Category: Gun Control

Introduction

The discussion of gun control laws is one of the most critical topics in the USA. While some believe that every citizen should have a right to self-defense, others note the growing number of incidents involving violence induced by weapons. Hence, the major concern is that by allowing individuals to carry guns for self-protection, the government simultaneously puts other people in danger of being killed accidentally or intentionally. My stance on this issue is that there should be strict gun control laws regulating who can own and carry weapons under what circumstances and who cannot do so.

The most prominent constitutional issue related to the topic is reflected in the Second Amendment that defends the individual right to keep and bear arms. However, as Blocher remarks, this Amendment’s “massive” role in the national gun debate is not solely positive (813). The law has become “a banner for gun-rights supporters, a common enemy for gun-control advocates, and a consistent headache for scholars, lawyers, and judges” (Blocher 813). The Second Amendment is recognized as the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates various aspects of citizens’ rights (“14th Amendment”). However, the law requires a thorough analysis and an innovative approach since too many people have suffered because others exercised the right to bear arms.

Position

The major reason why I am in favor of gun control laws is that the Second Amendment does not provide enough justice for everyone. While the right of some citizens to bear arms is protected, many others feel unprotected and insecure. Currently, the majority of the US states have only minimal constraints on people’s ability “to keep and bear arms” (Blocher 819). The problem is aggravated by the fact that the right to bear arms in the USA has become a significant political and historical issue.

The USA and Mexico are the only countries in the world guaranteeing the right to bear arms in their constitutions (Lemieux 76). All other states that used to grant such a right have altered their constitutions by making gun possession not a right but a privilege.

Politically, the complication of approaching gun control laws is related to a variety of opinions among residents. However, it is necessary to note that the lack of the demand to obtain a license from a specialized authority frequently leads to tragic events involving numerous deaths. Thus, a peculiar aspect of the gun law discussion is the problem of mental health issues about gun control measures. As Fox and Fridel remark, many instances of deadly shootings could have been prevented but for the deficiencies in the US mental health system (14). McGinty et al. report that news media tend to use the phrase “dangerous people” more frequently than “dangerous weapons” when covering mass shootings (406).

This evidence indicates that society attempts to drive away from the attention from the core evil – weapons – and putting emphasis on people instead. However, this fact is another proof that mentally unstable citizens must not exercise the constitutional right to own a gun. Taking into consideration the rate of murders committed by mentally unstable individuals, it seems logical that those expressing their wish to bear arms should pass a psychological test in the least.

What is interesting is the reaction of the public to gun control laws, which changes immediately after mass shootings. According to research performed by Luca et al., the number of firearm bills proposed in a state after a mass shooting amounts to 16% within one year (1). Depending on the number of people killed, this rate may become higher. Newman and Hartman argue that because of intolerable gun violence incidence, there is a high demand for policy change (1). It is impossible not to agree with the scholars since too many innocent people suffer because of the constitutional right to own a gun granted to anyone.

Briefs of Cases

Case 1

The issue of Voisine v. the United States is that Stephen L. Voisine failed to uphold the regulations of the Second Amendment when killing a bald eagle. Voisine had been convicted of numerous cases of domestic violence. According to federal laws, the man had no right to bear a rifle (Voisine v. United States 1). Due to having committed a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” Voisine was not supposed to carry or use a weapon.

However, Voisine appealed to the federal rule of “reckless, rather than knowing or intentional, conduct” (Voisine v. the United States 1). Hence, the convicted individual tried to defend himself by arguing that killing a bald eagle was not a domestic violence case.

However, the court did not agree with Voisine and did not accept the defendant’s claims. The First Circuit affirmed the crime, holding that “an offense with a mens rea of recklessness may qualify as a ‘misdemeanor crime of violence’ under §922(g)(9)” (Voisine v. the United States 2). Further, Voisine filed a “joint petition for certiorari,” and the case was remanded for further consideration (Voisine v. United States 2). Finally, the First Circuit upheld the conviction once again on the same basis. Thus, the specific holding of the court was the affirmation. The case shows a negative implication of allowing anyone to bear arms.

Voisine violated the law by carrying a weapon even after the restriction, which indicates flaws in the law. It is evident from the case that a citizen who feels empowered to bear arms will not deny himself this right voluntarily.

