Category: Gun Control

Gun control law has been a controversial issue in various parts of the world. The topic has remained so contentious thus creating two groups that hold different opinions on the law. That is the proponents and opponents to the law. This law is meant to control the importation, possession and use of firearms by the civilians. A close look at different nations reveals an immense variation of the gun control policy.

For example, the UK has firm restrictions on the use of firearms while the US has a flexible limit on possession and usage of guns by private citizens (Agresti and Reid). Although there have been those for gun ownership as a way of enhancing self protection, I feel that the dangers that come with widespread gun ownership is a veritable undoing. Therefore, gun control policy/law is a good idea.

A good gun control law should be under the control of the federal or central government; therefore, ensuring its inclusion in the constitution. Moreover, the law should ban any firearm possession by the citizens so that only the police and defense departments are allowed access them. A program on gun safety awareness among the public, patients and health care providers should also be launched. A continuous survey and monitoring progress on illegal acquisition of firearms among citizens should be inculcated in the law.

In the US, those advocating for gun control policy agree that it is a sensible idea since “… it would restrict every type of weapon used in America’s two worst gun tragedies over the past eight months…” (Esquivel). The December 2012 shooting of 20 school-going children together with six adults, who were at Newtown’s Sandy Hook Elementary School and the killing of 12 movie goers in Aurora Colorado are instances that support the urgent need for legislating the gun control policy worldwide.

A research by the US department of Justice and the National Research Council in 2004 concluded that gun violence was highly prevalent among household that owned firearms. Clearly, this research disclosed the relationship that exists between suicidal activities and guns ownership among the local citizens of any country.

Additionally, a research by economists Charlotta Mellander and Richard Florida revealed that gun deaths were high in states with many school dropouts as opposed to those states with high numbers of college and university graduates (Agresti and Reid). The former states do experience low economic growth, high unemployment rates and high levels of sadness.

The college graduates are the key economic movers as they are creative and innovative in wider fields. A robust economy will lower the prices of basic goods and services, thus lowering the cost of living. Factually, everybody likes to stay in a safe and peaceful environment. Evidently, all these positive occurrences are realized in states with low gun ownership; therefore, an implementation of the gun control policy world over will ensure that the economy of the globe becomes stronger than before.

Some opponents to the gun control argue that if law abiding citizens are allowed to possess firearms, crime rate will tremendously go down since criminals will not be able to differentiate between those carrying guns and those, not in possessions of firearms. Truly, those having firearms are likely to lose their dear lives in case of confrontation with armed robbers.

Their attempt to resist using guns will make the robbers shoot the victims (Merino). The guns, they claim shall only be given to citizens upon issuing a completion certificate on a training course. However, with the current technological changes, criminals can forge these certificates thereby becoming liable to access the firearms.

Such individuals will be issued with guns in the name of self-protection only to use them for terrorizing fellow citizens. On the psychological perspective, human beings have different characters and behaviors, and allowing citizens to carry firearms can lead to collusion with criminals to use the same legalized guns to rob people of their valuables. Moreover, one’s level of education and training cannot only be used to determine his/her ethical standards.

From this perspective, gun possession increases the vulnerability to violent crimes. Statistical data from the US Justice Department showed that between 1974, and 1985, around 83% of Americans were automatically victims of attempted crime in their entire lifetime. Moreover, a survey in 1997 disclosed “…35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime…” (Agresti and Reid). In fact, firearms should not be left in the hands of citizens.

On the other hand, some US citizens see guns possession as a civil right; this notion has made gun manufacturing companies supply all types of arms at affordable prices. “Prices of firearms vary enormously … as little as $100 and others retailing for thousands…” (Esquivel).

The poor who live in shanties could use these firearms for criminal activities. For instance, these criminals could even kill the Chief Executive Officers of these large firearm companies; this will be viewed as a big lose to the firm yet, they are the real cause of the lose. For that reason, good gun control criteria could help in mitigating such adverse effects.

In terms of tax revenue, the US firearm industry registered $9.5 million dollars in 2012 and further revenue from the licenses that varies between $5 and $180. However, the same country uses close to $100billion per year in handling casualties related to gun mortality and injury (Merino). This comparison shows that gun possession among citizens can slow down economic development among different nations.

Most of these crimes occur in poor urban areas, which have even recorded deaths of juveniles thus lowering the general life expectancy’s of US citizens in relation to other wealthy nations that have adopted gun control policy. Further, the cases at the courts that are related to gun possession have made the judicial systems incur extra costs. Therefore, there should be a good gun control law to avert these horrible and disturbing situations.

Although human beings should protect their lives and properties, the issuance of licensed guns will not offer complete protection. This is evidenced in a situation where people with guns are 4.45 more likely to be shot in an assault than those with no guns (Merino).

The increased suicide cases and murder rates among women at home due to intimidation from their spouses’ leaves no option but to institute a strict gun control policy. World governments should employ technology in tracking guns that are in the hands of their citizens and leave the protection of citizens in the hands of the police.

Remarkably, the police force should be well trained on modern firearm technologies in order to arrive at gunshot scenes within a short time. A society with strict gun control policy enhances security, economic growth and lowers the cost on judicial systems and health issues. Consequently, a strict gun control policy should be adopted to eliminate the vices that have been rampant in the society due to the presence of firearms.

Works Cited

Agresti, James D., and Reid K. Smith. Gun Control. Just Facts. Just Facts, 13 Sept. 2010. Web.

Esquivel, Paloma. “Colorado Gun-Control Legislation Advances.” Los Angeles Times 15 Mar. 2013: n. pag. Los Angeles Times. Web.

Merino, Faith. Ron Conway and Others to Invest In Smart Gun Technology. Vator – Voice of the Entrepreneur. N.p., 14 Mar. 2013. Web.

Tracking the buyers of bullets makes it easier to regulate guns in the United States

Guns are nothing but empty vessels without ammunition and so it would help a great deal if the authorities regulate the acquisition of bullets. Anyone who should not own a gun should also not own a bullet, but because guns last longer, outlawed criminals can possess them without suspicion.

On the other hand, the lifespan of a bullet is just one shot which makes it easier to link the shooter and the purchaser. Currently, New York has a limit of seven rounds of ammunition per magazine. In addition to this, ammo dealers who register with the state, have purchasers’ records and this enables the police to get alerts in case an individual is stocking on bullets (Henderson and Trotta 1).

Tracing the link between the shooter and the buyer requires the cooperation of the dealer. This is the path trodden by Sacramento officials who require ammunition sellers to take the fingerprints and names of their customers. They transfer this information to the police who double check it with the criminal database of the FBI.

Greg Halstead, a police detective in Sacramento, says that this practice is helping them to retrieve illegal guns from homes that he would not normally bother searching through. We can also deduce that it prevents shooting crimes from occurring because the police are able to point out illegal buyers and trace them from the fingerprints.

Captain Bill Hart of the Los Angeles Police Department seconds Greg Halstead’s argument. He says that Los Angeles has become a safer place because of the records sent by ammunition dealers, which they look through to chaff out the illegal owners. Other states therefore need to follow suit and require sellers to log their sales so that illegal buyers find no place to shop for bullets (Henderson and Trotta 1).

