Category: Gun Control

Human safety is, arguably, the most important issue discussed by any individual or group of people. As a result, every nation tries to ensure that its citizenry gets the best security. Good mannered citizens must be protected from criminals who might not only harm them, but also kill them. However, there are very few security officers in our country and they might not be able to protect everybody adequately.

Moreover, the vast area covered by the US makes is a bit difficult for every person to get enough security from the government. Many people find themselves in the hands of criminals where they are supposed to defend themselves. In instances like these, civilians require some weapons in order to stand a chance of rescuing themselves.

In this light, many people have supported the right of people to possess guns and use them in self defense as long as they abide by all other laws. Nonetheless, there exists debate on the impact of this legislation on society. On the same note, different states have different positions regarding the Gun Legislation.

Notably, no federal law expressly prohibits civilians from acquiring or even possessing guns in the United States. As a matter of fact, the Second Amendment to the constitution of the United States protects the right of people to acquire and own guns.

The federal government has only tried to prohibit guns at schools through the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Consequently, any person is allowed to rent or buy a gun provided that he or she uses the gun for lawful purposes only (Lott, 2013). The Second Amendment to the Constitution is very clear regarding the right of people to acquire and own guns.

It is, however, important to note that various regulations have been proposed to try and regulate how people use the firearms they possess. The National Firearms Act of 1934 tries to ensure that the type of firearms that civilians would access is controlled. On the same note, it aims at ensuring that getting a firearm is not so easy that gangsters would be able to acquire them.

There is the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 which aims at ensuring records regarding gun purchasers are kept as well as limiting convicts from accessing guns (Doherty, 2008). The most recent Acts that are aimed at regulating ownership and use of guns include Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, as well as Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Whether the government has been able to control how civilians acquire and use their guns is a matter of question. About 50 states in the US allow people to carry guns. Though various states have tried to do away with the right of people to carry guns, hence the courts pose a stumbling block.

In the case of The District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court repealed the requirement that had been put in place by The District of Columbia restricting people who should have guns (Collier, 2013). Similarly, the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) reaffirmed that the right of people to own guns is protected.

So far, the country has only been able to control certain classes of people from accessing guns and somehow regulate the business of selling guns.

The groups of people who are not allowed to have guns include, ex-convicts of various felonies, people previously convicted of domestic violence and non-US citizens among others (Lott, 2013). Dealers are also supposed to be properly licensed while violations of the law are strictly punishable.

Additionally, there are restrictions regarding acquisition of guns to ensure that not every person can have a gun. Nevertheless, private transfer of guns is not strictly regulated. Age is very critical and minors are not allowed to own and use guns. Moreover, there are various regulations concerning the transport and movement of guns aimed at ensuring safety of the deadly weapons.

The question that many people ask is whether the right to own and use guns is really necessary. This is due to increased violent crimes mostly involving guns in various parts of the country. There is an assumption that if every person is made to surrender his or her gun, the probability of gun crimes will reduce. Conversely, there are those who argue that it is absolutely necessary for people to have guns (Collier, 2013).

To begin with, proponents of gun rights argue that since every person has a right to live, the right to own a gun is inevitable. There is no way we can argue that people have the right to live when they cannot rescue themselves in case of an attack.

Moreover, depriving people of the right to own and use guns is actually denying them the right to self defense. This is because they will be incapacitated and thus be an easy target for criminals.

On the same note, it has been argued that increase in criminal activities cannot be blamed on the fact that people can access guns. The internal urge for the one to commit a crime usually precedes the actual act of committing crimes. In this regard, it is not the accessibility of a weapon that makes one to commit a crime but behavior of a person.

In Canada, where they have the highest number of guns held by civilians, gun crimes are lower (Helmke, 2013). On the contrary, there are other parts of the world where it is illegal for a civilian to own a gun but the rate of violent gun crimes is very high. Consequently, proponents of gun rights argue that authorities are shifting the blame of increase in number of crimes to ownership of guns when actually this is not the case.

Another argument is that events of mass shooting that have occurred in the US have taken place mostly in places where guns among civilians are regulated. This proofs that restriction of the right to carry guns does not necessarily mean reduction of the number of crimes.

On the same note, legal acquisition of guns is not the only way that one can access guns. There are very many guns in the hands of civilians who acquired them in illegal ways (Lott, 2013). People can easily get guns from black markets which are not regulated in any way.

Moreover, the argument that restriction of the right to acquire and own guns will reduce violence, crimes and murders is misplaced, according to proponents of gun rights. It is not only guns that criminals use in their heinous activities, knives, metal rods and other objects are known to be used in many murder cases. With or without guns, criminals will still kill using other weapons.

People do not kill just because they have weapons. Otherwise many legal gun owners would not kill a person who just comes their way (Doherty, 2008). Criminals kill because their inner soul wants it. People have very different reasons why they commit crimes and mere possession of a weapon is not part of that.

In addition, we cannot go on banning everything that is used to commit crimes. If we ban guns today, criminals can still kill using knives. Similarly, if guns are banned they will still use other weapons. We will then be compelled to ban every object that can be used to commit crimes and this is impossible.

It should be kept in mind that everything is a weapon and can easily be used to kill. Isolated cases of psychologically unwell people who commit mass murders cannot make a country change the constitution (Helmke, 2013). This is because each person is unhappy with a certain part of constitution and we cannot change it because of that simple reason.

Ultimately, citizens have right to protection even from the government. During colonial periods, colonial masters in various parts of the world took advantage of the fact that people in their colonies would not access weapons. Consequently, these people were treated crudely by their masters who established diabolic and despotic governments (Lott, 2013).

It is least likely that a government where people have the power to defend themselves can come up with repressive and tyrannical ways of ruling (Helmke, 2013). As a result, proponents of gun rights argue that this is one way of putting the government on its toes as regards the kind of legislations it passes.

It should be noted that there are laws in place that restrict acquisition and ownership of guns. Selling guns is strictly regulated. Additionally, there are laws in place defining individuals who can lawfully acquire and use guns. Nevertheless, criminals still acquire guns.

In this regard, strict gun laws or even gun bans will not be a guarantee that there will be fewer guns in the hands of criminals or even reduced criminal activities for that matter. Gun laws or even gun bans will not startle criminals in any way; after all they are used to breaking the law (Collier, 2013).

They have never cared even for one second whether their activities are against the law or not. They go out and kill even if they know very well that the sentence for murder is life imprisonment. The proponents of the right to have guns also argue that there are many instances where gun owners have been involved in rescuing people from criminals. According to them, the problem is with people in our society not the gun laws.

On the contrary, there are people who have different opinions regarding the issue of people being allowed to carry and own guns. According to this group of people, gun rights only succeeded in providing leeway for criminals to acquire guns (Doherty, 2008).

It is absolutely impossible to tell between a criminal and a good person when they are all allowed to carry guns. Criminals can use the law to acquire guns for their activities. This is supported by the fact that one cannot tell who is buying a gun for illegal use and who is not. Therefore, it is better to have stiffer gun control laws.

On the same note, mass killings that usually take place are carried out using guns. It is also important to note that most mass killers are civilians. If these people were using other weapons, for example metal rods, it would have been difficult for them to kill such a huge number of people before being arrested (Helmke, 2013). As a result, the right of civilians to own guns has increased the number of people murdered.

Similarly, while the main argument in support of the right to have guns is for self defense, statistics depict a different picture. It has been proved that the number of crimes committed using guns is as high as ten times more than the number of times the guns are used for self defense (Doherty, 2008).