Case 2

The issue of Caetano v. Massachusetts is that Jaime Caetano failed to uphold the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts’ law prohibiting the possession of stun guns (Caetano v. Massachusetts 1). The Second Amendment grants every American citizen the right to keep and bear arms. Caetano was carrying a stun gun and used it to threaten her violent ex-boyfriend who assaulted her. However, the law issued by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts turned Caetano from a person trying to protect her life into a criminal (Caetano v. Massachusetts 2). There were two rules used against Caetano in that case.

The first one was Massachusetts General Laws, ch. 140, §131J, “which bans entirely the possession of an electrical weapon” (Caetano v. Massachusetts 3). The second one was Massachusetts law 470 stating that “a stun gun is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” (Caetano v. Massachusetts 4). According to these two rules, Caetano had no right to bear a stun gun.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law banning the ownership of stun guns. Further, the Supreme Judicial Court rejected the defendant’s Second Amendment claim (Caetano v. Massachusetts 1-2). This case is an example of another type of deficiency in gun control legislation. While the Second Amendment declares the right to self-protection, Caetano was deprived of such a possibility. Hence, it is clear that the legislation on gun control is insufficiently developed and requires alterations and improvements.

Opposition

The most popular opinion expressed in defense of gun ownership is that mentioned in the Second Amendment, which defends the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, gun lobbyists argue that “gun-related homicide rates have been stable in the last decade” (Jena et al. 1065).

Therefore, those being against gun control laws state that there is no need to restrict anyone’s rights regarding weapon ownership. However, research indicates that while the number of homicides has been comparatively low, there is a rising “epidemic of gun violence” in the USA (Jena et al. 1065). While the country houses only 5% of the world’s population, its weapon possession rate is as high as 40% (Jena et al. 1065). Numerous cases of mass shootings signify that the stability of homicide rates must not blind legislators to the danger posed by lax gun control laws.

Conclusion

Gun control regulations in the USA require serious reconsideration due to the number of tragic accidents involving weapons. While the right to bear arms is defended by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, it seems viable that some regulations should be made to this law. The first recommendation is to follow the example of almost all countries and make gun possession a privilege instead of a right. The second suggestion is to create a set of requirements without fulfilling which a person will not be able to own, carry, or use a gun. An individual’s life is the most treasured possession, and it should not be taken away merely because someone else mistreats a weapon.

Works Cited

Blocher, Joseph. “Gun Rights Talk.” Boston University Law Review, vol. 94, 2014, pp. 813-833.

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. (2016). Supreme Court of the United States. Web.

Fox, James Alan, and Emma E. Fridel. “The Tenuous Connections Involving Mass Shootings, Mental Illness, and Gun Laws.” Violence and Gender, vol. 3, no. 1, 2016, pp. 14-19.

“14th Amendment.” Legal Information Institute, n.d. Web.

Jena, Anupam B., et al. “Does the Declining Lethality of Gunshot Injuries Mask a Rising Epidemic of Gun Violence in the United States?” Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 29, no. 7, 2014, pp. 1065-1069.

Luca, Michael, et al. “The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy.” Harvard Business School, NOM Unit Working Paper No. 16-126, 2019.

Lemieux, Frederic. “Effect of Gun Culture and Firearm Laws on Gun Violence and Mass Shootings in the United States: A Multi-Level Quantitative Analysis.” Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, vol. 9, no. 1, 2014, pp. 74-93.

McGinty, Emma E., et al. “News Media Framing of Serious Mental Illness and Gun Violence in the United States, 1997-2012.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 104, no. 3, 2014, pp. 406-413.

Newman, Benjamin J., and Todd K. Hartman. “Mass Shootings and Public Support for Gun Control.” British Journal of Political Science, 2017, pp. 1-17. Web.

Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. (2016). Supreme Court of the United States. Web.

Introduction

Proponents of gun control have advocated for abolishment of gun possession in the public since 1934. For almost 8 decades now, they have enacted several federal laws to restrict the possession (Primm, Regoli, and Hewitt 65).