Engraving serial numbers on ammunition boxes can help regulate guns

A study by Glenn Pierce of Northeastern University states that a significant number of ammunition purchases are by illegal possessors. He goes on to add that engraving serial numbers on ammunition boxes would be a significant step towards the realization of gun control in the United States.

This is because serial numbers allow the police to easily trace the link between a bullet and a buyer. Moreover, he considers it as a move that would sharply reduce the bullet supply of the illegal market (Pierce 309). A 2005 California bill seeking to put this idea into law was shot down because the ammunition industry argues that it would lead them into bankruptcy. Other than that, they also think that the serial numbers are not always legible.

These arguments do not hold water because people’s lives are still at risk and there is a need for the Ammunition Coding System and the ammunition industry to come to an agreement that favors both sides and protects the general population (Koper, Woods and Roth 18).

Restricting the purchase of bullets reinforces the ban on bulk buying to effectively regulate guns in the United States

Some authorities in the United States are already making steps towards regulating guns by prohibiting the purchase of bullets in bulk. This is a good idea but not as effective as it should be.

New Jersey, for example, places a ban on bulk buying of ammunition in the hopes that it can help curb the menace of gun violence and generally regulate guns in the United States. However, a 2004 study in Jersey City concludes that the ban on large capacity magazines has a very small impact in regulating guns because criminal shootings tend to use less than five rounds.

Therefore, this ban only serves to irk the members of the National Shooting Sports Foundation who argue that they need more that 1,000 rounds of ammunition during a typical weekend trip of range shooting (Murphy 1). We need to realize that placing restrictions on bulk buying only does not prevent criminals from laying their hands on bullets.

As a matter of fact, the state should concentrate on restricting all forms of ammunition ownership if they want to zero in on the criminals and achieve gun control in the United States. By restricting the purchase of bullets, the authorities reinforce the ban on bulk buying and manage to get effective results in achieving gun control (Pierce 310).

Banning sales of ammunition via mail-order can help regulate guns in the United States

In 1968, The Gun Control Act placed a ban on the sale of bullets through mail-order and even had dealers log their sales. This was however shot down in 1986 by the implementation of The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act which generally led to the loosening of gun control (Spitzer 27).

Eliminating controls on transfers of ammunition is definitely a bad move because today we have high capacity magazines that are easily accessible over the internet. This platform allows the buyer to remain anonymous even to the seller because he does not conduct a background check of any sort (Reedy 1).

Once a criminal shooting occurs, it would be hard for the police to link the bullet to the buyer because the seller is not able to provide any substantive information about his client. It is therefore necessary to reinstate the ban on the sales of bullets via mail order to put an end to the ghost clientele and regulate guns in the United States (Lioncourt 1).

Works Cited

Henderson, Peter and Trotta, Daniel. What’s missing in U.S. gun control scramble? Bullets. 2013. Web.

Koper, Christopher, Woods, Daniel and Roth, Jeffrey. An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and. Philadelphia: Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, 2004. Print.

Lioncourt, Nicholas De. 11 Facts About Guns. 2012. Web.

Murphy, Tim. Gun Enthusiasts’ Hot New Idea: You Can’t Regulate Guns We Make In-State. 2013. Web.

Pierce, Glenn. “The Criminal Purchase of Firearm Ammunition.” Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment (2006): 308-310. Print.

Reedy, Daniel. Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers. 2003. Web.

Spitzer, Robert. The Politics of Gun Control. New York: Chatham House Publishers, 1995. Print.

The US Government is the main authority in providing the necessary laws and policies in order to regulate all the spheres of the public’s life in the country. The leadership of the government is realized in its ability to create the safe environment for the public where laws and policies have the real power. The problem is in the fact that definite laws can be discussed as threatening for people because of their controversial character.

Thus, according to the principles of the democratic society, the US population has the right to protect their life and property with the help of guns. From this point, the right to own guns can be considered as the accentuation of the Americans’ civil liberties. However, there is the other side of the issue. Nowadays, gun assaults become typical for the American society, and the situation requires its immediate regulation with references to the government’s leadership.

If the question of gun control policies was not actively discussed several years ago, today the situation is quite opposite, and the first attempts to control gun violence are observed. Thus, the task of the government is not only to provide laws and policies to follow the democratic principles but also to focus on the public’s security and citizens’ right to live which can be violated with references to the ineffective gun control laws.

Laws and policies often require their further improvement in order to respond to all the aspects of the definite social situation. The concentration of the US government on changing and improving the gun control policies is caused by the challenging tendency of increasing a number of tragic events associated with gun assaults and teenagers’ violence.

It is important to note that the incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, was not unique, but the number of the similar incidents became unusually high during the last decade. Lawrence and Birkland are studying the tendency during several years. In their research, the authors refer to the situation of 1999. Thus, “in April 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado shot and killed 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves” (Lawrence and Birkland 1193).

The incident in Colorado shocked the American public. In more than ten years, the number of victims and the frequency of similar incidents are higher, and this tendency should be changed with the help of improving the government’s approach to controlling the usage of guns by citizens.

The US citizens have the right to purchase guns to protect themselves. This right is debatable because of many negative consequences which are not regulated with the help of the law or certain restricting measures. According to Stell, “gun assaults are 5-7 times more likely to result in death than non-guns assaults … 70% of American homicides are committed with guns” (Stell 38). Thus, “carefully-crafted, well-enforced firearms control policies can contribute to marginal reductions in criminal violence” (Stell 38).

That is why, the authorities should pay much attention to regulating the situation and preventing the development of the tendency. From this point, the US government is obliged to provide restrictions in order to control the gun violence. Mass shootings at schools can be discussed as the evidence to support the debates on the necessity of the restricting laws and measures to cope with the issue of gun violence, and teenagers’ violence particularly.

The US policies are traditionally developed with references to the principles of the democratic society. Nevertheless, the accentuation of some freedoms and rights should be balanced avoiding the violation of the other citizens’ liberties.

Effective gun control laws are necessary to prevent such situations when twenty innocent children become the victims of the ineffective law and the lack of necessary regulations. Thus, the debates on the development of the gun control laws have a long history. However, the first steps to restrict gun violence with the help of the concrete actions were made only in January, 2013.

Several states reacted to the situation in Newtown with providing the restricting measures to the gun policies and laws. Thus, Andrew Cuomo, the Governor in New York, was the first governor to sign the restricting law on gun control. The new law is focused on the definition of “what is considered an assault weapon and reduces the permissible size of gun magazines to 7 rounds, from 10”, and this law also emphasizes provisions “to better keep firearms away from mentally ill people” (Kaplan).

The above-mentioned details can be discussed as important to regulate the current situation and to overcome the problem of gun violence. It is important to pay attention to the fact that the rate of mass shootings is based on the public’s access to guns directly, and any restricting laws and gun control measures can be effective to change the negative tendency.

The first restricting law signed in New York is the first attempt to prevent the mass shootings and incidents at schools in the future. The effective legitimate steps are necessary to provide the secure environment for the US citizens without violating their civil freedoms and rights. From this point, the US government’s task is to continue to improve the laws on gun control in order to decrease the rate of homicides and teenagers’ violent attacks.

Works Cited

Kaplan, Thomas. Sweeping Limits on Guns Become Law in New York. 2013. Web.