This shows that gun legislation is not meeting its intended objectives but it is rather aiding in the propulsion of crime rates (Collier, 2013).

Strict gun laws would mean that the number and type of guns that an individual can own is regulated. On the same note, these laws will ensure that rounds of ammunition civilians are allowed to keep are minimized.

Notably, one cannot kill so many people when he or she has a gun that cannot carry a large magazine (Doherty, 2013). Research has shown that when a gun holder is shooting people, the number of people killed is directly proportional to the type of magazine one has.

The argument that people need guns so that they can protect themselves against tyrannical leaders is absolutely wrong. Violence can never be a solution against oppressive regimes. History has proved that nonviolent actions are very effective.

Martin Luther king Jr. used nonviolent demonstrations to fight segregation in the US and he was successful in that. Giving people guns so that they can protect themselves afrom repressive regimes will be tantamount to propagation of violence (Lott, 2013). As a result, it will be disastrous to have a bad government in the face of armed citizenry.

On the same note, the arguments by proponents of gun legalization that banning of guns will not in any way reduce crimes is misplaced. Yes the will to commit a crime is not brought about by presence of a weapon, but when looking at this issue from another angle, an unarmed individual willing to commit crime can do nothing without a weapon.

The easiness of acquiring a gun will increase the probability of one committing a crime. Societal stress has been cited as the reason why people get involved in mass murders. It is worth noting that psychological depression is increasing especially in our country.

Consequently, unless we regulate how people acquire guns, we should be ready to witness increased mass murders (Helmke, 2013). On the same note, a gun is a high risk weapon compared to other types of weapons and therefore requires severe restrictions on its use.

As much as we may want to avoid the truth, the fact remains that our lax gun laws are partly to be blamed for the increased criminal activities. Every country in the world aims at ensuring that people who are allowed to own guns cannot be able to use them to commit crimes (Doherty, 2008).

However, in the United States, guns are acceptable to everyone. Consequently, the law makes it easy for criminals to access guns. No matter what id the explanation that we give, the truth remains that most criminal activities are carried out using guns.

Another aspect of the argument that people usually ignore is the fact that most Americans feel unsafe with the lax gun laws that are in place. The character of a person cannot be known just by looking at this person. In this regard, it is very difficult to tell that the person next to you cannot kill you.

The issue gets more complicated when one knows that this person is armed. Researches that have been carried out among Americans indicate that most people advocate for strict gun laws. For the sake of a peaceful society the sale of guns has to be controlled (Lott, 2013).

Moreover, it is the mandate of the state to protect its people from every danger including danger of guns. As long as people continue to be afraid of for their lives, the lax gun laws do not meet their objectives. Instead of boosting confidence of people they increase fear in the society. It would, therefore, be worthless to say that gun rights are adding any value to the people.

The question of gun control is a complex one to address and its future depends on a delicate balance. In the most recent court rulings, the courts seem to acknowledge the right of people to own and use guns in self defense. Americans believe in their forefathers very much and are less likely to diverge from what their forefathers considered right. Consequently, a total ban on guns is most unlikely to happen (Collier, 2013).

Nevertheless, most people in America have concurred on the fact that stiff gun control laws are necessary. People should be controlled on how they use guns that they own. Moreover, there should be restrictions on who can be allowed to own guns.

Arguably, every type of gun cannot be given to civilians. In this regard, opponents of gun rights have been arguing for restrictions on the type of guns that can be kept by people. The federal government is also advocating for stricter regulations on guns (Lott, 2013).

On the same note, the type of magazines that civilians should be allowed to have is a question of debate. There are those who argue that with magazines that carry just a few rounds of ammunition, the number of people killed by mass murderers could be substantially reduced.

The call for gun restriction is also supported by decisions made by courts which have not indicated that gun control is against the constitution (Collier, 2013).

However, people have been senselessly murdered in various countries including Germany, Uganda and Russia after the respective governments imposed gun bans (Doherty, 2008). As it is now, all these issues remain just what they are, suggestions. How the future events will turn out cannot be told.

People will still need protection in the society whether from the government or from other sources. On the same note, there is no society where it can be argued that people with ill motives are not present. In this regard, gun rights will still remain a tricky topic especially in the United Sates.

However, as much as we need to defend ourselves in case of an attack we should be aware of the fact that gun rights are being abused each day in the U.S. Consequently, we should be ready to take actions or we will have ourselves to blame.

References

Collier, C. W. (2013). Gun Control in America: An Autopsy Report. Dissent, 63(3), 81-86.

Doherty, B. (2008). Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment. Wasington: CATO Institute.

Helmke, P. (2013). Targeting Gun Violence. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 551-552.

Lott, J. R. (2013). More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The debate on gun control is a controversial topic in United States politics. The debate has spanned for decades as opposing sides argue about the right to have guns and restriction of the same. The side that supports the right to own guns consider it a right to defend oneself. The gun culture is embedded in the the American culture as many people owned guns to protect themselves from the early times of the nation’s history.

Moreover, the guns were used for hunting and today hunting with guns as a sport is common. Guns are a symbol of power and many consider owning a gun as an American identity. On the other hand, owning guns has led to violent gun crimes and thousands of innocent Americans have lost their lives.

The gun violence has led to the debate on gun control and the recent incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that saw the death of 26 children has reignited the debate and President Obama is leading the campaign to pass stringent laws on gun control to prevent the occurrence of such incidences of gun violence in the future.

Many attempts to pass the gun control laws have failed especially with the influence of the National Rifle Association and I think politicians should use emotionally charged events to ensure that the laws are passed.

Politicians can use emotionally charged events to advance political agendas that have been difficult to through the use of intellectual debates. The gun control debate and passing of relevant laws to do a background check on any person that wants to buy a gun and restrictions of assault rifle sales to the public have been slow in passing. The Politicians should use the recent massacre of 26 children in Connecticut to appeal to the quick passing of the laws.

Otherwise, many people will continue to die at the hands of people that own guns and are not fit. Doing a background check on an individual before they buy a gun will reduce the probability of a gun falling into wrong hands. Moreover, the ban of assault rifle sale will help in protecting the lives of many innocent Americans that would fall, victim, if an individual with an assault rifle runs berserk and opens fire randomly.

Furthermore, the appearance of children with President Obama as he announced the executive orders on gun violence is good because it will appeal to the urgency of passing the gun control laws to protect the innocent children and other citizens.

The emotional appeal by the president to the lawmakers to remember the children that died at Sandy Hook Elementary may work by reminding them not to forget those innocent children who died because a gun was in the hands of a wrong individual.

He used emotional appeal and told the lawmakers to remember how the nation felt on that fateful day. He also told the citizens to continue talking and making their voices heard to the lawmakers so that they can pass the gun laws that are necessary to prevent more gun violence in America.

In conclusion, the use of emotions can help pass a political agenda and politicians should use every resource at their disposal to pass laws for the good of the people.

The passing of gun control laws is slow as the camp that opposes them works very hard to ensure they are not passed as they say that they will infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens’ right to own a gun. However, if using emotionally charged events to pass the gun laws is what it will take I support the use because even if only one innocent death is prevented in the future it will be worth the effort.