Although the proponents’ argument is for the ‘common good’ of the US public, there exist thick partisan lines on this issue. The opponents argue that gun control would make the public vulnerable to the attack by the ‘high risk individuals’. Because of these differences, this paper aims to analyze to establish why the federal government should ban the possession of guns.

Pro-Gun Control

Gun possession poses threat to the security of the public. Proponents argue that the more uncontrollably the government continues to allow firearms’ possession to the public, the higher the chances of acquisition by the ‘high risks groups’ and hence threatening the public security. In effect, there will be increased crime in the US public. Reports at Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) “show that about 60% to 70% of the homicides in US are committed through guns” (Cook and Ludwig 45).

This figure is alarming and the government, through proper legislation, should ban the public possession of guns. The reports further indicate that prior to 1980s; the numbers of killings were higher than 1990s. The proponents attribute the decrease to enactment of several firearms’ control laws. According to Cook and Ludwig between 1993 and 1999, “the FBI recorded a decrease of 11% in firearm-related homicides…

In 1999, out of the 6.3m crimes committed, 1.6m crimes were gun-related…out of 12,943 homicides committed in 2000, guns committed 8,493, which accounts for 66%” (67). These statistics evidence the threats posed by the increased gun possession to the security.

Crime investigators, such as FBI, have established that most of these criminals obtain these weapons from legitimate owners, majorly through theft. Security agencies have reported massive destruction and loss of property during the execution of these crimes. Therefore, abolishment of possession would reduce these security issues.

The increase in public violence in the US is due to increase in possession of the firearms, particularly guns. Proponents impute the increase of violence among the youth to possession of the guns (Snide, Ovens, Drummond, and Kapur, 67). Statistics by the Bureau of Justice reveal that the number of violent activities among the people aged between 14 to 25 years drastically rose between the years, 1985, and 1993. The firearm-related deaths committed by these groups of people increased by 294% between 1985 and 1993.

Recent survey by the Justice department indicated that more than 12.7% of students in US possess guns. Amazingly, they carry them to schools. The increase in violent content within the media broadcasts in US has influenced the psychology of these students to believe that the world is violent (Cornell 23). In fact, to the youth, violence is the resolution to their conflicts.

With this mentality, youth increasingly use their readily available guns, to resolve their conflicts. This sad phenomenon has therefore resulted into increase in public violence. Although the government continues to tighten the broadcasting rules, the abolishment of gun possession is the permanent solution to public violence.

Conclusion

The US policymakers need to set aside their ideological differences in order to realize a violent-free nation. However, as long the boundary between the proponents and opponents widens, the states will continue to record high gun-related crimes and violence in the public domain.

Based on the statistics presented in the discussion above, it is evident that a handgun, almost common in every US family, executes most of the crimes in US. The increased possession of the guns among the youth indeed threatens the stability of the entire country. It is therefore justifiable that the government should ban the possession of these firearms.

Works Cited

Snide, Carolyn, Ovens, Howard, Drummond, Alan, and Kapur, Atul. “CAEP Position Statement on Gun Control.” CJEM, CAEP update, 11.1 (2009): 64-72.

The article is about the CAEP update on gun ownership in Canada. The article exposes the effects of gun ownership in Canada: Suicide, homicides and injuries to the public. Based on its analysis, the article provides a wider perspective of the effects of gun possession to the security of the public in any other country. The article also describes the international gun control policies and recommends that the Canadian government should adopt these policies. The article acts as a model to the rest of the world to adopt strict rules on gun control.

Cook, Philip, and Ludwig, Jens. Evaluating gun policy: effects on crime and violence. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2003. Print

The book evaluates the effects of gun possession to the security of the public. It basis its argument on statistics obtained from Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice. It provides insights into effects of political differences on the policies of gun control to the security of the US public. The book is useful for research on the firearm-related crimes and violence.

Cornell, Saul. A well-regulated militia – the Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print

With the experience in History of US policies, particularly in Gun control, the author provides informative arguments for existence in proponents and opponents of the gun control. The book evaluates how the increase in enactment of gun control policies has influenced the morality of the US public over the years.

Primm, Eric, Regoli, Robert, and Hewitt, John. “Race, Fear, and Firearms: The Roles of Demographics and Guilt Assuagement in the Creation of a Political Partition.” Springer Science + Business Media 13.2 (2008): 63-73.

