shooting. People have the right to ownership of properties as long as they do not violate the rights of other people.

Possession of gum does not imply that an individual will use it to cause harm to other people. In the United States of America, citizens are granted the right to own weapons in the Constitution.

Possessions and use of guns is not bad. It depends on the context in which it is used. Human beings are entitled to the right of self-ownership, thus allowing them ownership weapons for self-defense.

Gun control should be banned because it violates individual’s right to self-ownership. Even if production and sell of guns is illegal, guns will still be produced and sold in the black market. This will increase the rate of crimes in the society with unarmed citizens bearing the consequences.

Citizens are likely to be threatened by oppressive governments. Considering advantages and disadvantages of gun control, gun control would be an unnecessary, unsuccessful, and immoral act (Carter, 2006).

References

Bijlefeld, M. (1997). The gun control debate: a documentary history. New York, NY: Greenwood Press

Carter, G. (2006). Gun control in the United States: a reference handbook. New York, NY: ABC-CLIO

Introduction

“Obama on Gun Control” was a speech made by President Barack Obama to address the issue of gun control after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 children and 6 adults dead as a direct result of automatic weapons fire (Paulson, 1). The wording of the speech goes directly towards the issue of gun control and how the current state of laws limiting the sale and distribution of fire arms are insufficient to address issues related to firearms ending up in the wrong hands.

Presently, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the world with well over 9,000 deaths per year on average due to firearm related deaths (i.e. murders, suicides and accidental discharges). The sheer amount of deaths has created numerous debates surrounding the accessibility of firearms within the country and how more stringent measures need to be implemented in order to address such an issue.

Unfortunately, such measures have often been stalled due to numerous pundits citing the Second Amendment and the supposed need for firearms as a method of self-defense due to most criminals being armed. The speech “Obama on Gun Control” attempts to persuade people on the basis of ethos that stricter methods of gun control need to be implemented so as to reduce the amount of violence connected to firearms.

Appeal to Ethos

The concept of ethos can be described as a form of guiding beliefs that are an inherent part of a community or nations character. It is used as guide that influences a person’s behavior to such an extent that by examining the ethos behind a culture you can determine how they will react based on a given situation.

It due to this that concepts behind any form of ethos must first be subjected to intense examination before it is shown to have been constructed under a proper ethical and moral framework. In the case of the speech “Obama on Gun Control”, it attempts to appeal to two particular aspects of the American ethos, namely: freedom and civil liberties.

The main point of the argument presented is that while American’s enjoy numerous freedoms and civil liberties as an inherent right (i.e. the right to bear arms) such rights must be tempered to a certain degree with discipline. The reason behind this is connected to the potential for abuse and how such actions could have a resoundingly negative impact on others within society.

Rhetorical Strategy Used: Appeal Utilizing Ethos

What must be understood is that Ethos can also refer to the way in which a person portrays themselves in an argument, in a sense that it is a method in which persuaders present an “image” to people that they are attempting to persuade. This particular “image” refers to a persuader’s “character” in the sense that a person is attempting to persuade another person of the righteousness of their statements based on their inherent character.

In the case of the speech “Obama on Gun Control” this takes the form of the President attempting to convince the American public of the righteousness of his cause on the basis of the image that he is portraying, namely, as an individual in power that understands the problem with gun control who has also actively attempted to resolve such an issue.

It is this argument on the basis of a projected image that is a cause for concern since basing it on a person’s knowledge and experience alone does not justify the action itself.

For example, a person may argue for the righteousness of a cause on the basis of their knowledge of the event yet this attempt at persuasion may in itself be self-serving for the person that is attempting to persuade other individuals. This can be seen in the case of the President’s speech since prior to the events at Sandy Hook there has been no solid evidence that the he has actively attempted to resolve issues related to gun violence within the U.S.

Not only that, when examining several aspects of Obama’s speech it can clearly be seen that there are thinly veiled jabs to the current Republican majority Congress who, based on his speech, have not done enough or are even unwilling to act based on the actions of special interest groups (i.e. the gun lobbyists).

In the case of the President’s use of ethos, what must be understood is that it is “artifice”, meaning that is created, manufactured, made, constructed etc.

It can be considered a type of surface image which may in fact have an entirely fictitious relationship to what is actually true. For example, a teacher could show up in class one day wearing cowboy boots, a ten gallon hat and long sleeved t-shirt with a large image of a cactus on the front, the next day he can wear an average suit and tie while the day after that he could wear a Scottish kilt, bagpipes and one of those patterned hats.

The reason I mention this is due to the fact that despite the different outfits he wears the person and the ideas that are being presented have not changed at all however what is changed is the perception of the audience regarding the idea being presented.

The same can be said for ethos wherein the method in which the idea is “packaged” drastically changes the perception of the audience towards accepting the idea itself or the validity of its statements. In the case of the speech and gun control it can be seen that when boiled down to its very essence it is merely a statement which says the following: “follow what I say when it comes to gun control”.