Introduction

The question of gun control is crucial for every country taking into account the rise of international terrorism and repetitive cases of shooting in public places. People fear and admire weapons. Children and adolescents watch films and play computer games with lots of weaponry, learning that murders are a common thing in society. Adults collect firearms and hunt. Although there are certain benefits for civilians in carrying weapons, robbers, gangsters, and killers use their rights to commit crimes. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the benefits and limitations of gun control.

How Popularity of Guns Affects The Society

In every country around the globe, any place or person can become notorious as soon as a shooting is involved (Spitzer 15). Nowadays, weapons are available to anyone who can provide all the necessary approvals. Therefore, the question is only in obtaining the papers needed. The cases of people shooting in malls, schools, and movie theaters are numerous. They demonstrate that even people with a serious mental illness can easily find weapons. The constant threat of terrorism pushes people to buy firearms even if they do not know how to use them. This results in many cases of self-shooting and accidental murders.

Modern mass media support the demand for pistols, revolvers, and rifles of all sorts. Gun owners are presented as famous successful people with lots of money. Guns are closely associated with power. This image is very attractive to adolescents who become very famous in their cities once they decide to use their firearms. It is not a big surprise that children and teenagers can carry weapons. They can buy them illegally, steal guns from their parents or make their barrels. The video instructions are open to watching online. Some people even present guns to their children as a gift.

Weapons play a significant role in the cultures of many countries. The gun is a symbol of conquering as well as a sign of protection. For centuries long, people have stayed their ground using firearms. This is still true for those who live on an international border. Illegal immigrants and smugglers trespass the border carrying weapons to meet also armed citizens on the other side. The circulation of firearms, in this case, ends only with the death of participants. New means of self-defense should be introduced to protect those who live near a national border.

Nevertheless, the majority of people build their image of guns on the information from news, films, and books. The amount of firearms in society has increased since World War II, but it is still a relatively rare case even for police officers to use their guns (Woldoff et al. 57). Mass media remains the main source of information about weapons and contributes to the popularity of firearms in society. All abovementioned speaks strongly for strict gun control and elimination of weapons among civilians.

How People Can Protect Themselves in the World of Guns

Mass media can easily overestimate the threat of weapons in civil society to attract more viewers. Citizens with allowed guns do not normally go rampage and shoot everybody around them as soon as they acquire their weapons. Lott claims that “in the entire United States during a year, only about 30 people are accidentally killed by private citizens who mistakenly believe the victim to be an intruder” (2). The events concerning shooting are often overdramatized. In many cases, journalists intentionally omit the details to underline the threat of weapons.

The number of stories about people protecting themselves with firearms is largely outnumbered by colorful examples of brutal murders (McGinty et al. 495). The mass media is interested only in those cases when weapons are used. Therefore, no one knows how often people save their lives by showing their guns to intruders. The publicity does not pay attention to these cases because people do not speak about them. Citizens fear gun-control laws and underreport the effective use of allowed firearms.

Discussion

Nowadays, there are two contrary views on firearms in modern society. People fear guns and those who use them. The stories about shooting at schools, in hospitals, and in shopping malls confirm the threat of guns. At the same time, people are fascinated with weapons. They watch films and read books about gangsters and detectives killing each other. The image of a gun is associated with power and influence. Children shoot each other in video games. The mass media supports both of these views to attract all kinds of viewers.

The statistics show the increase in weapon sales after the attempt of the Obama Administration to initiate new gun-control legislation (Jones and Stone 3). People fear gun control, but many of them try to protect themselves with weapons. This opposition of intentions is evident at a national border. Illegal immigrants, smugglers, and drug traders use firearms and can assault civilians. The people living at the border can protect themselves only with firearms. The same situation is in places demonstrating frequent terrorist activity.

Therefore, it seems useless to prohibit firearms among civilians. People will find a way to buy weapons illegally, and the government will not be able to track the gun trade. Nevertheless, strict gun control should be wisely implemented to decrease the use of guns in society.

Conclusion

The question of implementing strict gun control is crucial for every country around the globe. People simultaneously fear and admire firearms. The mass media supports both of these views trying to please everyone. Modern films and books demonstrate strong attractive characters shooting everybody around them. Shooters are among the most popular video games among children and adolescents. People do not hesitate to use firearms for defense as well as for an assault. In the meantime, the news is largely exaggerated. Civilians underreport the cases of successful weapon use for protection. Therefore, the public knows only about accident murders and crimes. The use of weapons by civilians is crucial at a national border. Many citizens can protect themselves only by owning firearms because smugglers, drug traders, and illegal immigrants can assault them while trespassing a border.

It is of no use to prohibit guns in civil society. People need to feel protected. They can find a way to buy firearms. This will lead to an increase in crimes and the weapon black market. A wisely implemented gun control should be implemented to achieve visible results. It is of great importance to decrease the impact of the mass media on the image of firearms in modern society. New types of self-defense should be introduced to decrease the number of weapons sold to civilians.

Works Cited

Jones, Michael A., and George W. Stone. “The US Gun-Control Paradox: Gun Buyer Response To Congressional Gun-Control Initiatives.” Journal of Business & Economics Research, vol. 13, no.4, 2015, p.167.

Lott, John R. More guns, less crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. University of Chicago Press, 2013.

McGinty, Emma E., et al. “Effects of News Media Messages about Mass Shootings on Attitudes toward Persons with Serious Mental Illness and Public Support for Gun Control Policies.” American Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 170, no.5, 2013, pp. 494-501.

Spitzer, Robert J. Politics of Gun Control. Routledge, 2015.

Woldoff, Rachael A., et al. “Unpacking Heat: Dueling Identities and Complex Views on Gun Control among Rural Police.” Rural Sociology, vol. 7, no 34, 2016.

Introduction

The issue of the right to bear firearms in the United States is relevant. It is the subject of controversy among many American jurists and political scientists. The main disputes are between supporters of tightening the rules for issuing licenses for carrying firearms and those who consider carrying a weapon as a natural right of every American. Extreme ideologization not only explores the political debate on arms control but also affects scientific research on possible changes in the rules for issuing weapons licenses for crimes and their consequences. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how empirical research in the USA evaluates the effectiveness of county legislation on the licensing of arms through its influence on the level of violent crime.

Methods

A principal place in assessing the effectiveness of laws belongs to empirical and legal research. A feature of empirical jurisprudence is that it allows people to look at the work of the law, not only from a legal but also from a theoretical and methodological point of view. Empirical and legal studies enable the analysis of rules from the economic theory of law, as well as using tools of a whole range of disciplines, such as sociology, statistics, mathematics, etc. Using these tools, the empirical sociology of law can predict the possible consequences of taking another bill. It can also give an opinion on the effectiveness of already adopted legal norms.

The problem

In the USA at the state level, several models of the legal regulation of the issuance of licenses for carrying weapons have developed. Thus, until the end of the 1980s, in many states, the issue model existed when local authorities made decisions for granting a license at the county level. As a rule, it was received by district sheriffs who had full discretion in issuing permits to carry weapons in the territories entrusted to them (Goodman & Perry, 2018). However, in 1987 the court of Florida ruled that district sheriffs could no longer restrict the right to carry weapons of those citizens who seemed unreliable to them.

From now on, local authorities were obliged to make their decisions on the issuance of licenses, guided by a set of formally defined rules. In other words, local authorities were required to issue a license if a person has no outstanding criminal record or mental disabilities. There were also some more formal criteria based on which the citizen’s right to bear arms could be limited. (Miller, 2019). The Florida model, which greatly simplified the process of obtaining permission to carry weapons for citizens, was called shall-issue and was subsequently adopted by more than half of the states.