The Journal discusses the reasons for existence of the two different groups in the issue of gun control. It also describes the historical background of the gun control. It further highlights the arguments for and against the ban of gun possession. As experienced Professors of sociology, the authors offer in-depth information of the subject to other researchers.

Introduction

The issue of gun control in the US is a complicated matter due to the extensive history of violence and debates regarding the efficiency of regulations that aim to minimize access to weapons. An important question, in this case, is the issue of mental health, which appears to be the main contributor to the mass shootings, which is typically not addressed by legislators. This paper aims to compare personal findings regarding gun control and compare those to scholarly research.

Importance of the Topic

The topic chosen for this research is relevant due to the increasing number of gun violence cases in recent years. One element that contributes to the controversy regarding the gun control issue is the Second Amendment. Due to the nature of this legislation, the citizens of the US choose to interpret it differently, with some arguing that it is their right to own a weapon. One can claim that clarification from the government, for instance, a specified law, would resolve the problem and outline the particular components of owning a weapon.

However, Burrus (2013) cites a commentary from Joe Biden, who admitted that strict gun regulations would not help mitigate the number of crimes committed using assault weapons. This argument suggests that the gun control issue should be investigated more thoroughly to introduce an efficient policy that will combat violence.

Scholarly Research

Research conducted by scholars on the issue of gun violence and governmental regulations that help mitigate the problem can be used to develop practices for reducing the levels of crime. Cohn et al. (2013) conducted intriguing research investigating the actual level of crimes committed using weapons and public knowledge regarding this issue. The findings suggest that the levels of homicide, in fact, decreased since 1993 despite the general belief that the violence rates increase continuously. Cohn et al. (2013) provide a statistic suggesting that the peak of this issue was seen in 1993, while “the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew” (para. 2).

The paradox described in this research suggests that despite the enhanced attention from the general public towards the issue of gun control, most people are not aware of factual data regarding these crimes. This may be due to the inadequate portrayal of some media or other news sources, suggesting that additional attention should be dedicated to this aspect of public awareness. Graph 1 presents the data indicating the declining trend of violence in the country over the years.

Public opinion regarding guns is shaped by many components. However, it is critical to examine data to locate a proper solution. Phillips (2015) argues that the issue of politicizing mass shootings contributes to the inability of both the government and the general public to locate an adequate solution to this problem. The author indicates that data collected through various researchers suggest that pro-gun control actions will not result in the reduction of the number of mass shootings.

One argument that supports this claim is that the US already has the highest number of guns per citizen ratio without having the highest level of crimes among the developed states (Phillips, 2015). Therefore, despite the prevalence of opinions regarding a more strict control of the weapons in the country, it is not a valid resolution to the issue.

The impact of news outlets citing misleading information or transforming facts to ensure that they gain more public attention has a vital role in this problem as well, which should be considered when developing gun-related policies. Lacapria (2015) cites a study by Harvard University that suggests no correlation between the number of firearms owned in the area and the level of crime. Thus, the models and arguments suggesting that minimizing the physical amount of weapons through governmental regulation are not true. The findings substantiate arguments presented by other scholars, such as Cohn et al. (2013) and Phillips (2015), and Burrur’s (2013) statements.

The issue that should be emphasized here is the fact that prior studies on gun control were not checked in accordance with the peer-review process, and therefore their validity is questionable. Moreover, Lacapria (2015) provides an example of false information spreading through online media regarding the issue, which worsens the problem of gun control and appropriate resolutions. In general, it can be argued that the public should be educated on the question of gun ownership, with citations from relevant statistics and research to ensure evidence-based practices are used as the basis for new laws.

One aspect of scholarly research that focuses on gun regulations is the viewpoints of individuals. Burrus (2013) offers an essential insight into the topic of guns by suggesting that culture is the predominant issue that does not allow people with a different opinion on the subject to come to a cohesive conclusion. The viewpoint that the author defends is connected to the belief that the government has to have a strong justification for taking guns from its citizens, while currently, no such argument exists.