Lawrence, Regina, and Thomas Birkland. “Guns, Hollywood, and School Safety: Defining the School-Shooting Problem Across Public Arenas”. Social Science Quarterly 85.5 (2004): 1193-1207. Print.

Stell, Lance. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32.1 (2004): 38-46. Print.

The issue of gun control, more specifically whether people should be given leniency or be subject to strict laws, is one of modern times and has received a lot of attention.

From one perspective, people want to have full control of their safety and their property but at the same time, easy access to firearms could create more problems than solve. Even though change is inevitable and people are starting to possess guns and push for allowances, it is better to slow the process down as much as possible, so that people can get used to and deal with more important issues at hand.

Since the beginning of human history, people would always carry some sort of protective weapon. Spears, swords, projectile weapons and other devices would be used against the human enemy or to avoid animal attacks. Wars were commonplace in the older days, so it is understandable that people were more eager to fight and resort to violence.

The modern days have seen a lot of evolution of the human mind and understanding of the surrounding world. The government has provided organized protection of citizens in the form of army, police services and other protective organizations. It is a fact that there are places in the world that are torn apart by wars and violent conflict where people are used to carrying weapons for protection.

A much different case can be seen in the United States because peace is the end result of any civilization and human evolution. Only peace can allow for further development of people’s mind and soul whereas war, can only delay, set back or completely destroy life. It would be unwise to deny that people need protection even in the time of peace. Police and protective services cannot constantly and simultaneously be everywhere at once, so sometimes people have to fight for their life or avoidance of harm.

Examples of this are robberies, assaults and other crimes that are dominant in the modern age. It is possible to assume that if people are allowed to carry guns for protection, the world will become safer but it also means that criminals will have guns as well. All gun possession today by the criminal world is illegal and prohibited, so it is somewhat harder to get, comparing to full permission by the government. Also, if both victims and criminals carry guns, it will almost certainly be unavoidable for a gun fight to break out.

But, if there is a ban on carrying a concealed weapon, then people will have a higher chance to survive with non-fatal wounds. Of course, the extreme cases will always exist and there will always be people who will not need weapons to be violent but it is still better to have a higher chance of survival. As always, there are compromises, such as non-lethal weapons—tasers, pepper spray, martial arts, protective armor, batons and many other possible solutions.

An article titled “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?” confirms the view that the more gun control there is, the less guns there will be available for usage. If the government applies strict laws and penalties, there will be limited access, availability and incline to use weapons.

There is a rather valid point about not only the existence of laws and regulations but also the ability of the jurisdictions and services to enforce these policies. A question of whom and how the appropriate level of gun control will be decided is another issue. Many angles will have to be considered when enforcing and making policies related to gun control.

There would have to be companies and organizations that will register the firearms. These must be government controlled because private firms can make their own regulations, even to a slightest degree. If the laws are centralized by the federal government, the private companies would have to adhere to the policies, so uniformity will be guaranteed.

There would have to be training courses on the usage and safety procedures with the weapons. The sale of firearms will be controlled through background checks, limitations in the number of guns purchased within a certain period of time, as well as thorough registration of the individual product (Moorhouse and Wanner 2006). In any case, it is clear that there will be many things that will change, either the laws become stricter to control prohibition or more permissive regarding firearms.

An article “The Great Gun Control War of the Twentieth Century – and Its Lessons for Gun Laws Today” examines the historical perspective, going back to the 1920s. Since the very beginning, there were two extreme sides, one argued that there must be a total prohibition of guns for self defense and very limited allowance for sports usage, and the other side was completely permissive. Almost from the start, the NRA (National Rifle Association) was involved in the mater on the political level.

After the Second World War, the training that people received because of NRA was appreciated, as it became useful during wartime and the period when there was an increase in the mobilization of forces. On many occasions during the American history there were riots and violent outbreaks of protestors that were accompanied by deaths due to the availability of guns and a large portion of the population was becoming outraged (Kopel 2012).

Either way the issue of guns is analyzed, it is clear that the higher the availability and permission to possess firearms, the more chances there are that someone will use weapons. Even though people argue that it should be allowed for protection of the individuals and their property, there are many other ways that people can feel safe, through governmental policies, laws and simply a careful and organized living.

A philosophical and moral view is illustrated in an article “Ditching the Rubric on Gun Control: Notes from an American Moderate”. The existence of the argument between those people who want guns in their hand and those who want them far away and destroyed, describes the fight between good and evil.

Humanity has created weapons for protection but the qualities that are given to the advancement of these weapons are directed towards mass destruction. The ingenuity of humans must be used for positive evolution but the opposite happens. The existence of machine guns, automatic weapons, bombs and the like is made to kill large amount of people with easiness and efficiency.

This says a lot about the purpose of the weapon, as it has got far away from self defense, to mass murder. A seemingly outrageous and inherently evil point is mentioned that these handguns and automatics were made for the purpose to exterminate people. White population would target minorities, minorities would target each other and so, all unwanted criminals will be naturally got rid of (Casteen 2004).

The scary nature of this supposition is very real, as there are many examples when these weapons were used for this specific purpose. Even though it is impossible to prove or trace back the true reasons for the creation of these high capacity weapons, it is hard to deny the usage and evidence that exists today. An article titled “Mcdonald V. Chicago: Which Standard of Scrutiny Should Apply to Gun Control Laws?” raises the specific laws and allowance in relation to guns being used by different “types” of people.

It notes a perspective that even criminals and those involved in drug trafficking or other prohibited activities might really need to carry weapons for protection. Even though they are breaking the law, the nature of their living conditions seems to “allow” them more rights to protect themselves. This is a very farfetched view and will most likely have minimal support.

The article also mentions that in case handguns become allowed with a permission to carry without concealment, it would lead to gang members carrying their weapons openly. As a consequence, this law would negate the right of authorities to search or “frisk” these individuals. As a result, there will be even less control of possession of firearms or other illegal items (Rosenthal and Malcolm 2011).

The inevitable nature of people getting more rights and freedoms suggests that restrictions on firearms will be lessened. This knowledge should be enough to make people and governments realize that laws prohibiting weapon usage should be increased and enforced through even stricter regulations. Guns should not be a part of any civilization, as there is only one result—self-destruction.

Works Cited

Casteen, John. “Ditching the Rubric on Gun Control: Notes from an American Moderate”. The Virginia Quarterly Review, 80.4 (2004): n. pag. Web.11 June 2013.

Kopel, David. “The Great Gun Control War of the Twentieth Century – and Its Lessons for Gun Laws Today”. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 39.5 (2012): n. pag. Web.11 June 2013.

Moorhouse, John and Brent Wanner. “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?” The Cato Journal, 26.1(2006): n. pag. Web.11 June 2013.

Rosenthal, Lawrence and Joyce Malcolm. “Mcdonald V. Chicago: Which Standard Of Scrutiny Should Apply To Gun Control Laws?” Northwestern University Law Review, 105.1 (2011): n. pag. Web.11 June 2013.

Introduction

The debate about gun control and limitation in America recently took a sharp turn when the U.S. president attempted to push for the legislation of a more restrictive firearm law without success.

The failure to enact legislation for more restrictive gun laws present more challenges. It means that dangerous gun owners may still endanger the lives of Americans. The recent violence and unselective killing of American citizens may probably continue.