Statistical studies of the gun-control in American criminology do not give an unambiguous answer to the question of how the availability of weapons for the population affects the criminal situation in a particular state. Among American scientists and politicians, there are supporters of different points of view. Some of them concluded that liberalization of the rules for issuing licenses (and, as a result, an increase in the turnover of weapons) helps to reduce crime. Others believe that the result, on the contrary, is an increase in the total number of delinquencies.

Thus, the specificity of gun control studies is that this research area reproduces the political debate between supporters and opponents of the right to bear arms. Ideological clichés and eloquent rhetoric are used in political discussions on this issue. In the scientific community, researchers argue about the reliability of data and the correct use of statistical analysis procedures. The focus is not only on a review of the available scientific literature on this topic. The impact of the gun control studies on American policy and legislation regarding the rules for issuing firearms licenses is also investigated.

Studies

In American criminology, there is a whole research tradition of studying the relationship between the level of crime and the number of firearms possessed by citizens. The first studies of this kind date back to the 1930s. However, until the end of the 1980s, such studies did not address the issue of how changes in legislation on the control of firearms affect crime rates.

The first publications of this kind appeared almost immediately after the introduction of the shall-issue model in some states. McDowell and colleagues concluded that the transition to a new system does not lead to a decrease in crime, according to representatives of the national rifle association (McDowall, Loftin, & Wiersema, 1995). In the research, they used data from Florida, Minnesota, and Oregon.

In response to this study, Lott and Mustard wrote the article “Crime, Intimidation, and Legal Firearms,” and later the book “More Weapons, fewer Crimes.” In their research, Lott, and Mustard use criminal statistics collected at the county level from 10 states that adopted a new weapon licensing system in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Using panel data for the period from 1977 to 1992, they tried to assess how the transition to the shall-issue model affected the crime rate. As dependent variables, they considered the number of crimes committed in various categories (murder, rape, theft, car theft, etc.). Based on them, Lott and Mustard conducted two types of regression analysis (Lott & Mustard, 1997). In one of them, they construct a dummy variable that takes a positive value in the first full year after the state transitions to the shall-issue model and saves it in the future. In another, they take into account the number of full years that have passed since the transition to the new system.

Lott and Mustard concluded that the introduction of new gun regulations had reduced crime rates in 10 states. However, this influence was not the same for different types of crimes. According to them, the transition to the shall-issue system helped to reduce the number of violent crimes (murder and rape) by 4%. Still, at the same time, this decrease was accompanied by an increase in the name of property crimes (burglary or car theft) by 2%.

Lott argues that the simpler the rules for obtaining a license to carry weapons become, the less violent crimes are committed, as the potential costs of their commission for potential criminal increase. The increasing availability of firearms for the population increases the likelihood that, when committing a violent crime (murder or rape), the offender will face armed resistance from the victim (Lott, 2013). This, in turn, means that the transition to a shall-issue system increases the potential costs of violators of the law from their commission of violent crimes.

A comprehensive test of Lott’s thesis was conducted by a team of researchers led by J. Donohue. In the article, they analyze data from 1979 to 2010 both at the county and state levels. As control variables, they use the number of police officers and the number of prisoners (incarceration) (Aneja, Donohue, & Zhang, 2014). Also, for the period from 1999 to 2010, they take into account the dynamics of the “cocaine epidemic,” as a result of which their analysis results are more reliable than Lott’s. In the developed model with a dummy variable, the number of crimes in such categories as rape, murder, assault, car theft, theft, robbery and burglary increased.

According to the proposed assessment, the transition to the new rules for issuing weapons licenses is accompanied by an increase in all seven categories of crimes by an average of 8%, except murders, the number of which is growing by 3%, but this figure is statistically insignificant (Aneja et al, 2014). Regression models recorded that the number of homicides increased by 1.5% per year for the period from 1999 to 2010.

Results

Firstly, in the minimal number of control variables used (mainly only the number of arrests) and ignoring other important factors influencing the change in the crime rate (number of police officers and prisoners). Secondly, interior trends at the state and county levels are not taken into account. Thirdly, the inclusion in the analysis of only ten states that switched to the shall-issue system and ignoring all the others made Lott’s study a victim of the selection bias effect (systematic selection error of cases). As a result of which his conclusions are susceptible to any manipulations with the number of cases (as, for example, to the exclusion of Florida from the data considered).

In discussions about carrying weapons in the United States, research findings are often sacrificed for political expediency; research and academic debate can become part of political discussion on sensitive issues. At the same time, the principle of the effectiveness of legislative measures is a crucial point both for those who conduct empirical research and for those who are involved in socio-political debates. Efficiency, as a rule, refers to the positive socio-economic consequences of the adoption of legislative norms.

The American policy in the field of firearms control shows that the principle of effectiveness is the main argument even when decisions are made in the legal sphere that is most likely to lead to negative social consequences. At the same time, scientific disputes of a seemingly academic nature can draw public attention to the negative implications of legislative decisions taken under the influence of ideological factors.

Conclusion

To sum up, gun control studies are an example of how political debate has led to academic discussion. However, in the conditions when scientific assessments regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of legal measures can give legislative acts additional validity, some empirical and juridical studies almost inevitably become part of political speculation. In this regard, far from always, rigorous scientific research receives sufficient attention from the general public, as well as decision-makers. In disputes about the right to bear arms, this resulted in the fact that unscientific studies influenced decision-making. The empirical and legal researches in the context of gun control studies were, to some extent, influenced by political interest.

References

Aneja, A., Donohue, J. J., & Zhang, A. (2014). The impact of right to carry laws and the NRC report: the latest lessons for the empirical evaluation of law and policy. Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper, 461(1), 1-108. Web.

Goodman, S., & Perry, B. (2018). The American Gun Control Debate: A Discursive Analysis. In Discourse, Peace, and Conflict, 67-82. Springer, Cham. Web.

McDowall, D., Loftin, C., & Wiersema, B. (1995). Easing concealed firearms laws: Effects on homicide in three states. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 86, 193.

Miller, S. V. (2019). What Americans think about gun control: evidence from the general social survey, 1972–2016. Social Science Quarterly, 100(1), 272-288.

Lott, J. R. (2013). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws. University of Chicago Press.

Lott, Jr, J. R., & Mustard, D. B. (1997). Crime, deterrence, and right-to-carry concealed handguns. The Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 1-68.

The issue that is being discussed these days in Colorado is the gun control legislation that was recently signed by the Governor John Hickenlooper. This law appeared as a reaction to the events that shocked the country. The history of shooting in public places in the United States of America counts many cases of mass murder in facilities like schools, universities or movie theaters. These accidents always leave many victims and a massive public reaction. Gun control measures in Colorado involve two debating sides. The side that supports the new laws includes Michael Bloomberg representing the group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Eli Broad. The opposing side is represented by the National Rifle Association.

The two senators that were facing a recall were involved in this issue due to the active participation in the policy of gun control. The other factors that explain individual participation in this problem, to my mind, are good income and ability to provide finances and take part in this political issue. As we see now, both sides of the debate have been contributing large sums of money in order to support their own policies and opinions. Another factor that would make an individual become a part of this happening is personal involvement in the business that will win or suffer from the new laws. One more feature necessary for an active participant of this debate is ideological and moral values and personal interest. The individual taking part in this argument has to be personally affected by the issue one way or another.