The aspect of culture and its implications within this debate can be assessed by evaluating the attitudes towards the government. Burrus (2013) argues that some individuals view firearms as a method for protecting themselves against the prospective tyranny of the official. This element is usually not part of the gun debate and should be examined more closely because it reflects the political views of both sides of the gun debate.

The Second Amendment, which was discussed above, has a significant impact on the issue. Kates (1983) states that “even if the historical evidence does establish an individual right to arms, it remains to define its parameters, particularly with regard to gun control rather than gun prohibition-confiscation” (para. 5). The issue is in the different interpretation of this legislation, which lacks a substantial claim that will explicitly outline the rights of people in regards to weapons in the modern world.

Based on the suggestions provided by Kates (1983) and other researchers that were discussed above, one can argue that the current discussion about guns lacks evidence and support from the factual data. Therefore, educations through the presentation of valid resources and information based on studies are necessary to ensure that both the citizens of the US and the government officials are capable of reaching a consensus.

Personal Finings

In order to carry out personal research, a survey using Survey Monkey online tool was created. The questions include opinions regarding gun control, primary news sources, National Rifle Association (NRA) attitudes, and attitudes towards existing legislation. An essential element of this questionnaire is the assessment of preferences towards stricter control or emphasis on mental health in regards to gun violence. In general, it can be concluded that the findings suggest a need for additional education on the topic of gun control and avoidance of strategies such as armed guards at schools or teachers carrying guns due to the controversies surrounding these strategies. Additionally, it can be concluded that the opinion regarding gun legislation is shaped by personal experience and ownership of weapons.

In general, the findings correlate with those presented by the scholars and discussed in the first section of the paper. The ideas that lead the debate regarding the need for more regulation of firearm weapons within the country are not always substantiated by information from credible sources. Additionally, these opinions are shaped by personal and cultural beliefs, suggesting that education is necessary to highlight other elements of violent crimes, for instance, mental health. It can be argued that checking the sources of information for validity, including articles published in reliable magazines for peer review, is crucial for obtaining valid data that can be used in the gun debate.

Conclusion

Overall, the topic of gun control through stricter regulation is a debatable issue. The findings presented by scholars suggest that the general population of the US is unaware of the statistics and data findings connected to violence in the country. Thus, the central claim of this paper is that education is a better answer than gun control in the context of firearm violence is substantiated by many researchers. Another element of education is a sufficient understanding of the political viewpoints and culture that guides both sides of the debate.

References

Burrus, T. (2013). The gun debate is a culture debate. Web.

Cohn, D., Taylor, P., Lopez, M. H., Gallagher, K., Parker, K. & Maass, K. T. (2013). Gun homicide rate down 49% since 1993 peak; Public unaware. Web.

Kates, J. (1983). Handgun prohibition and the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Web.

Lacapria, C. (2015). Harvard University study reveals astonishing link between firearms, crime and gun control. Web.

Phillips, A. (2015). The gun-control debate, explained in 5 questions. Web.

Introduction

Opponents of gun control often employ John Stuart Mills’ “Harm Principle” as one justification for owning firearms. They point to statistics that demonstrate that most gun owners do not use them to commit crimes therefore should not be, according to the principle, restricted by law to possess guns. Laws that inhibit or prohibit individual autonomy when their actions are causing no harm are an example of a free state violating its moral obligation to the people it represents and overstepping the limits of legislative powers given to it by the people. However, as Hugh Lafollette argues in Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, while using the harm principle to determine whether or not the government’s intervention into personal decisions is legitimate, factors of degree and probability that a person’s actions might harm others must be considered as well. It’s a delicate and arguable balance. For instance, automobiles and tobacco cause many deaths worldwide every day but driving and smoking are legal. On the other hand, the possession of nuclear weapons, which have caused no deaths in more than half a century, is illegal. This discussion presents the ‘harm principle,’ arguments for and against the liberal interpretation of this principle, and presents Lafollette’s reasoning that the banning of guns, particularly handguns does not violate the tenets of this principle.