Advocacy for or against gun control in the country has divided Americans in terms of thoughts. The supporters of gun limitation are concerned about escalating cases of violence associated with firearms. For example, the inhumane killing of “twenty children and seven staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School” by one America gun owner was a traumatizing experience (The White House).

However, opponents of gun limitation and control appear untroubled by such occurrences. Instead, their concern normally relates to the notion that gun control can deny them their constitutional rights pertaining to self-defense. This paper presents the concerns of both proponents and opponents of gun control.

Arguments against Gun Control and Limitation

The opponents of gun control and limitation normally argue that the Second Amendment explicitly offer them an opportunity to own firearms. Particularly, they own firearms for self-protection against criminals and a tyrannical government (Gischler 7). The interpretation of Second Amendment is still work in progress towards attaining a consensus. However, there is no consensus about the interpretation of the clause.

Opponents of gun control believe that the Second Amendment aimed at protecting Americans against a government that intends to take away their rights to own guns (Gischler 7). The opponents seek to continue enjoying their gun ownership rights because the constitution provides for the regulated militia. They argue that it was the intention of the Second Amendment to keep the firearms and contribute to the promotion of security (Gold18).

Opponents of gun regulation have also suggested that controlling firearm ownership and use usurps the rights of law abiding Americans. They have presented strong cases regarding the notion that gun limitation present more challenges associated with unnecessary stringent laws (Gold19).

In addition, the Americans observe that they do not need more regulations because they are already adhering to the minimum laws on gun ownership. The people who use guns for recreation and leisure activities also fear that gun control and limitation initiatives might take away their rights for such engagements (Crooker 45).

Finally, the opponents reject gun control and limitation initiatives because they are highly ineffective. They criticize gun control for failing to stop or reduce firearm violence. The Chicago State has featured extensively in the opponents arguments seeking to show the ineffectiveness of the original gun control legislations (Tushnet 6).

Their main argument has revolved around the statistics that emerged indicating that in a single year five hundred people died because of gun violence and gun wounds in Chicago. For them, the control and limitation initiatives aimed at regulating firearm ownership and use cannot generate positive results (Goss 117).

They also observe that guns are not responsible for killing people. Instead, people are responsible for the death of others. People who are killers can murder others using any weapon and guns. Therefore, they declare that targeting guns through legislations indicates mischief.

Arguments for Gun Control and Limitation

The proponents of gun control and limitation have advanced different arguments in support of such initiatives. The supporters argue that Americans should collaborate in efforts aimed at reducing or stopping unnecessary murder cases similar to the killings that occurred recently (Gold18). The recent firearm violence and haphazard killing of innocent Americans should be brought under control through legislating more restrictive gun laws to control ownership and use of the deadly weapons (The White House).

Furthermore, the proponents suggest that gun limitation is crucial to reducing homicide cases in the country. Therefore, gun control and limitation is simply concerned with ensuring that dangerous people do not access guns (Gischler 7). The proponents have also promised that gun control initiatives are not focused on taking away the rights of Americans to own and use firearms.

The proponents also argue that gun limitation initiatives seek to offer law enforcement departments more tools to check and prosecute shotgun violence (The White House).

The apparatus that gun control and limitation intend to apply include the integration of background checks on all activities associated with gun sales or exchange among individuals. Background checks are crucial to ensuring that dangerous Americans do not access firearms (Magoon 55). Gun control initiatives seek to close firearm loopholes particularly to dangerous Americans interested in purchasing guns.

Furthermore, gun control is not about taking away the rights of Americans to own and use guns. The initiatives aim at ensuring that people do not own stronger attack rifles (Magoon 54). The strong weapons include assault firearms that can kill many people at a go. Gun control also seeks to allow government agencies to conduct robust research into the key issues that cause deaths associated with firearms and suggest appropriate ways of averting further killings (The White House).

Works Cited

Crooker, Constance E. Historic Guide to Gun Control. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003. Print.

Gischler, Katrin. Why Has Gun Control Become Such a Contentious Issue in American Politics? München: GRIN Verlag GmbH, 2007. Print.

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

Goss, Kristin A. Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print.

Magoon, Kekla. Gun Control. Edina, Minn: ABDO Pub, 2008. Print.

The White House. Now is the time to do something about gun violence. 2013. Web.

Tushnet, Mark. Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle Over Guns. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

Introduction

The current violent acts and indiscriminate killings of Americans have shocked the nation and left many people traumatized. The country has suffered because of dangerous individuals who use firearms to commit horrendous acts of violence. There is the need to regulate gun ownership and use in the country.

Proponents of gun laws are concerned that public safety is increasingly diminishing. An instance of this is manifested in the escalating firearm related crimes. On the contrary, the opponents of gun laws are concerned that more restrictive regulations take away their rights for self-defense.

Individuals who use firearms for recreational purposes have also protested against the proposed gun laws. Much as the opponents of firearm regulations have raised strong arguments for the need to continue owning guns, this paper states that the dangerous individuals should be stopped from handling guns in order to stop the unnecessary loss of lives associated with gun violence shows the need to have a more restrictive gun laws.

Arguments for or against Gun Laws

Americans are divided over the proposal to enact a more restrictive gun laws. Many people have challenged the proposal to legislate stringent firearm regulations. The opponents have argued that Americans must defend themselves against criminals.

They have argued that allowing augmented firearm possession and use for self-protection is the most effective approach to control firearm violence and murder (The White House, 2013). However, the opponents should appreciate that more restrictive gun laws does not take away their self-defense rights. The proposed gun regulations only seek to give law enforcement agencies more apparatus to avert and prosecute firearm violence.

The opponents of gun laws also argue that the Second Amendment expressly allow individuals to own guns for protection purposes. They suggest that an attempt by the government to institute a new legislation on more restrictive firearm use shall take away their civil rights.

They believe that the government shall have acted in a tyrannical manner by restricting their liberty to own firearms. However, it appears that opponents of the restrictive gun regulations do not understand the proposals made proponents of the new gun laws (The White House, 2013). The proposals for restrictive gun laws seek to integrate background checks for firearms sales. This can stop potentially dangerous people from accessing firearms.

The proponents of new gun laws propose to seal gun show loopholes. Promoting more stringent background checks is crucial to shutting all the loopholes (Peters, 2013). Background checks apply to people interested in purchasing firearms. Furthermore, the proposed regulations seek to institute a stronger ban on attack weapons (The White House, 2013).

This seeks to prohibit ownership of dangerous firearms that can kill many people in a short time. The proposals also suggest a robust research on the notable causes of firearm violence in America. The research does not amount to advocacy.

It is a way of generating information on how the government can provide more protection to Americans particularly concerning firearm ownership (The White House, 2013). The new proposal also seeks to make American schools safe by employing more resource personnel to promote emergency response in case of future attacks. Evidently, the proposals have no effect on the rights of Americans to own firearms. Therefore, Americans ought to support the proposed gun laws.

Conclusion

In summary, the recent wave of gun violence in America has affected many families. Opponents have cited diverse reasons for rejecting laws that are more restrictive. However, the proposals advanced by proponents do not present radical effects on the rights of Americans to own guns.