It is in the way that it is packaged and presented to the public that changes the perception of the public to the idea that is being presented. What the President did was appeal directly to the American public based on the fresh sympathy from the Sandy Hook incident and utilized the ethos of freedom and liberties that are tempered by discipline as the main crux of his argument.

However, what most people fail to realize was that the President did not have any true passion to address the issue of gun control prior to Sandy Hook as evidenced by his presidency that was more concerned with other issues related to health care, economic reform and various foreign policy isues. Thus, the passion and resolve showed in the speech can very likely be nothing more than a manufactured ethos meant to appeal to the public for the sake of a political victory.

Conclusion

The speech “Obama on Gun Control” attempts to persuade people on the basis of ethos that stricter methods of gun control need to be implemented so as to reduce the amount of violence connected to firearms.

Overall, the speech can be considered as resoundingly effective in that it does not state that it would impinge on freedoms nor take them away, rather, it focuses on implementing more discipline so as to avoid tragedies such as what occurred at Sandy Hook.

As it was stated earlier, ethos is not something that is inherent but rather something that has been created and manufactured with a surface image in order to fulfill a particular purpose.

It is often utilized as a method of convincing people or justifying a particular set of actions and as such it is crafted in such a way so as to be convincing, believable and thus adaptable. For example when order someone to go into battle you do not tell them that the possibility of them dying is high rather you tell them to fight for national pride, democracy, freedom etc., even though the fact of the matter is that person will most likely die.

Such a process can clearly be seen in the case of President Obama and his speech wherein his use of ethos as a means of justifying his point of view is inextricably connected to the way in which he balances the concepts of freedoms and civil liberties with the tragedy that occurred at the elementary school.

In a sense, the ethos utilized as an argumentative device by the president can be considered as a means of manipulating public perception regarding truth in such a way that it promotes a particular idea on the basis of the common good but in fact it was created in order to carry out a particular action (i.e. political victory against the Republicans).

Work Cited

Paulson, Scott. ” Obama’s speech on gun control and gun violence in America.” Examiner.com. Examiner, 13 Jan 2013. Web.

Since times immemorial, people have used weapons for protection, attack, and entertainment. Gradually, the issue of legal ownership of weapons came to the fore, and governments introduced laws restricting or even forbidding possession of weapons by average citizens. At present, there continues a heated debate on the appropriateness of firearms possession by mass population. Despite the multiple arguments for gun control, it appears reasonable to allow more freedom in gun possession to average citizens.

One reason for raising the ban on firearms possession is the necessity for change in psychological attitudes to guns. A standard stereotype of weapons in modern society is that of forbidden fruit: every ‘real guy’ dreams of having a gun as a sign of his masculinity and power.

But at the same time, perception of guns as connected with illegal criminal world keeps people from purchasing guns. Supposedly, a more relaxed and normative attitude to guns would only worsen the situation as weapons would be in unskillful hands.

Admittedly, that might cause a chaotic atmosphere around weapons, but the key to success in this case is educating people about weapons. Making society more aware of weapons capacities would prove much more efficient than putting a veil of secrecy around guns.

Another argument for allowing public access to weapons is that once in possession of a gun, individuals would feel more protected against the possible attacks on their life and property. It is often the case that people live in remote areas, or districts with high crime rate, or the police simply fail to arrive in time to protect the citizens from violent assaults. Being in possession of a gun would allow the individual to employ own capacities for self-protection.

Arguably, increase in the amount of guns carried by average population would still raise criminal activities. For a moment, it does seem possible: the more guns, the more murders; but upon logical consideration it appears that guns do not shoot by themselves, it is always people who fire those guns. Thus, if criminals are aware that citizens can protect themselves with own guns, they would not dare attack so often.

Finally, possession of weapons should be legalized in modern society since thus the desired equality in rights would be ensured. Historically, carrying firearms has been the privilege of the rich and influential, and slaves were not entitled to possess any guns. Nowadays, when humanity is concerned with observing human rights, it becomes a primary task to ensure those rights are honoured with respect to the right to self-protection as well.

Surely, guns should be in wise and skillful hands. However, this does not mean average people should be deprived of the right to self-protection. On the contrary, more awareness of weapons should be introduced to ensure a higher self-confidence and security among the citizens.

After all, gun control appears powerless for achieving a safe living environment. Making guns legal and lifting the veil of forbidenness over them secures a self-confident society where human rights are honoured at every level.

Children in the United States are considered to be endangered as more than 18,000 students under the age of 19 years are shot and killed by use of firearms each year (Lawrence & Robert, 2006). These gunshot incidents are caused by family members, strangers, and even peers. It was also noted that thousands of youths and children use guns to commit suicide.