The success of this issue is explained by the fact that this problem has occurred in the United States long ago and many people grew to support the gun control measures. It is a well-known fact that the availability of the guns in the country has contributed to the growing rate of criminal activity and massacres in schools. This social issue of the United States is known worldwide, this is why when it finally was addressed this measure brought a lot of support. The factor of morals and humanism played a big role in the success of the issue.

Introduction

School shootings and domestic violence as well as high criminal activity in the streets have become a part of modern life, especially in countries where people can buy a gun legally. Without a doubt, the USA can be regarded as a clear illustration of the negative effects of this approach on people’s personal safety. According to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Americans have the right to own a gun or firearms for their personal safety and the protection of their property (Spitzer 21).

However, proponents of gun ownership emphasize that the existing regulations are already very strict, while criminals do not comply with the laws. At the same time, research shows that owning a gun raises the risk of being hurt or killed, or committing a crime (Hamilton and Kposowa 85). Therefore, it is essential to ensure the introduction of stricter gun control laws that would limit people’s access to dangerous weapons, prohibit certain groups from owning firearms, and require detailed and effective background checks.

Main body

To start with, it has been found that people owning weapons are much more likely to be involved in violent acts. Significantly, the prevalence of gun ownership in the United States is associated with increased rates of suicide, which is regarded as one of the central public health issues (Lewiecki and Miller 27). In addition, researchers argue that this correlation is becoming more pronounced as compared to previous years.

For instance, Johnston reports that the rate of suicides involving the use of weapons increased by over 65% in 2015. Moreover, ownership of weapons is also closely linked to accidental gun injuries and deaths. In particular, 40% of gun injuries are sustained in accidents. Although accidental gun deaths account for only 5% of all cases, it must be noted that a third of these cases involve children (Spitzer 61). Thus it is essential to make sure that guns will not find their way into the hands of the wrong people.

In order to achieve this goal, it may be sufficient to focus on three factors. First, Loria suggests that policies that require stricter background checks should be introduced. As a result, weapons will not be in the home of a domestic abuser or emotionally unstable person with a history of violent crimes. Second, it is important to limit people’s access to dangerous firearms that can cause injuries or death (Loria). Finally, it is essential to educate people and raise their awareness of gun culture. Of course, K-12 education should become one of the platforms for this kind of training. Students should be taught about the consequences of having weapons, rather than its benefits or ways to obtain a gun.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that gun control efforts in the USA are failing as the prevalence of violence in the streets and domestic settings is alarming. More importantly, many innocent people (especially children and adolescents) are injured or killed in gun accidents. For this reason, stricter gun control policies and regulations are urgently needed in the country. It is essential to limit certain people’s access to weapons (especially dangerous firearms), to ensure the efficacy of background checks, and also to incorporate discussions of these issues into the K-12 curriculum. As a consequence of these steps, people will focus on the responsibilities and hazards rather than on media images or a false feeling of security when considering the purchase of a gun.

Works Cited

Hamilton, David, and Augustine Kposowa. “Firearms and Violent Death in the United States: Gun Ownership, Gun Control and Mortality Rates in 16 States, 2005-2009.” British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, vol. 7, no. 2, 2015, pp. 84-98.

Johnston, Ian. “Suicide Rates Boosted by Easy Access to Guns, Researchers Say.” The Independent. 2017. Web.

Lewiecki, E. Michael, and Sara A. Miller. “Suicide, Guns, And Public Policy.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 103, no. 1, 2013, pp. 27-31.

Loria, Kevin. “Gun Control Really Works — Here’s The Science To Prove It.” Business Insider. 2018. Web.

Spitzer, Robert J. The Politics of Gun Control. 6th ed., Paradigm Publishers, 2014.

Introduction

The complex structure of the American government was developed from its historically independent territories. Currently, the United States of America is one of the world’s federations – countries that adopted federalism as the government framework. In this system, two levels of government –regional and general – are usually combined.¹ In the US, the general segment is represented by the federal government, while the regional level of authority is given to the states.² Each type of government possesses a set of duties and powers that it can exercise in the region, and the relationship between the levels is established in the Constitution.

In the US, the federal government has enumerated powers that are exercised by Congress. The Constitution lists the explicit powers possessed by Congress as well as protects the autonomy of states in some cases.³ Overall, the federal government can create and enforce property and labor laws, commerce regulations and relations, estate laws, inheritance, education policies, corporations and public health laws, and similar general standards. Congress can declare war and maintain armies and navy forces.⁴ State governments have reserved powers and can adapt certain general laws to fit their local environment, passing policies about healthcare, education, labor, and other spheres of life. Tribal governments are organized by Native American communities, and the Constitution considers them to be separate from federal and state entities.⁵ They may possess their own laws, tax regulations, and courts.

The court system of the US, therefore, also separated according to the federalist view of the country. First of all, a number of federal courts examine situations that are connected to the Constitution and its laws.⁶ As the federal government oversees such issues as state relations, navy, corporate law, and foreign relations, its courts hear cases related to these topics as well. Second, state courts, similarly to their role in governing, concern themselves with local disputes that are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government. States deal with common law, involving civil and criminal cases and using both the Constitution and local laws for guidance.⁷ Finally, tribal court systems operate under the tribal government structure and deal with matters directly related to their internal community affairs.

As can be seen, the American system of government is built on a level of autonomy that remained from the country’s initial formation. The governments and courts of the federal, state and tribal levels have their own powers and limitations, with all elements functioning to support their respective communities. The federal government is concerned with the country as a single entity, the states are focused on their territories, and native communities build structures to preserve their culture and place in the nation.

US History and the Law

From the beginning, the history of the US as a united nation has been strongly connected to gun culture. Examining the period of the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783), one can see how Americans treated firearms and how the latter became a part of the Bill of Rights and the subject of perpetual heated debates.⁸ It is possible to argue that gun laws and the establishment of the Second Amendment, in particular, were influenced by the social norms presiding during the period of the country’s formation.

The early history of the United States shows that the country was formed by people who came to the land already inhabited by Native Americans. Early settlers considered firearms to be a necessity in households to protect themselves and their families from tribes and foreigners. Moreover, as America was first a colony of Great Britain, its hostility towards the owning state grew into a massive protest and a revolutionary war.⁹ These were activities that the nations’ creators and supporters could not perform without being equipped with proper weapons. As a result, during and after the war, guns were elevated from a simple tool of combat to a piece of property that Americans had the right to possess.

Arguably, this relationship with firearms as a source of protection and autonomy had an impact on the US Constitution. In the Second Amendment, the “security of a free State” is the main reason that is mentioned to support American’s right to keep and bear arms.¹⁰ Here, one can see the strong cultural power that firearms had among the country’s residents. The previous history of the territories became a vital factor in the creation of this particular amendment since it demonstrated the crucial role of guns in the establishment of independence.

To sum up, the period of the American Revolutionary War and Americans’ emergence as a nation separate from the British colonies has made the right to bear arms a fundamental principle of the people. The need to possess a gun to protect oneself from intruders was transformed into a belief that firearms were essential in establishing and protecting the freedom of the American people. As a result, the Second Amendment was created, and gun culture developed into a major theme in US society.

Change in the Law

As one can see, the present gun culture is still strongly influenced by the historical role of firearms in the US independence and safety. However, the latest events demonstrate that this legal right may need to be challenged on the countrywide level. The following analysis shows how the gun control debate is handled in the US. It reveals the outcomes that access to firearms has on US citizens and discusses how an increase in mass shootings is changing the attitudes of future add current voters. Finally, it compares the effect of the Second Amendment and other countries’ gun-related laws on national crime rates. The central change proposal is increased gun control that includes extensive background checks, training, official licensure, and restricted purposes.