References

The White House. (2013). Now is the Time to do something about Gun Violence. Web.

Peters, J. (2013). Senators Quietly Seeking New Path on Gun Control. The New York Times. Web.

Introduction

Canada’s firearm registry has been there for a along period of time. The later amendments in firearm registry in Canada entailed the requirement of long-gun registry introduced in 1995. Since its introduction, the firearm registry had been faced with numerous political issues. The issues arise due to the high costs that are associated with the process and also the diverse philosophy among Canadian political parties concerning gun registry.

The introduction of the Possession and Acquisition License brought many changes on the procedures that control how people in Canada own and use firearms. The act was aimed at regulating possession and usage of firearms in Canada in order to guarantee the safety and peace for all. The strategy introduced by the federal government was a good step in trying to reduce firearms violence in Canada, but unfortunately the system had failed to reduce gun violence at a reasonable cost.

History of gun Control in Canada

The Canada federal government had instituted gun control legislations for over 100 years. The criminal violators of the gun control legislations had been prosecuted through the Canadian criminal legal mechanism. In 1800s the Canadian federal government imposed certain limitations relating to how Canadians were expected to handle firearms.

During this era the Canadian residents were at liberty to carry or sell firearms. In 1892 the Canadian federal government introduced the first permit that required Canadians to have a certificate that allowed them to have a pistol outside their workplaces or homes.

Those people that violated this law were penalized a small fine. In 1913 this law was changed and people were required to apply for a permit to allow them to buy small firearms. Those who violated this law were sentenced to a maximum of three months imprisonment. In 1920 the firearm control legislation was further strengthened and it then required all people residing in Canada to have a permit to allow them possessed any firearm.

In 1921 the Canadian federal government loosened its stand and changed the firearm control legislation. The act then required all foreigners to have a permit to possess any firearm and the Canadians residents to have only a permit to carry a small gun outside their homes or workplaces.

In 1930 the Canadian federal government tightened its firearms control legislation and required all those people that were involved in selling firearms to have a permit. In 1951 the Canadian government introduced a single small-arm registry that was controlled by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mount Police (CRCMP). In 1969 the Canadian federal government came up with a new system that regulated certain weapons.

There were those weapons that were categorized as prohibited. These included certain weapons that Canadians were not permitted to own. They included those weapons with silencers. The second class was the regulated weapons. These included those weapons that could be legally possessed by Canadians, but under certain restrictions. People were required to get licenses in order for them to buy these firearms.

The federal government passed the firearm act that resulted to the replacement of the Firearm Acquisition Certificate with a new licensing mechanism that is referred as Possession and Acquisition License. This license required a license to possess and use a firearm. The act also required registration of all firearms. The enacting of the law resulted to the formation of Canada Firearm Centre that was meant to foresee the implementation of the program. The body was mandated with the tasks of registering all firearms.

After the registration of firearms, the information is inputted into an electronic database that is referred as Canadian Firearm Information system. This system synchronizes specific firearms with their owners. This enables police to query and access specific firearm details in real time in order to trace the owner of firearms located in crimes (RCMP Canadian Firearms Program evaluation, 2010).

High Cost Associated the Gun Registry

Since its introduction in 1995, the long-gun registry had been faced with numerous oppositions from various parties. Many factions have criticized its inception because of the high costs that are associated with its running. The Liberal government that introduced this legislation had approximated that the program would run on a budget of about $ 119 million.

They had anticipated that a great part of the fund could be raised from the registration fees. The body had instituted various fees for possessing various weapons. For instance, the cost fee for carrying restricted firearms is $ 80 and $ 60 for non restricted firearms which is renewed after every five years.

In 2002, a review by the Auditor General Canada showed that the cost of running the program was over $ 1 billion. The registration fees were noted to account for only $ 140 million. By 2004, the cost of running the program had doubled from $ 1 billion to $ 2 billion. The taxpayers were initially anticipated to pay only $ 2 million to run the project while the remaining portion was supposed to be raised from the registrations fees.

Initially the Department of justice had reported to the parliament that only $ 119 million was required to run the project. The department had reported that the registration fees could reach $ 11 million while the taxpayers were supposed to foot out the remainder which translated to $ 2 million. In 2004/05 the cost of running the program was estimated to go over $ 2 billion. A part of the estimated $ 2 billion expenses were meant to cater for computer systems that were supposed to track registered guns.

Other expenses were meant to cater for refunds for those people that registered their guns plus more other unaccounted costs that were to be involved as legal fees during court challenges ( Makarenko , 2010). To make the matters worse the system was still noted to contain many errors, despite the high costs that were involved in running this project.

The program was characterized by numerous incorrect or incomplete entries that made the system less effective. Surprisingly, the RCMP in 2002 announced that it does not trust data in the system. The program is currently costing the taxpayers a lot more than it was initially budgeted for.

Therefore the federal government should accept the failure of the project and do away with it since it is consuming a lot of taxpayers’ money and is not yet very effective in curtailing criminal violence (Mauser, 2007). The Canadian firearm program released a message that explained the reasons for the rising costs associated with the implementation of the project. The management complained that the rising costs were being triggered by backlog in registrations, fee waivers for early application and high errors rates in applications.

The Canadian firearm program also blamed the difficulty in tracking down license fees due to computer failures in processing the application as a major factor behind the high rise in the costs. The report released on 2002 by the Auditor-General of Canada showed that the project was running much more above its initial budget. The body also linked the problem of the program to initial strategic and management failures (Facts and Figures, 2011).

Gun registry Does not achieve its Goals

Majority of Canadian supports tough licensing requirements in the process of possessing and use of firearms. Most of Canadian never wholly supports the registration of guns and especially the long-barreled firearms. They only support then when they are done in order to stop poaching (Manore &Dale, 2007).Many people argue that gun registry is not necessary since criminals do not register their weapons making the whole exercise meaningless.

Statistics show that majority of those people that are involved in firearms violence are young people who engage in robbery (Two-in-Five Canadians Would Scrap Long Gun Registry, 2011). The reports from the department of firearm registry indicates only the firearms registered or licenses issued, but do not show how these activities have helped to minimize public injuries or deaths .

Surprisingly there has been a current increase in homicide cases in Toronto, but the law registering firearms has not managed to uncover these crimes or solve them. Therefore the program of firearm registry should be scarped off and then the government looks for better mechanism to contain the problem (Canadian Firearms Program, 2011).

Similarly, many people argue against the licensing of firearms and especially the long-barreled firearms because majority of those people that are penalized are gun owners who are law-abiding citizens.

Instead of supporting gun registry, the government should opt for alternative means of combating criminal violence such as introducing a strict gun licensing procedures that entail a thorough check up of one’s background before being allowed to possess a gun (Service CanWest News, 2011). The government should also make sure that they put into place very tough sentences on those people that use firearms for criminal violence.

The government should also ensure that they put appropriate measures to stop illegal smuggling of firearms in Canada. If the federal government implements these measures, then the Canada government should not have to retain the current gun registry that is becoming very expensive for Canadian taxpayers to support. The government should instead channel that money to other sectors takings such as health or education (The next phase of Canada’s Economic Action Plan, 2011).