This has even proved to be the most successful way to commit suicide compared to other means. For most families, shooting in schools has left them living with fear that their children are no longer safe in the hands of school administration.

Late last year, a student by the name Adam Lanza forced his way into an elementary school by the name Sandy Hook. Within five minutes, he had shot 154 bullets leaving 26 people dead by use of a Bushmaster 223- calibre rifle.

This left the country so devastated with so many questions being asked by the parents. This led to various demonstrations being held across the United States protesting the burn of firearm use completely.

Use of guns for perpetuating violence is not the major problem, violence among the youth is. Guns raise special attention because they are lethal and widely available to the youth thereby worsening youth violence. The major cause of injury and death is gun violence. It has caused serious communal and mental issues on youth, youngsters and even families in the society (Lawrence & Robert, 2006).

There are various factors that have contributed to gun violence in the United States especially among the youth and children. One such issue is the engagement in drug related issues among the youth. It is not only drug and substance abuse that causes gun violence among the youth in schools and societies at large.

The youth are also seen to engage in drug dealings and street drug markets. Most of these drug dealings lead to the youths forming cartels that often end up in rivalry among the groups. The youth in these groups end up buying guns from illegal gun markets to be able to control the illegal drug market.

The second factor that contributes to gun violence in the United States is the fact that guns are made available to the youth. Through the illegal gun markets, the youth are able to buy guns and used them anytime they feel threatened by the society around them (Alexander, 2003).

Even where adults own guns, they fail to put adequate measures to ensure that the youth under their care are not able to access such lethal weapons. It therefore makes it hard for schools to control such youth as the youth themselves feel like they have overpowered the community around them.

Illegal gangs in the United States are not an unfamiliar case. Each year more and more gangs are formed by the youth (Lawrence & Robert, 2006). These gangs often cause insecurity in the society as most of them, if not all, possess guns illegally. These gangs often get involved in gun fights amongst themselves leading to serious injuries and even death among the youth.

There has always been a public debate about how guns should be used appropriately in the society. The argument has concentrated on situations under which adults ought to own guns overseeing the youth (Stephens & Nelson, 2007). The supporters of gun rights insist on the appropriate usage of guns for self-protection and athletic (Holly, 2008).

They fail to propose that children and the youth should not access guns whatever the circumstance without the supervision of adults. Youth and children should be treated as a special case when it comes to law and public opinion regarding gun policy (Alexander, 2003). That way there will be a control measure put in place to ensure that there is reduction in the number of youth able to access guns that cause danger to school children and staff.

In order to address the gun violence issues in the United States, there should be strong relationship between levels of government and its branches.

This is important for the delivery and administration of education services in the United States. Ministry of education must reduce its levels of bureaucracy by delegating operational aspects that are significant to lower governmental levels such as schools. In order for government’s policies to be effective, both by design and implementation, there should be a strong relationship between levels of government and their branches. Such relation is referred to as intergovernmental relation.

In terms of intergovernmental relation aspect, there are various aspects that should be considered in order to address gun violence in schools and communities. One such aspect is the government structure. Most countries hold a unitary form of government whereby the central government makes most decisions relating to its country’s issues (Holly, 2008).

This is not a good system of administration as the government at the top does not understand the day to day situations that affect departments under it directly.

There should be a decentralised system of government to allow for decision making at schools. This encourages efficiency among schools as it inspires liberal and democratic decisions among schools. Schools will hence be able to stream line their students whenever they are found to be going astray by administering punishment and counselling whenever necessary.

In addition, the aspect of capacity that should be considered is – building and accountability standards. These standards, especially in examinations, are left in the responsibility of state to determine the average expected standards of passing an examination. These high- stake exams do not consider underinvestment in various schools by the state as it could be a major cause of underperformance by some school.

The underperformed schools could be lacking the right amounts of finances to be able to take up disciplinary measures for correcting school children. This is indeed an aspect that should be considered to be able to control the number of school dropouts and even be able to ensure that the school children and the youth are nurtured to produce well behaved persons in the society.

Moreover, the aspect of intergovernmental relations and the financing of schools should also be considered. The state should ensure that equal amount of tax money is disbursed to finance the education of children regardless of where he or lives (Stephens & Nelson, 2007).

This step coupled with decentralization will ensure that schools not only use their funds to improve students’ performance but also come up with programmes that improve the moral state of children and youth going through the education process. Schools will be able to budget effectively and be able to set aside funds for counselling students with special needs.

The finally aspect to be considered is school- linked social- services coordination. Not only children in the United States but also children all over the world are faced by a multitude of contemporary problems. Such problems include; racism, family violence, substance abuse, unaffordable and inadequate housing, sexual promiscuity and child abuse. The services needed to react to these evils are normally fragmented across a number of uncoordinated government ministries and agencies (Stephens & Nelson, 2007).