Currently, the results of the Second Amendment make gun ownership a right for many American citizens. In some states, the lack of regulation allows people to carry various firearms in public spaces (including concealed and open carrying), store them on private property, and purchase gun supplies without any restrictions.¹¹ Therefore, one’s potential for accessing a firearm is extremely high – a person can choose to buy a gun, as well as enter a gun owner’s property to steal it. Furthermore, one has to highlight the absence of control measures for who can buy or carry firearms, including previous criminal records, mental health, and the knowledge of using and servicing dangerous equipment.¹²

Several studies show that the outcomes of such lax laws are substantial. According to Lankford, the rate of public mass shootings in a country is directly related to its rules on gun control. The author compares the regulations of more than 150 nations and finds that such factors as suicide or cross-national homicide rates do not have an impact on countries’ prevalence of mass shootings.¹³ The access to firearms, however, plays a significant role in such events, placing the US on the list of countries with the most mass shootings in the world. Using state data in the US, Reeping et al. come to similar conclusions, showing that states that have less strict laws have a higher amount of mass shootings.¹⁴

To examine the national laws and crime rates in more detail, one can explore the data from the US, Venezuela, and Japan. Venezuela is chosen for comparison as a country with high homicide rates, while Japan is considered due to its strict gun control policies. The investigation shows that Venezuela’s crime rate does not result in a high number of mass shootings, allowing one to argue that gun ownership by civilians is a significant factor in this comparison.¹⁵ Japan’s crime rate is substantially lower than in other counties, and its rate of gun-related deaths is around ten incidents per year.¹⁶ In contrast, the US rates are much higher for suicides, homicides, and accidental discharge, reaching a total of more than 30 thousand.¹⁷ Such a major difference points to the idea of gun control as a strong influencing factor.

Therefore, one can see that there exists a direct link between one’s access to firearms and the rate of gun-related offenses in the region. Furthermore, it is essential to discuss the impact that such crimes, namely mass shootings, have on people. First of all, some research shows that previous or recent mass killings can increase the risk of repeating events, causing a growing rate of shootings in the area. An exceptionally high prevalence of such contagion is found in schools, where shooting incidents can influence young people to recreate the events in less than two weeks.¹⁸ These results demonstrate the danger of being in public spaces in locations where gun control laws are inexistent. Second, apart from the immediate life-threatening risks, some long-term outcomes develop in survivors and relatives of victims. It is found that people’s proximity to the event increases the chance of them developing severe mental health problems, including anxiety, paranoia, and post-traumatic stress syndrome.¹⁹ Other negative consequences are decreased academic performance and reduced enrollment grades.²⁰ Overall, one can see that people are affected by gun-related crimes in the short- and long term.

The recently increased rate of violent crimes impacted the opinions of US citizens about gun control. The number of young activists protesting easy access to firearms continues to grow. Presenting themselves as the center of the gun control debate, young adults are discussing whether regulated gun ownership can reduce the rate of mass shootings.²¹ Similarly, adults that own guns also support more restrictive conditions for purchasing and carrying firearms.²² Therefore, this law change is possible as it is backed by populations affected by the policy.

The combination of data on gun-related crimes, the connection between access to firearms and mass shootings, and the long-term impacts of shootings on people’s health and achievements were presented. They make a strong argument for changing the current gun culture in the US by adding strong regulatory policies on the national and state levels. While full rights to gun ownership do not have to be revoked, there exists enough evidence to support background checks, training, and licensing. Furthermore, it is vital to consider the reasons for citizens to own a gun as well as the types of firearms that should be available to the public.

Bibliography

Blocher, Joseph, and Darrell Miller. “What Is Gun Control: Direct Burdens, Incidental Burdens, and the Boundaries of the Second Amendment.” The University of Chicago Law Review 83 (2016): 295-355.

Broschek, Jörg. “Federalism in Europe, America and Africa: A Comparative Analysis.” In Federalism and Decentralization: Perceptions for Political and Institutional Reforms, edited by Wilhelm Hofmeister and Edmund Tayao, 23-50. Singapore: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2016.

Fisher, Max, and Josh Keller. “What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer.”The New York Times, 2017. Web.

Lankford, Adam. “Public Mass Shooters and Firearms: A Cross-National Study of 171 Countries.” Violence and Victims 31, no. 2 (2016): 187-199.

Lowe, Sarah R., and Sandro Galea. “The Mental Health Consequences of Mass Shootings.” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 18, no. 1 (2017): 62-82.

Pederson, Jo, Thomas L. Hall, Bradley Foster, and Jessie E. Coates. “Gun Ownership and Attitudes Toward Gun Control in Older Adults: Re-Examining Self Interest Theory.” American Journal of Social Science Research 1, no. 5 (2015): 273-281.

Reeping, Paul M., Magdalena Cerdá, Bindu Kalesan, Douglas J. Wiebe, Sandro Galea, and Charles C. Branas. “State Gun Laws, Gun Ownership, and Mass Shootings in the US: Cross Sectional Time Series.” BMJ 364 (2019): l542.

Robertson, David Brian. Federalism and the Making of America. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2017.

Towers, Sherry, Andres Gomez-Lievano, Maryam Khan, Anuj Mubayi, and Carlos Castillo-Chavez. “Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings.” PLoS One 10, no. 7 (2015): e0117259.

Travers, Áine, Tracey McDonagh, and Ask Elklit. “Youth Responses to School Shootings: A Review.” Current Psychiatry Reports 20, no. 6 (2018): 47.

Van Sparrentak, Murphy, Tammy Chang, Alison L. Miller, Lauren P. Nichols, and Kendrin R. Sonneville. “Youth Opinions About Guns and Gun Control in the United States.” JAMA Pediatrics 172, no. 9 (2018): 884-886.

Yamane, David. “The Sociology of US Gun Culture.” Sociology Compass 11, no. 7 (2017): e12497.

Footnotes

1. David Brian Robertson, Federalism and the Making of America, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2017), 25.
2. Robertson, Federalism, 33.
3. Jörg Broschek, “Federalism in Europe, America and Africa: A Comparative Analysis,” in Federalism and Decentralization: Perceptions for Political and Institutional Reforms, ed. Wilhelm Hofmeister and Edmund Tayao (Singapore: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2016), 24.
4. Robertson, Federalism, 36.
5. Ibid.
6. Broschek, “Federalism,” 35.
7. Robertson, Federalism, 198.
8. David Yamane, “The Sociology of US Gun Culture,” Sociology Compass 11, no. 7 (2017): e12497.
9. Yamane, “The Sociology,” e12497.
10. Ibid.
11. Joseph Blocher and Darrell Miller, “What Is Gun Control: Direct Burdens, Incidental Burdens, and the Boundaries of the Second Amendment,” The University of Chicago Law Review 83 (2016): 296.
12. Adam Lankford, “Public Mass Shooters and Firearms: A Cross-National Study of 171 Countries,” Violence and Victims 31, no. 2 (2016): 189.
13. Adam Lankford, “Public Mass Shooters,” 192.
14. Paul M. Reeping et al., “State Gun Laws, Gun Ownership, and Mass Shootings in the US: Cross-Sectional Time Series,” BMJ 364 (2019): l542.
15. Adam Lankford, “Public Mass Shooters,” 193.
16. Max Fisher and Josh Keller, “What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer,” The New York Times, Web.
17. Max Fisher and Josh Keller, “What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings?”
18. Sherry Towers et al., “Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings,” PLoS One 10, no. 7 (2015): e0117259.
19. Sarah R. Lowe and Sandro Galea, “The Mental Health Consequences of Mass Shootings,” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 18, no. 1 (2017): 62-63.
20. Áine Travers, Tracey McDonagh, and Ask Elklit, “Youth Responses to School Shootings: A Review,” Current Psychiatry Reports 20, no. 6 (2018): 47.
21. Murphy Van Sparrentak et al., “Youth Opinions About Guns and Gun Control in the United States,” JAMA Pediatrics 172, no. 9 (2018): 884.
22. Jo Pederson et al., “Gun Ownership and Attitudes Toward Gun Control in Older Adults: Re-Examining Self Interest Theory,” American Journal of Social Science Research 1, no. 5 (2015): 273.