The failure of the Canadian government to institute the right measures that can adequately address the misuse of firearms for crime violence is the one that is making the Canadian taxpayers struggle to finance ineffective program that is very expensive and achieves very little results (Canadian attitudes toward gun control, 2007).

Conclusion

Firearm regulation in Canada is an issue that has been there for a very long period. The Canadian government had instituted various legislations to control the possession and use of firearms in diverse circumstances. The Canadian government had implemented these restrictions in order to guarantee the safety of all Canadians.

Among the legislation it have ever implemented include; restrictions to carry a pistol outside one’s home or place of work, a need to have a permit to possess and use a firearm. The most recent amendment in the firearm legislation required all those people that possessed guns in Canada to register them with the department of firearm registry.

The implementation of this legislation has resulted to may factions complaining against it. Many people are complaining due to the high costs that are involved in running the program, despite its inability to achieve satisfactory results. Therefore the Canadian government should scrap off the program and look for a better alternative to stop firearms offenses in the country.

Bibliography

Canadian attitudes toward gun control: the real story. Toronto: Mackenzie Institute, 1997.

Canadian Firearms Program – Survey.” Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Welcome | Gendarmerie royale du Canada – Bienvenue. Web.

“Facts and Figures (2011).” Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Welcome | Gendarmerie royale du Canada – Bienvenue. Web.

Makarenko , Jay. “The Long-Gun Registry in Canada: History, Operation and Debates.” | Judicial System & Legal Issues, 2010. Web.

Manore, Jean, and Dale Miner. The culture of hunting in Canada. Vancouver: Ubc Press, 2007.

Mauser, Gary A. Misfire: firearm registration in Canada. Canada: Fraser Institute. 2007.

RCMP Canadian Firearms Program evaluation: final approved report. Ottawa, Canada: Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2010.

Service, CanWest News. “Bungled gun registry focus of Fraser’s report”. Web.

The next phase of Canada’s Economic Action Plan, a low-tax plan for jobs and growth. Ottawa, Canada: Govt. Of Canada, 2011.

“Two-in-Five Canadians Would Scrap Long Gun Registry.” Angus Reid Public Opinion. Web.

Introduction

Over the past years, the United States Congress has been engaged in protracted debates on the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition. A number of federal laws have been enacted since 1934 to bolster such regulations. The issue of gun control has been a matter of discussion since time immemorial with gun control advocates advancing that such measures enhance the government’s efforts to ensure that juveniles, criminal gangs, and other high risk groups do not get access to guns.

These advocates charge that the only practical way through which availability of guns can be reduced is by enforcing federal regulations. They have even suggested that stricter policies such as near-prohibition of gun ownership by non-security personnel be enforced and that all persons who own guns should be registered. These advocates posit that such measures have several significant benefits on society.

The issue of federal gun control has also received a fair share of opposition. Opponents hold that legislation of federal policies cannot in any way help in keeping guns out of reach of high-risk persons but rather adds an unnecessary burden on law abiding citizens and security personnel. Moreover, they argue that such controls deny the citizenry the privileges of the Second Amendment. To them, widespread gun ownership only serves to decrease crime levels and tyranny by criminal gangs and government.

They further argue that state police powers should be strenghtened as opposed to enhancing federal policies. Some of the most noteworthy national statutes enacted to help in controlling firearms within the citizenry were passed in 1934 and 1968. The 1934 Act envisaged strict registration requirements and a transfer tax on machine guns and short-barreled long guns.

The 1968 Act not only made it illegal to purchase guns through mail, but also forbade interstate trade in firearms, their transfer to underage persons, and access to other dangerous weapons (Gun Control, para. 2). The Act also stipulated penalties and licensing requisites for manufacturers, importers, and dealers. Crime and mortality statistics have prominently featured in the gun control debate (US Constitution, 2011).

Statistics indicate that the number of homicides that have been committed annually with a firearm by persons falling in the age bracket of 14-24 years between 1985 and 1993 increased by 173%. Between 1993 and 1999, a decrease of 47% was realized. Fatalities attributed to firearms from all causes and for all age groups decreased by 22%. For minors, especially juveniles, a decrease of 40% was realized between 1993 and 1998 (Gun Control, para. 1).

This argumentative essay on gun control will endeavor to support its thesis with reasons and concrete evidence. The argumentative essay will use pathos-a form of emotional appeal to its audience sympathies and imagination. This will make the audience easily identify with the writer’s point of view. The essay will include at least 3 arguments and two refutations to counter these arguments. The essay will try to validate the arguments by engaging in both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Gun Control

Gun control is an emotive debate that has to be treated with a lot of caution lest people begin arguing with emotions that can be counterproductive. I have been somewhat ambivalent with regard to the issue of federal gun control. Many questions have always been asked pertaining to federal gun control. These questions include: does an individual have a right to own a gun? Does stringent gun control decrease violence and crime?, and, is self-defense a good reason for gun ownership?

With regard to whether an individual should have the right to own a gun, it is imperative that one knows that the right to bear arms is an individual and not a collective right. In the Heller v District of Columbia case (US Constitution, 2011), the court ruled that the right to bear arms has always been in existent and that the court only serves to affirm that right.

The court reiterated that the right to bear arms is not dependent on military service (Endersby, para. 1). The court ruled that the six plaintiffs in the court case were free to legally own the guns they were previously forbidden from holding. This ruling should be extended to the rest of the population and hence nobody should be barred from owning guns.

While it is true that stringent gun control laws can decrease violence and crime, the move can flop and can instead increase the black market trade in guns and other dangerous weapons. Increased sales therefore imply the black market for guns will become profitable to criminals and this will intensify criminal activities and dealings motivated by the drive to increase profits margins.

One point that should be made clear is that it is individuals who kill their fellows, not the guns (Malcolm, para. 3). Therefore, it should be noted that gun violence is instigated by sociological factors as opposed to the availability of guns.

When citizens are allowed to own guns, the activities of criminals will be deterred. A right thinking criminal would be very cautious when planning to steal from people they openly know are in possession of guns. Indeed, with or without guns, criminal activities will always be prevalent because guns are not the only avenue for committing crimes. Criminals who are determined enough will always find ways of doing what they intend to do.

Therefore, enforcing gun control policies cannot have a significant effect on crime and violence. Actually, low homicide and crime rates are not a direct cause of low gun ownership. Law enforcing officers have established that guns used in committing murders are not registered, therefore, enhancing gun protection through legal means cannot bear much fruit. In addition, guns used in committing crimes are not stolen from registered owners, therefore, there is a possibility that these guns are smuggled from other nations.

Hence, gun control policies can therefore do very little in limiting the use of these illicitly acquired and owned guns. Gun controls also infringe on individual citizens right to defend themselves when they are attacked. These same laws are not making any effort in trying to restrict criminal gangs from getting firearms from the black market. This leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless.

With respect to whether self-defense is a good reason for gun ownership, it is imperative to note that citizens have an inalienable right to use guns for self-defense when they are attacked by gun wielding criminals. Since the government seems ill prepared to protect its citizens from crime and criminals, the only option should be to allow citizens to protect themselves.

Therefore, individuals should not be deprived of the ability to come up with ways of protecting themselves. Denying defenseless citizens the freedom to carry guns to protect themselves against lawless criminals only leaves them at the mercy of criminals.