It is therefore important for states to adopt policies that ensure external agencies and schools work together to address non-academic issues experienced by children and the youth in schools. Schools should also ensure a coordinated service linked to schools to develop new expectations by introducing new actors in the education system.

One thing that generates barriers is the fact that there are professional and organizational variances among numerous government agencies and schools. Such barriers include confidentiality issues, lack of a common outlook and even communication problem.

In conclusion, gun legislation and policies must be amended in order to reduce the incidents of gun violence among the youth and children in schools. Very few gun violence prevention programs and policies involving the youth have been taken into consideration up to date (Holly, 2008).

Policy makers should be encouraged to think widely as regards to gun policy to ensure that parents and children are no longer prone to dangers associated with gun violence and therefore live without fear. Coming up with the policies is not the only issue.

The aspect of intergovernmental relation should also be taken into consideration if such policies are to remain effective in terms of implementation in the future. Without intergovernmental relation, there would be poor coordination and hence poor response in addressing the issues that affect schools and the community at large regarding gun violence among the youth and children in the society.

References

Alexander, D. (2003). Gun violence in America. New Hampshire, NH: University Press of England.

Holly, C. (2008). Gun violence: Violence and society. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Lawrence, O.J., & Robert, C. (2006). American intergovernmental relations: Foundations, perspectives, and issues. Washington, DC: CQ press.

Stephens, G.R., & Nelson, W. (2007). American intergovernmental relations: A fragmented federal polity. New York, NY: Oxford University press.

Introduction

The sale and use of guns (guns control) has become an immensely popular issue of debate among political critics on either end of the political divide. This has always been based on the argument of balancing the security as illustrated by an individual and the state. This is with respect to the privileges of an individual.

Various groups have come up with different constitutional interpretations as regards to gun ownership and just where the thin line should be drawn. The bill of human rights in the constitution has not helped make matters any better as it is immensely vague on the matter. Justice has to prevail in whatever the interpretations from the dissimilar schools of thought.

Body

The argument that possession of the guns by the civilians protects them against the tyranny of the state is frequently advanced. The state is armed through the police and the service men who risk the livelihood of the civilian in the eventuality that a state-civilian conflict arises. The law enforcement has become markedly brutal and extra judicial killings are significantly on increase.

When a police kills an inhabitant, it is claimed the civilian ran into a wander away bullet and the punishment is only a few months in the penitentiary. On the dissimilar, if a civilian kills a policeman it is regarded as man slaughter or even murder with increased penitentiary time. The police are not held answerable in such cases. Just how safe are civilians when not armed against an armed state? Social justice is indeed compromised in such cases.

The effective gun control is, however, a plus to citizens that are law compliant. Such citizens are rarely on the mistaken side of the law. The case of gun ownership is not as significant an issue as compared to the person engaging in the act. The threat of potential crime and crime related activities has been addressed by regulating individuals who own guns.

Clearly set guidelines on preventing people of questionable status and minors as a gun control measure creates a situation of state and individual balance. The bottom line lies entails citizens being law abiding, as opposed to seeking to contest the government’s efforts.

The continued procurement of guns illegally by criminals necessitates questions pertaining to fairness and equality. The government’s inability to ward off such a concept makes it essential for citizens to take up the initiative of self defense. Armed law abiding citizens are, in a formidable position, to handle criminals.

This significantly contributes to the reduction of crime rate as statistics have continually pointed to that direction. It is noteworthy that the government makes it continually difficult for an individual to purchase and own a firearm. It is so ironical that states that have banned the guns post the uppermost numbers of misdemeanor related murders as seen in Washington.

The government has undertaken to set clearly defined regulations as regards to procurement of guns. Transfer tax machines have been put in place for machine guns and short guns. This is intent on curbing the haphazard procurement of the dangerous weapons. Interstate sale of fire arms has been prohibited to enable monitoring of arms within the convenient level of the state. The ban on arms transfer to minors has helped limit their access to weapons.

The government has, however, put numerous hurdles on the way of even the most law abiding of citizens to own guns. Regulations and counter regulations do not provide a level playing ground between the administration and the civilians. The escalated prices of the guns due to lack of government subsidies has made it impossible for most Americans to own the self defense armor.

The mandatory psychiatric examination that one has to take also puts off probable gun owners. This, as a result, creates increased fears of ill motives by the administration towards the civilians. It also infringes on the constitutionally definite civil liberties of the individual.

The misuse of guns by the citizens is a cause for worry to the government. Augmented cases of suicide by authorized gun owners and murder that are not crime related then call justice to question. This may then demand more rigorous measures in gun control for the sake of fortification of one’s life and that of others.

A well synchronized militia is obligatory to the protection of the state. The militia, composed of ordinary men and women to whom the spectacle of blood and annihilation may not enthuse, is critical for a nation’s stability. An armed resident will only endeavor to use the gun for their own self protection and security.