Implementation of Limits on the Second Amendment

From the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings in which 32 people were killed to the recent October 1, 2015, mass shooting at the Umqua Community College where 9 people died; gun violence within the country has become a contentious issue that is at the forefront of societal awareness. However, despite these highly visible killings, it must still be questioned whether broad and extremely restrictive limitations should be placed on the Second Amendment (Ludwig and Cook 208). As a whole, gun violence within the U.S. has actually gone down with the Census Bureau clearly indicating a reduction of nearly 85 percent in annual gun-related deaths since the 1970s (Parham-Payne 753). Despite this, other countries that have implemented draconian measures in gun control, such as Japan, have only 2 to 3 deaths per year due to gun-related violence. This shows that extensive limitations on gun ownership and sale can have a considerable impact on gun-related deaths within a country and supports the argument that amendments should be made on the Second Amendment.

Mandatory Background Checks

Implementing mandatory background checks should be an absolute necessity when it comes to gun ownership. You cannot let people that have a history of mental health problems or individuals that have been shown to be prone to violence to own a lethal weapon that they can use to kill people (McLeigh 201). Based on this, background checks should go beyond simply determining a person’s background, they should examine their psychological profile as well as examine people that may have access to the gun around their home. It is through such preventive measures that the government could potentially contain incidents where mentally unstable individuals have access to lethal weaponry.

Gun Shows

Some sellers at gun shows operate under what can only be described as a “secondary market.” This allows private sellers of firearms to transact with other private buyers without having to go through the process of background checks, create a detailed record of the sale or even ask the person for a piece of identification. As a result, this creates a significant gap in the capability of the government to properly limit the sale of firearms (Webster 2). While there are some states such as Washington that now require background checks by sellers at gun shows, many states do not have such limitations. This results in many gun shows simply moving to states that are less restrictive when it comes to the secondary market. The government needs to clamp down on this loophole since it has the potential for criminals or even mentally unstable people to purchase weapons that they can use to harm or even potentially kill innocent bystanders.

Mental Health

If a person wants to own a gun, then they should allow themselves to be subjected to a mental health checkup. Safety for the general public trumps individual privacy, and as seen by the numerous cases of mentally unstable individuals causing mass shootings, preventing such individuals from having access to deadly weaponry is a necessity (LaPierre 23).

Illegal Gun Market

Addressing the issue of the illegal gun market is somewhat contentious since it is hard to determine where specific guns originated from due to present-day processes or removing the serial numbers from weapons. The best the government could potentially do is eliminate caches of illegal gun sales rather than going after individual sellers (Troutman 3).

Works Cited

LaPierre, Wayne. “Should Congress Pass Stronger Gun Laws?.” Congressional Digest 92.3 (2013): 23-25. Print

Ludwig, Jens, and Philip J. Cook. “The Benefits Of Reducing Gun Violence: Evidence From Contingent-Valuation Survey Data.” Journal Of Risk & Uncertainty 22.3 (2001): 207-226. Print

McLeigh, Jill D. “The New Normal? Addressing Gun Violence In America.” American Journal Of Orthopsychiatry (American Psychological Association) 85.3 (2015): 201-202. Print

Parham-Payne, Wanda. “The Role Of The Media In The Disparate Response To Gun Violence In America.” Journal Of Black Studies 45.8 (2014): 752-768. Print

Troutman, Adewale. “Public Health Has Role To Play In Preventing Gun Violence In America.” Nation’s Health 43.1 (2013): 3. Print

Argumentative On Gun Control

Gun control refers to the efforts put by the government to regulate or stop gun possession or sale by the public of a given country. Guns fall under firearms, which are classified into three broad categories; Handguns, Riffles and Short guns. They can be either automatic or semiautomatic. The automatic guns operate in such a way that, they “continuously fire bullets as long as the trigger is pulled” (Agresti and Smith, 2010).

Statistics from the United States of America show that out of a population of three hundred and seven million people, three hundred millions possess guns, accounting to around 97% of the population. However, in countries where possession of firearms by the public is illegal, it is very easy to acquire guns when one needs and unlike countries like US where firearms possession is legal, criminals possess the most firearms.

Different people in different parts of the world argue differently on the matter concerning gun possession by the public, which can have either a positive or a negative impact. For instance, people may keep guns for self-defense and protection against crime, hunting, target shooting, and clay bursting among others. The following essay will outline, describe, and weigh the reasons for gun possession and control around the world.

Reasons people keep guns

Most people argue that they keep guns for self-defense. They feel that the police may not be present all the time to protect them or their families from situations threatening their lives. In addition, some people feel that, as gun ownership decreases, the incidences of crime also drops since people are able to protect themselves (Chastain, 2010).

For instance, statistics show that in 1993, 0.5% households in the US used guns for defense in a situation where someone would have been killed if he never used a gun. In addition, 3.5% had used a gun in protection of their family and their property, 40% had stopped a planned attack after realizing that the victim had a gun, and 34% had ensnared a criminal using a gun, among others (Agresti and Smith, 2010).

Reports show that in many countries, most guns are owned for criminal purposes regardless of the fact that it is illegal to possess firearms. In addition, anyone who wishes to obtain a gun can easily obtain one in some situations; thus, cases of shootouts, homicide, and robbery are a very common scenario (Crooker, 2003).

This is the case almost everywhere in the world where most criminals use guns to accomplish their mission. In 2008, roughly armed criminal committed 8% of the crimes in the US. Such cases included robberies, rape cases, homicides, and many other kinds of assaults.

In many parts of the world, many people keep guns for hunting because traps or bows and arrows cannot hunt some game. Although this may be justified, challenges come in when the hunters use the firearm for the wrong purposes. The primary reason may be hunting but at times, these hunters use the guns to commit violence or to do illegal poaching. However, it is important for the hunter to be well equipped with enough knowledge on how to operate the firearm lest he bladders with the firearm (Kleck, 2005).

In countries where public can possess firearms, children are born, and as they grow up, they buy guns because their parents also owned one. At times, the parents may buy guns for them as gifts, while others find it cool to own a gun and go shooting with friends. In such cases, the gun owners may not be very careful on how they handle the firearms and the result at times is devastating (Valdez, 2003).

Gun control

Gun control is an important but very challenging task in every country because the victims always embrace it negatively. When gun control measures are enacted, the criminals find means of strengthening their actions thus endangering the life of people.