Indeed, in the Warren v District of Columbia case, the court ruled that there is no right to police protection as there is no contract between the local police and an individual. The implied meaning of the court ruling was that each and every person should be responsible for their own security hence the need to own a gun.

Refutations to counter arguments

As refutations to counter the arguments that have been outlined above, it is not enough for people to push for the ownership of lethal weapons just because they want to protect their property. The fact that a person has a right to protect his or her property is not in dispute, but yearning to own a gun to enhance protection of this property by killing one who intends to steal it is not the best way to guarantee this right.

The argument that citizens should be allowed to own guns to deter would-be criminals can only hold if the citizens do not have intention to take away life that is very sacrosanct. It is also improper to threaten somebody else just because one is protecting his or her property.

In light of whether a person should have a right to own gun, an individual should be allowed to bear arms because this helps protect against domestic tyranny (Kates, para 1). In fact, gun ownership by individuals helps in checking government and police excesses. Police are most likely to be irresponsible and brutal if individual gun ownership is restricted by federal gun control policies.

Allowing individuals to own guns may make police weary with regard to infringing individuals’ liberties and abuse of law. Hence, gun control laws should be done away with, however, persons who own guns must be registered or licensed to reduce instances of gun misuse.

Works Cited

Endersby, Alastair. Gun control. 2000. Web. <https://idebate.org/>

Gun Control. Almanac of policy issues. 2011. Web.

Kates, Don. Why a Civil Libertarian Opposes Gun Control. The civil liberties Review. 3(2), 24. 1976. Print.

Malcolm, Joyce. Guns and violence: the English experience. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2002. Print.

US Constitution. The United States Constitution. 2011. Web. <https://www.usconstitution.net/const.html>

Introduction

The right for carrying weapons is, perhaps, one of the most controversial issues on the civil agenda of the present-day United States (Vermick wet al. 2021). While there is a strong belief that the prohibition to carry weapons or use them for the purposes of self defense in some way induces safety among the residents of the United States, statistics shows that banning armed weapons from use does not solve the problem.

More to the point, banning firearms from use seems to conflict with the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution. Most importantly, prohibiting guns from use does not affect the outbursts of violence within the country; while the given law serves as a means to hush down the problem without actually considering the factors that have caused it.

Thesis Statement

Gun regulation is a consistent source of debate within the United States, with advocates on either side unwilling to budge in their position; but regulation is merely treating the symptoms of the real issue.

Argument 1

The proponents of the law banning guns often mention the fact that the prohibition of firearms from being used by average citizens reduces crime rates in the state, as it will be displayed later. However, what most of the people providing the given argument forget is the fact that anti-gun laws do not, in fact, contribute to making people less violent; instead, they merely increase the distance between the victim and the aggressor (Blocher 121).

Argument 2

When it comes to the discussion of weapons banning, one should also bring the following fact to people’s attention: state authorities are concerned with the safety of the U.S. citizens and the possibility of a trauma or an injury as a result of using an automatic gun. Therefore, when it comes to semiautomatic weapons, state authorities should consider providing people with the opportunity to use weapons in order to protect themselves.

Argument 3

Eventually, the resolution provided by the Supreme Court must be mentioned in defense of the use of firearms, no pun intended.

This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word “fraud” on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A “well-regulated militia”? if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn’t 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated. (Fareed para. 14; Burger para. 10)

The line drawn between an average citizen and the “well-regulated militia” (Casteen 210) should, therefore, be considered as another gap in the U.S. state law regarding firearms.

Counterargument

On a second thought, the current policy regarding gun control on the territory of the United States has a quite legitimate point. The current sanctions against firearms admittedly affect the rates of violent crime in a number of states.

Comparing the statistical data regarding the outbreaks of violence in different parts of the United States before and after the passing the law that prohibits carrying guns, one will inevitably find out that the number of armed robberies, as well as accidents related to gunshot wounds, have been reduced impressively from 780 to 490 per year (Kennesaw Police Department para. 1).

The statistics provided above shows in a very graphic way that, when having little to no access to firearms, people do not usually seek the means to obtain them and, therefore, do not use them in case of a conflict. As a result, the number of exchanges of fire between the people involved in organized crime, as well as the amount of instances of armed resistance to police and the injuries in cases of armed resistance, are brought down a few notches.

Rebuttal

While the statistics shown above is quite impressive, it should be mentioned that, along with the reduction of armed robberies, a steep rise in the use of cold weapons in robberies and rampages could be observed.

In addition, the fact that people are banned from carrying guns in most states of America does not prevent them from using firearms in public places: “With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns” (A Factual Look at Guns in America para. 4).

More to the point, the fact that some of the U.S. states, such as Georgia, introduced more liberal principles of bearing arms by passing the Mandatory Gun Law, the number of armed robberies dropped by nearly unbelievable 89% (Hamilton and Burch para. 7).

Despite the fact that the law obliges every single dweller of the city to carry a gun, not only is the crime rate within the city reduced impressively, but also a number of potential crimes have been prevented, according to the official statistics (Levine et al. 7). As the state’s official statistics show, compared to the rest of the cities in the county, Kennesaw maintains a relatively stable and very low crime rate, with only 576.7 crimes committed per year on average during 2002–2012 (Kennesaw Police Department para. 2)

When it comes to counterarguments against the use of firearms by ordinary citizens, the fact that the right to bear arms is guaranteed to the U.S. citizens by the Constitution is often overlooked. Indeed, according to the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the U.S. residents do have the right to own guns and use them – though, initially, the possession of firearms presupposed that they should be used for hunting purposes: “the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law” (IV. The English Bill of Rights and the Present Controversy [131]).

It is also remarkable that what initially was supposed to be “for their common Defence” was swiftly changed into “their Defence” right before the Second Amendment was to come into force; the given detail shows that the concept of personal defense was stretched beyond the idea of fighting for one’s right to live and embraced the idea of maintaining personal safety (Glanz and Annas 2360).

Therefore, it can be assumed that banning any kind of firearms in general and guns in particular does not solve the actual problem; to be more exact, laws against carrying guns do not address the problem that forces people to fend for themselves with the help of firearms; instead, these laws serve as a means to block the symptoms of the problem from taking place, instead of addressing the problem itself and attacking the factors that cause it (Cantor 506).

Indeed, taking a closer look at the problem of the use of guns, one will notice that, for the most part, people refer to high crime rates within the state to prove their point. Therefore, it is much more reasonable to consider making semiautomatic firearms use legal as a sensible compromise.

Works Cited

IV. The English Bill of Rights and the Present Controversy. n. d. Web.

Blocher, Joseph. “Firearm Localism.” Yale Law Journal 123.1 (2012), 121.

Burger, Warren. MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour Charlayne Hunter-Gault. 21 December 1991. Interview.

Cantor, Julie D. “Bracing for the Impact of Expanded Second Amendment Rights.” The New England Journal of Medicine 363.6 (2009), 506–508.

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

Hamilton, Jonathan and David Burch. Gun Ownership – It’s The Law In Kennesaw. n. d. Web.

Glanz, Leonard H. and George G. Annas. “Handguns, Health, and the Second Amendment.” The New England Journal of Medicine 360.22 (2009), 2360–2365.

Kennesaw Police Department. 4, January, 2013. Web.