Conclusion

The guns control subject provides an opportunity for the examination of the justice arrangement in the country. The citadel of justice has loopholes as seen in the interpretation of critical aspects of the constitution and laid down policies. The guns control measure is a noble idea but only when it is kept under restrictions. This is to prevent the side stepping of civilians privileges by the state. Both individual and state protection are basic and neither of it should be enjoyed at the expense of the other.

Nowadays, it became a commonplace practice among leftist journalists and politicians to popularize the idea that restricting gun control laws even further will necessarily lead to decline of violent crime rates. Again and again, we get to hear that the reason why guns should be banned nationwide is that ‘guns kill’.

Apparently, the perceptional simple mindedness, on the part of advocates of gun control, prevents them from realizing the conceptual fallaciousness of such their suggestion. After all, according to criminal statistics, particularly heavy frying pans, hammers, axes and kitchen knives kill even more people then privately owned guns (murders committed in the state of affect) – and yet, no sober-minded person would ever suggest that citizens should be banned from owning these items.

In this paper, we will aim to expose the advocates of strict gun control as utterly irrational individuals, who should not even be placed in position of lending their ‘valuable’ views on the subject matter. We will also aim to show that, contrary to what the majority of naïve people believe, the introduction of more and more gun control laws results in the drastic increase of violent crime rates, which is why politicians should think twice, before outlawing guns.

Let us imagine a scene – there is a dead salesperson laying on covered with blood store’s floor. Being unable to defend himself (he believed that guns are ‘evil’), he was shot in the head, during the course of an armed robbery. The police officers finally arrive, take photos of a crime-scene, place the corpse into a body-bag and take him to the morgue.

While conducting these procedures, police officers never ceased carrying guns in their holsters – and yet, they never needed to use their guns, but pens, cameras, radios, etc. The salesperson, however, could have saved his property and his life, had he owned the gun – despite being a peaceful civilian. This addresses the sheer stupidity of a statement, contained in Gopnik’s (2007) article: “There is no reason that any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun”.

Despite the fact that wackos as Gopnik believe in otherwise, there is a good reason for private citizens in democratic countries to be allowed to own and to carry guns – this is because they cannot be carrying police officers on their shoulders at all times, in order to feel secure. And, as practice shows, criminals strike exactly in time when there is no police anywhere near.

In order to prove the soundness of an idea that society will only benefit from tightening the gun control laws, people like Gopnik resort to particularly cheap emotional tricks – they mention mass shootings in schools: “In Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, a gunman killed sixteen children and a teacher at their school”.

By doing it, however, they prove their arrogance even further, as this portrays them as individuals who had never questioned themselves why mass shootings occur specifically in places swarmed with unarmed people, such as schools, malls, etc.

Why there has not been even a single incident in history of an armed maniac having stormed a shooting range, police headquarters, or the branch of American Rifle Association? This is because those armed criminals who decide in favor of committing a particularly gruesome act, such as robbery, gang-rape, mass-shooting or ‘initiation killing’, never look into being faced with victims who may put up any resistance.

It is one thing to go about committing rape, for example, while experiencing a vicious thrill due to victim’s unprotectiveness, and it is altogether another thing to go about committing rape, while experiencing a fear that the potential victim may pull out the gun and kick victimizer’s brains out.

Therefore, ‘no guns permitted’ signs, which can now be seen in the places of public gathering, are nothing but gun-magnets. Apparently, Gopnik-types are simply unable to realize this simple fact – one can only wonder why they are being allowed to write articles to credible newspapers, in the first place, instead of socializing with mind-likes in the kindergarten.

In his article, Gopnik blabbers a lot about the fact that countries with particularly restrictive gun control laws are being more secure to live in, as compared to those where law obeying citizens are assumed mature enough to own and to carry guns, as the most effective instrument of protecting their lives and the lives of their loved ones: “Nations with tight gun laws have, on the whole, less gun violence”.

It is needless to mention, of course, that Gopnik never bothers to substantiate such his claims with references to peer reviewed academic studies.

The reason for this is simple – these studies reveal an undeniable fact that it is namely Western countries (U.S. States) with most liberal gun control laws, which appear to be the safest to live in. For example, as it was pointed out by Scott (1994): “States and cities with restrictive gun laws are usually those with the most crime, and vice versa.

In 1987… Florida passed a law permitting its citizens not only to own, but to carry weapons. Despite the doom-sayers’ predictions of a bloodbath in the streets, Florida’s murder rate has fallen 80% since then” (25). Apparently, individuals as Gopnik are being endowed with irrational/infantile mentality, which partially explains author’s earlier exposed willingness to deliberately mislead readers as to the actual implications of gun control laws.

Besides being clearly unable to understand the dialectically predetermined essence of a relationship between causes and effects, these people also lack the courage to act as responsible citizens – hence, their continuous whining about guns’ ‘evilness’.