According to the statistics from US, legalizing gun possession endangers the life of people because it is not possible to differentiate between criminals and law-abiding citizens. In most cases, countries put gun control laws in place to prevent access by criminals and minors. Therefore, Federal measures should be enacted because this is the only way to regulating gun ownership (Valdez, 2003).

In countries where gun possession is legal, it is important to ensure that people acquire licenses for their firearms so that they may be careful to use them for the right purpose. By registering firearms, it is easier to do investigations incase of a crime. In America, gun control policies have been debated repeatedly in vain.

This is because the citizens in possession of guns outnumber the militia meaning the government will never succeed in getting firearms from the hands of its citizens. The incidences of mass shooting like the Columbine High School scandal are a clear indication that having guns in public hands is not safe (Gettings, 2010).

The second amendment act in the bill of rights reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” This amendment encouraged people in service of the state to keep arms, which was fine because it was not their personal interest but job requirement.

Reasons for Gun control laws

Gun control laws are the laws that define the situations under which it is right or wrong to own firearms. In Washington DC, murder crimes are low due to strong gun control laws while in Indianapolis, high rates of murder cases are a result of weak gun control measures (Williamson, 1008). Though people may feel secure in possession of firearms, it would be even more secure if no one was in possession since no crime is likely to take place.

In real sense, in a situation where someone uses a firearm for security purposes, he may either injure the victim or be injured. People may also shoot one another unintentionally when they are playing or a person is not having the right skills to use a gun. Moreover, when the public is in possession of guns, it makes it hard for the police to maintain law and order since they can be entangled in a scandal (Liptak, 2009).

Conclusion

Gun control policies and possibly abolishment of public possession of guns is the best step that the world can take today. This is because increased case or homicides, and robbery with violence are a result of so many guns in the public hands. Incase of places where abolishment is not possible, strong policies should be enacted in order to ensure guns are in possession of the right people and are serving the right purpose.

References

Agresti, J. and Smith, R. (2010). Gun control. Web.

Chastain, R. (2010). Why Own a Gun. Web.

Crooker, C. E. (2003). Gun control and gun rights. CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Gettings, J. (2010). Milestones in Federal Gun Control Legislation. Web.

Kleck, G. (2005). Point blank: guns and violence in America. NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Liptak, A. (2009). Justices Will Weigh Challenges to Gun Laws. Web.

Valdez, A. (2003). Gun Control. NY: InfoBase Publishing. Web.

Williamsons, M. Reasons for Gun Control. Web.

Introduction

One of the most valued liberties by the American people is their right to bear arms; a right enshrined in the Second Amendment. This right, which was included in the bill of rights in 1791, has continued to be upheld by successive governments up to today.

However, this right has come under heavy criticism in recent years because of the numerous incidents of gun related violence’s in the country. The destruction caused by firearms in school shootings and the public at large has enraged many and led to calls for tighter gun control measures.

The government has responded to this by imposing gun regulation, a move that has greatly angered gun control opponents. This paper will argue that the US government does not have any right to control guns and as such, it should respect the second amendment and stop taking up measures to impose gun control on its citizens.

Why Gun Control Should Be Abolished

Gun control is an infringement upon the basic rights of the Americans to possess firearms. This right is explicitly protected by the Second Amendment, which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” (Barnett 265). By trying to impose gun control measures in the country, the government is going against the constitution. Considering that the government is required to uphold the constitution at all times, gun control measures are essentially unlawful.

Advocates of gun control argue that the Second Amendment cannot be used to justify an individual’s right to own firearms since this right was conditioned on “service in an organized militia”. This advocates state that the individual’s right to bear arms was tied to a military context and citizens were only empowered to have guns in readiness to serve when called to duty. Legal scholars refute this claim by stating that the Second Amendment protected the right of the individual to possess firearms.

Barnett states that even at the time of the making of the Second Amendment, the term “bear arms” did not have an exclusively military connotation; the term was also used to connote purely private use of arms (244). Therefore, the right of individuals to have fire guns in the present era is still protected by the US constitution.

The control of bullets or even the ban of assault rifles will not prevent murderous people from engaging in killing. Domenech observes that most of the calls for stricter gun control measures come following tragic incidents like the mass killing of students in school by gun wielding individuals (25). Gun control proponents use tragedies of mass murders such as the Sandy Hook incident to make a case for further restrictions on the gun-owning rights of American citizens.

This is in spite of the fact that there is no research data supporting the theory that gun possession increases the likelihood of mass murders taking place. Stricter gun control legislation will not prevent sad incidents like the Sandy Hook case which robbed 20 children and six adults of their lives since, as Domenech explains, no laws can make the murderously insane sane or remove their ability to destroy innocent lives (25).

The government should try to identify the reasons for such incidents and take measures to avoid them from occurring in future. Blaming gun possession for action of deranged murderous is neglectful and it will only leave the public vulnerable to such attacks in the future.

The ability of an individual to protect himself by having guns is reduced by having gun controls measures. Opponents of gun ownership hope to make it impossible for citizens to buy and have guns for self-protection. Most people invest in firearms so as to keep themselves and their loved ones safe. Domenech reveals that most handgun sales in the US are made to individuals who are interested in defending their homes (27).

Strict gun control legislations will prevent many people from being able to acquire guns for this defensive purpose. It can be expected that the crime rates in the country will increase if individuals are barred from having guns. This is because guns have a deterrence effect on criminals who are discouraged from attacking homes where the owner has a gun. If criminals are not worried about being confronted by lethal legal weaponry by the person they intend to rob, crime rates will rise.

Proponents of gun control argue that individuals with firearms still are attacked and even murdered by criminals. While this is true, it should not be used as the basis for denying people a right to protect themselves and increase their chances of fighting off criminals. The government should therefore stop all gun control since these measures have a negative impact on the safety of the citizens.

Gun control will amount to an intrusion into the private lives of individuals by the government. As it is, the US has a gun culture that stretches back to centuries. This culture is connected to ideals such as individuality and liberty due to the deep relationships that guns have with the war for independence, which took place from 1775 to 1782 (Wolpert and Gimpel 244). Gun restrictions ignore the fact that guns have many legitimate users such as sporting and hunting.

By imposing these laws, individuals are denied the right to enjoy their freedom to bear arms. Wolpert and Gimpel declare that by implementing gun control measures, the government is using coercive power to directly shape individual conduct (241). In a country that prides itself for having liberties for all its citizens, this government action should not be tolerated. The government should respect the privacy of its citizens and allow them to have firearms if they want to.

Conclusion

This paper set out to argue that gun control is an infringement upon the most basic of rights or American citizens and the government should not be empowered to control guns.

The paper began by nothing that gun control measures are a violation of the constitutional rights of the American citizens. While these measures are mostly demanded to try to reduce incidents of gun related violence, research indicates that possession of guns by citizens does not reduce violence since people who intend to commit murder will still find a way to engage in these acts.

Gun control also prevents people from engaging in legitimate personal activity such as hunting and protecting themselves form assailants. By stopping its attempts at gun control, the government will not only be upholding the constitutional rights of its citizens but it will also ensure that the citizens are able to enjoy the benefits that firearms bring to the individual and the society at large.

Works Cited

Barnett, Randy. “Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?”. Texas Law Review 83.1 (2004): 237-277. Web.

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

Wolpert, Robin, and Gimpel James. “Self-interest, symbolic politics, and public attitudes towards gun control”. Political Behavior 20.3 (1998): 241-262. Web.