Levine, Robert S. et al. “Firearms, Youth Homicide, and Public Health.” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 23.1 (2012), 7–19.

Vermick, Jon et al. “Changing the Constitutional Landscape for Firearms: the US Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment Decisions.” American Journal for Public Health 101.11 (2011), 2021–2026.

All year round, approximately 30,000 people are reported to die from gunshot wounds in the USA. In 2010, the US reported gun violence as the leading cause of premature mortality, with young people falling victims. However, it is such a pathetic state for a developed country as the US to have such high mortality rate due to the high prevalence of gun violence. Among all the developed countries with high crime prevalence rate, the situation was termed as the worst in the US, which associates to the high firearm homicide rate.

The high prevalence of ownership of guns accompanied by less restrictive laws underscored some of the reasons contributing to violence and high rate of crime in the country. Peek-Asa, Butcher, and Cavanaugh (3) note that various economic costs are linked gun violence. For instance, the country spends approximately $30 billion annually on settling medical bills in relation to treatment of firearm injuries and deaths. The incurred costs could be spent in expansion of other productive economic activities.

However, the cost of owning and using a gun goes beyond this point since there are other adverse effects and outcomes. In addition, violence and other forms of crime cause a reduction in revenues collected from taxes, and these elements are some of the challenges that the federal government should address.

Policies Regarding Control of Gun in the United States

There have been several debates concerning the gun control policies. The proponents of gun control policies hold that the control measures counter the prevalence of crime incidences by ensuring that firearms are taken away from the wrong hands.

However, most people assume that they must either support or oppose the gun control policy, which is not the case. Policies or laws on gun control stipulate the types of the firearm to be purchased, qualities of the purchaser and the holder, and safety restriction concerning the storage and use of guns.

Although there were laws to ban the possession of guns, this move was overturned by a court order that was passed by the supreme court of Columbia and Chicago. Currently, the implemented policies do not fully disarm adults as long as they are over the age of 21 years. This requirement seeks to control the rates of prevailing crimes since fewer people would be in a position to own guns.

In order for the gun control to ensure a reduction in the rate of crimes, there should be an evaluation of the impact of the gun control policy on availability and accessibility to firearms, especially for the case of handguns. On the other hand, the effect of the prevalence of guns on the commission of a crime should also be evaluated. Many researchers justify the gun control laws due to the evidence of high crime rate that calls for political support of these laws.

Currently, gun control laws focus on the definition on conditions that prohibit an individual from owning a gun or firearms, implementation of laws and regulations to prevent prohibited individuals from illegal possession of firearms and guns. In addition, these laws stipulate restriction to carrying concealed guns outside one’s home and regulations on the design of these guns in order to enhance individual safety and that of the members of the public.

Rationale for the Prohibition of Gun Possession

The law prohibits certain categories of individuals from purchasing or even owning guns and firearms. They include fugitives, those served with restraining orders due to domestic violence, persons convicted of domestic crime, felons, people who are mentally ill, illegal aliens, ex-soldiers dismissed from the military and person below the recommended age of 21 years.

However, the laws stipulate that 18 years is the minimum age at which possession of a handgun could be transferred from one person to another, especially for unauthorized gun dealers.

The move to ban some people from owning or carrying a firearm hinges on research results, which showed that the ever-increasing crime cases were due to access to firearms by some individuals. For instance, a felony convict stands a higher chance of committing violent crimes in the future as compared to non-felons.

In addition, most domestic homicides are directly linked to availability and ownership of gun within the family household. Based on some researches carried out, researchers concluded that quite a substantial percentage of perpetrators of domestic violence are likely to extend their abusive tendencies to other people in the society.

Drug and substance abuse are linked to the increased rate of domestic violence within American families, violent crimes, and actual or suicidal attempts. The group of researchers (2) established that homicide offenders are more likely to abuse drugs as compared to non-offenders.

However, a small percentage of people suffering from mental illness are associated with some form of violence, as others with disorders such as stress and depression are likely to harm others or even themselves. On the case of the minimum age limit, it was established that the minimum age restriction on possession of firearms and guns was a crucial move.

Policy makers decided on the age limit after researchers established that there had been an increment in the prevalence of violent crimes amongst the adolescents. This aspect was attributed to the brain structures at that age, which embrace risk-taking impulses, hence contributing to heightened risk of violent behavior amongst youths at this age bracket.

The Debate on Gun Control Policies

Over the years, legislative proposals to restrict the availability of guns to the members of public yield different reactions from people. In the recent years, proponents of gun control laws hold to the fact that proper implementation of federal laws can be quite successful. However, the only challenge arises where states with few legal restrictions on guns tend to supply them to the states where comprehensive bans are implemented. Various issues arise from this constitutional provision as stipulated by the proponents.

First, with the presence of professional police forces, this provision stands to be obsolete. The provision was in favor of the military officers to guard them against suppression, hence posing a restriction only to the military officers. In addition, the right to owning a gun is not absolute, but can be limited within reasonable requirements. The proponents also seek to know why a common citizen would own a gun not designed for the purpose of authorized sporting or hunting activities.

With regard to reasons stipulated above, proponents for the policy on gun control advocate some changes on the prevailing policy on gun control to deter criminal activities and risks posed to the public. Since 1930, machine guns and short-barreled rifles remained under strict regulations, but they were banned completely from private ownership in 1980s. Currently, small handguns, ammunitions feeding devices and assault weapons among others are some of the arms to be included in the control regulations.

Gun control legislations meet opposition in different dimensions, but opponents maintain that gun control policies fail to meet the intended purposes. In argument laid by this group, they stipulate that acquisition of weapons by high-risk individuals can hardly be controlled, even after implementation of federal laws. They also add that stringent laws would impose more difficulties to law-abiding individuals to abide by the new laws. Such a move leads to frustration and probably a threat on the rights of citizens and even their safety.

They also note that even in countries where the rates of violent crimes are low, it is not necessarily due to gun control policies; actually, tolerance and community policing amongst other social integration strategies contribute largely to the low crime rates.

According to Filindra and Kaplan (1), the antagonists of gun control policies are not fully convinced that private gun ownership is meant for recreational activities exclusively. However, they call for the need for people to have effective means to defend themselves for security purposes. In addition, the opponents point out that possession of guns would help in reducing the rate of crime.

Conclusion

To the proponents of gun control legislations, propositions by the opponents comprise a misinterpretation of the provisions of the constitution regarding possession of guns. Gun control legislations should be put in place if the Federal State is to deal with the prevalence of high crime rate comprehensively. However, a comprehensive study of the effects of various gun control policies can help people in making an informed conclusion on whether these policies can really help curb violent crimes prevailing in the US.

References

1. Filindra A, Kaplan NJ. Racial resentment and whites’ gun policy preferences in contemporary America. Political Behavior. 2016;38(2):255-275.
2. Hohl BC, Wiley S, Wiebe DJ, et al. Association of drug and alcohol use with adolescent firearm homicide at individual, family, and neighborhood levels. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2017;177(3):317-324.
3. Peek-Asa C, Butcher B, Cavanaugh JE. Cost of hospitalization for firearm injuries by firearm type, intent, and payer in the United States. Injury Epidemiology. 2017;4(1).