And yet, it is not guns that kill people, but those people who pull guns’ triggers. Therefore, we can only agree with Casteen (2004) when he states: “Firearms are no more inherently destructive or worthy of criminalization than alcoholic beverages, ammonium nitrate fertilizer, or the public performance of opera” (212). Therefore, if Gopnik does believes that it is morally repugnant and ‘dangerous’ to own gun, he is at liberty not to own one.

Hopefully, giving lecture about ‘moral inappropriateness of robbery’ to a robber, will allow this potential inmate of a mental asylum to get away unrobbed. Yet, he is in no position to impose his nonsensical views upon the rest of mature and responsible citizens.

We believe that the earlier provided line of argumentation fully substantiates the soundness of an idea that there can be no beneficence, whatsoever, in tightening already tight gun control laws. On the contrary – the more there will be challenges, on the way of law-obeying citizens gaining access to guns, the higher are going to be the chances for these citizens to realize the sheer extent of their defenselessness, while faced by violent criminals.

As the consequence, this will necessarily result in drastic increase of violent-crime-related rates. Therefore, only deliberately malicious or simply outright stupid individuals (such as Gopnik) may continue holding on to a belief that the introduction of more and more gun control laws ensures society’s safety.

References

Atwan, Robert & McQuade, Donald. The Writer’s Presence: A Pool of Readings. 6^th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009.

Casteen, John “Ditching the Rubric on Gun Control”. Virginia Quarterly Review 80.4 (2004): 210-221.

Gopnik, Adam “Shootings”. 2007. The New Yorker. 16 Jun. 2011. Web.

Moorhouse, John & Wanner, Brent “Does Gun Control Increase Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?”. CATO Journal 26.1(2006): 103-124.

Scott, Patrick “Gun Control Leads to More Crime, Not Less”. Alberta Report / Newsmagazine 21.133 (1994): 25-26.

Wright, James “The Demography of Gun Control”. Nation 221.6 (1975): 240-244.

Gun control in United States is a government limitation of ownership and purchase of firearms. Availability of guns is majorly controlled by different organizations through the famous disarmament debate. This paper will look at various ways of gun control, the available statistics, background checks of control of guns, ownership of guns and the measures that the United States government has taken to control spread of guns and small arms (Brochtler 436)

In the United States, the rights of people to bear and keep guns are guaranteed by the constitution.”The U.S constitution has guaranteed the rights of purchase and ownership of guns” (Brochteler). Since 1930s, law enforcement officials and federal judicial officials have held that such rights exist under the docket of the attorney general John Ashcroft.

This paper is based on recent available researched data on United States Gun control measures and policies. In a similar understanding, data usually associated with consequences of gun control laws in different geographical areas is used as evidential point of reference (Brochteler 459).

“There are different methods employed in the assessment of gun controls among which surveys are the most common and popularly used methodologies. While accuracy of the assessment outcomes is very crucial factor in the endeavor of setting gun possession and use limits, accuracy has largely been determined or influenced by individual’s knowledge or personal perspective view on the Delisier”.

The United States has however, enacted strictly licensing and other control measures, according to federal legislation (1968). The sale of riffles has been prohibited. Gun control in United States has been widely debated.

The National Riffle and Gun Association (NRGA) have notably opposed the acquisition of guns by individual people. This is strictly to the unlicensed gun holders. “Unlicensed gun holders should be prosecuted since the act is has led to increased crime rates Delisi41”.Due to the growing number of guns related crimes and citizen pressures, congressional passage (1993), of the brandy bill was passed. This bill passed a requirement of five day waiting period before a handgun purchase.

In the year 1994, crime a bill that outlawed possession, sale, and possession of military style assault weapon was set forth. Research provides that as of the year 2009, United States has a population of 307 million firearms owned by civilians and out of this; 300 millions are handgun (Delisi 33).

According to (mother 231), “Recent research resulting on gun control from U.S states are alarming especially considering the escalated levels of gun possession within the private sector”. “First and foremost, studies have shown that more than forty percent of U. S families possess a gun and More than a quarter of adults having a gun, a bout a fifth of these are handguns”( Mother 233).

Such survey evidences have led the U.S government to place stringent prohibitory laws and regulatory policies to reduce or eradicate the vices associated with the abuse of gun possessions” (Mother 234).

In the year 1980, the United States Government passed a law which prohibited residents from processing handguns. This law required that all forms of firearms under private ownership be kept unloaded and be rendered inoperable through use of disassembly or installation of trigger lock.

In the subsequent year, the United States government passed a law which required civilians to be issued with certificate from police offices in order to purchase or acquire any firearms. Thus, “to acquire this certificate; the police officer had to verify that the applicant had a good reason to acquire the same” (Delisi 152) .This certificate specified the types and quantity of fire arms in his possession.

According to Myrphy (83)”Whether legally or illegally possessed, the abuse or misuse of guns in the United States, this has forced the mainstream authorities to issue a command of gun surrender from the civilians”. In this connection, thousands of machine guns were obtained from the public, which was a clear evidence of the effects or impact of the compulsory surrender command.”

Gun law in United States has been passed to regulate the use of firearms and ammunition. However, it should be noted that this is not the only way the U.S governments are fighting against the gun possession” (Myrphy83) .But there a number of strategies and regulatory laws employed by each of the state.

Thus, the fight against gun possession and use in the U.S various with state’s autonomy among other factors. This is well exemplified by considering that some states established laws abolishing or banning weapon assaults. Legal firearms owners are subjected to the provision of firearms laws of the state. In many occasions, state firearm laws are restrictive than the federal firearms laws (Myrphy 84).

According to Myrphy (85), “the constitution of Alabama explains that each citizen has a right to posse’s arms” this is a clear manifestation that states are preempting local regulation of handguns. To ensure there is safety and sanctity in the use of handgun, legalized traders of handguns have to liaise with the U.S special investigatory agency, FBI.

Furthermore, to regulate handgun spread, the United States has postulated that licensed dealers should have a clear record of every handgun sold, this includes the signature of the purchaser and all the relevant firearms sold (Myrphy 84).

According to Ernest study on gun control,” handguns are extensively prohibited from certain specified places,” (26). These places include premises of public schools, medical agencies, and any other social gathering places”.

While we have certain areas or places with high restrictive measures, there are also those regions/ areas without restrictions especially in state where handguns are allowed with no much consideration of the negative impacts to the community.” Alabama has facilitated issuance of licenses either to unlimited or qualified applicants who must be full residents of the United States or have other proven alien reasons for issuance of hand guns”(Ernest 27).

In United States of America, particularly in Alabama, law emphasizes to issue handguns to specifically residents of the U.S. Moreover, Alabama recognizes licenses issued by any other state which honors Alabama’s license. In Arkansas, “ownership or possession of a firearm is termed illegal to any individual convicted of felony or deemed to be mentally defective or involuntarily committed to any mental institution” (Ernest 27).

Applicants in Arkansas must have undertaken a training course to equip them with adequate skills to carry firearms before been licensed to posse’s handguns. In the event of an existing license holder being detected to have any mental disparity, or arrested of felony, such a license is revoked without due regard of owners permission.

Any concealed handgun cannot be seen in a courthouse, meeting house of any government entity, tavern, among other social places. In the state of California, all firearm sales except for long guns beyond 50 years old must be sealed through licensed dealers. “All handgun serial numbers and sales must be registered through the department of Justice Automated firearms systems” (Delisi 62).

In a similar understanding, there is no requirement for individuals to license previously owned guns. Moreover, state authority places restrictions and regulatory checks for unique and powerful weapons including those which are automated and those which can be operated at very close vicinity.

According to Ernest’s analytical work on measures towards gun control in California, “gun laws are not properly set and the fight against gun possession is shaky by the fact that the prohibitory gun laws lack legal and constitutional support materials or foundations,” 326.

California laws on gun handling, explains that guns capable of being concealed must carry permits issued by their states or other recognized states. In the United States of America, it is illegal to sell any handgun which any state has already defined as assault weapon or any handgun listed in DOJ roster of prohibited firearms. In the United States of America, there has been Danvers restriction on possession and transport of handguns in vehicles (Ernest 327).

According to the statistics from the bureau of alcohol and tobacco, “issuance of handguns, one must have a concealed firearm permits”. This Wyoming permission is available only within several years. Machine guns are illegal but only if the fire arm is registered with the bureau for alcohol, tobacco, fire arms and explosives state statute (Delisi 62).

Open carry has been strongly discouraged by several gun control groups such as coalition to stop gun violence and brandy campaign. However, “the legality of open carry of guns in U.S was later reaffirmed after incidents of citizens openly carrying arms were actively discouraged by local law enforcers” (Mat 63).

A case study published by American journals of preventive medicine, mandates fully automated guns to be highly taxed to discourage people from acquiring such arms. A gun holder act of 1968 prohibits the export of the weapons to the places of a danger such as minors. This Act also required that tracking systems to determine sell and purchasers of guns should be implemented so as to monitor the movement of the guns (Delisi 62).

The United States gun debate in America started shortly November 22 I963 after the assassination of John F. Kennedy which increased the awareness of the members of public to sale and possession of firearms in America. Indeed, until 1968 short guns and ammunitions were in most cases under the counter and from main orders magazines and catalogue.

The United States of America passed a bill of rights including second amendment which necessitated the rights of people to posse’s fire arms to be infringed and gain final ratifications. “The organization of the National Rifle Association has been organized with the primary goal to improve American civilian’s war tone preparations” (Mother 457).

In the efforts to control spread of Guns in United States, congress has passed a law to ban the mailing of concealed weapons. According to the federal Firearms Acts of I938, places first emphasis on the limitation on the sale of handguns. This emphasized that the person transacting in any firearms must obtain a trading license authorizing him to undertake such business.

In the United States of America, the District of Columbia has enacted and implemented anti-gun laws, these laws discouraged transportation and misuse of handguns, as well as riffles. “There have been adequate measures to ensure that no transportation of guns to various American states “(Myrphy 23).This has created a lot of listing in order to control illegal use of handguns and other firearms.

The armed career criminal Act in its public law has increased the penalty to those illegally possessing firearms and are not qualified to posses them under Gun control Act. The United States of America in its deliberate efforts to control the spread of firearms has enacted a public law which relaxes most of the restrictions on sale of ammunition and use of any other firearms; this is in accordance to firearms Owners Protection Acts (Myrphy 37).

The enactment of Crime Control Act of the year 1990, the public law has been passed to ban importation and manufacturing of semiautomatic weapon. The existence of gun free zones has as well been established, so as to carry out the violation of firearms and misuse of guns. This law has completely banned the possession of cop killer bullets which are capable of shooting bullet proof clothing. In the state of California, the possession of semiautomatic has been completely banned following the massacre of five children on a Stockton.

In the disarmament efforts, the United States NRA has filled cases in federal courts to block the collection of information on Guns and small weapons. The use government has gone forth to file and institute legal proceedings against the gun makers who seek to recover any gun related violence. In the Los Angeles County, boards of supervisors have voted to ban the famous great Western Guns shows-the greatest gun show in Pomona.

This was because such gun show violated firearms rules and regulation. “The permanent provisions of the instant Criminal Background Check postulates that Gun dealers are required to implement presale criminal backgrounds to check and control all the gun sellers and buyers through creation of Brandy Act go into effects” (Delisi 235).

United States of America has set up policies to control the illegal market of guns, research has proofed that this market lies downstream from the legal markets. Reports have indicated that “every illegal gun in United States emerged as a legal product imported or licensed by the United States government and sold by licensed dealers” (Ernest 63).

Notably, 30-40% of handguns which are in illegally licensed have been traced back to illegal market. Thus, the key to dismantling of the gun black market is to terminate and cancel any migrations of guns from the legal domain.

America has enacted several policies on gun control to ensure that guns are availed through lawful supplies. Public opinions have indicated that the United States of America has realized and recognized a link between easy accesses of fire arms. (Ernest 63),”United States gun congress has continued to stage debate on gun efficacy, the constitutionality of federal regulations of handguns and ammunitions”. As a result, different federal laws have been set forward to promote such regulations (Ernest 63).

The United States gun control advocates have argued that they should curb access of fire arms to high risk individuals. They contented that federal measures should successfully reduce and possibly cut off the supply of guns to high risk people. Constitutional barriers have been enacted to advocate for a less comprehensive policies that would not impede ownership and legalize firearm transfers.

According to (Delisi44),”The gun control crime and moral statistics are mostly used in gun control debate; this is because statistics have revealed that quite a big number of homicides have been noticed amongst the illegal gun holders”. This has made the United States of America to sink deep to standardize and ensure implementation of gun control policies (Delisi 44).

In conclusion, information gathered from different sources and federal agencies have shown that due to the efforts of American government, death cases from gun wounds have significantly decreased in the recent years. This has been as a result allowing minimal number of people to posse’s guns.

Thus from the above discussions, The NRA restrictions to access of guns has lead to control of people in prisons because of their indulgence in crime. However, despite the measures undertaken by the United States to control, spread and possession of guns, the continent has been declared as leader in reference to the crimes committed by use guns and fire arms. This has been attributed to licensing of guns to private citizens.

Research has also provided that most of the guns in developing countries have been emanating from the United States of America.” Although a Gallop poll has indicated that Americas have favorable opinion on NRA, the position of the majority views do not match with NRA position” (Ernest90). This is evidence because the republicans have insisted that the American government should take adequate and efficient reasonable steps to keep all dangerous people always from guns and disarm all the illegal gun holders (Ernest 90).

Works Cited

Brochtler, Nelson. Spread of Firearms in Developed Countries. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Publishers, 1998. Print.

Delisi, Matt. Gun Control: Preventing Violence: New York: Prometheus Publishers. 2008, Print.

Ernest, Michael. The Great American Gun Control Debate: Michigan: Michigan Publishers. 1998, Print

Mother, Jones. The Moving Target of Gun Control in United States: London: Macmillan Publishers. 2006, Print.

Murphy, Martin, N. The Disarmament Debate:American and Global Perspectives. Amherst: Prometheus Publishers, 2011. Print.