Arguments of opposers

To support the argument of those opposed to gun control, advocates point to Mills’ “Harm Principle.” As outlined in his influential1859 work, On Liberty, Mills argued that an adult should be allowed to do what they want to do provided that their action does not cause harm to someone else. The 1957 Wolfenden Committee report, in line with this thinking, recommended that “there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality that is ‘not the law’s business’ (Kipnis, 1977, p. 44). Lord Patrick Devlin, then a British judge, disputed the report published while he sat on the bench arguing for the use of law to preserve morality and thus society itself. Devlin recommended punishment for violating society’s morals which were ambiguously defined as being those behaviors that would disgust a ‘right-minded person.’ Devlin believed that criminal prosecution could alter behavior in both the individual and society in general. If the aberrant behavior wasn’t rectified in a public and punishing way, Devlin believed that society’s moral fabric would simply unravel. It was necessary, therefore, to apply criminal law to enforce the morals of society, thus defending social order itself. Professor and philosopher H.L.A. Hart opposed Devlin’s viewpoint explaining that immorality does not jeopardize society and that Devlin’s stance implies that the morality of society can’t change. Hart maintained that there is a common morality in a multi-cultural society, but that we would have no freedom as civilized human beings if we could do things only of which the collective whole approved (Hilgendorf, 2005).

The center of Hart’s argument is the “Harm Principle” extrapolated from John Mill’s composition 100 years earlier. “..That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill, 1885). Devlin, surprisingly, agreed with this premise. The distinction of how a changing morality affects society and what degree of harm it inflicts upon it versus the rights of individuals to live as they please without fear of repression is a long-standing debate in all parts of the world over a long period. Hart conceded that people will do what they want to do whether it is lawful or not. To imprison a citizen for an act that affects no one but the consenting individual, Hart said, is an immoral act in itself.

Hart went on to say that for a legal system to function effectively, the rules must be understood by all those individuals to whom they apply. If the rules are not sufficiently clear, then there may be uncertainty about the obligations which have been imposed on individuals. Moral and legal rules may apply to similar aspects of conduct, such as the obligation to be honest and truthful or the obligation to respect the rights of other individuals. However, moral rules cannot always be changed in the same way that legal rules can be changed (Hart, 1994). The division of the two philosophies is a matter of where a person draws the line between civil liberties and societal control. A violent crime, no matter how heinous, does not destroy the fabric of society. Murders take place every day in every nation, yet civilized people carry on in a civilized manner before, during, and after the horrible incidents. If that is true, neither does a crime against another’s moral stance destroy the moral fabric of society.

Lafollette takes the side of Hart in the ‘no harm’ debate and acknowledges the dilemma the issue of gun ownership brings to the debate. “The decision to permit private ownership of guns is shaped by two factors pulling in opposite directions. Our commitment to individual liberty weighs against the government’s abolishing or restricting the private ownership of guns as a way of limiting harm” (Lafollette, p. 330). While a staunch supporter of individual liberties, Lafollette suggests that if sufficient evidence can be provided that certain liberties such as gun ownership cause a disproportionate amount of harm relative to the action, then society has a reasoned basis by which to restrict this action. “As the evidence increases, the reasons for prohibiting the behavior increase. As the probability that the behavior will lead to serious harm (the product of the gravity and extent of the harm) approaches certainty, then the reasons for forbidding the behavior become very strong. The more grave and widespread the potential harm, the more reason we have to constrain the behavior. If the gravity and extent of the harm are substantial, we might constrain the behavior even if our evidence that the behavior causes the harm is moderate” (Lafollette, p. 331).

The concept that easy access to firearms, such as the case in the United States, has an important impact on the homicide rates in that country is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. “Gun control supporters offer empirical evidence of a positive correlation between murder rates and the availability of guns (especially handguns)” (Lafollette p. 332). Nearly two-thirds of all homicides taking place in the U.S. involve a firearm. In the year 2002, more than 3000 American children died as a result of guns, mostly handguns. That breaks down to 50 children being shot and killed each week or eight per day, one every three hours. Four to five times this many are wounded from gunfire. These numbers are startling enough. Now insert the more than 5000 kids under 18 killed by guns in 2005 and the figures jump to nearly 100 per week, 15 per day, and 1 every hour and a half. American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. Compare this with Britain where 19 children were killed by guns in 2005 and Japan where none were killed. Both of these countries, as opposed to the U.S., have enacted strict gun control laws (“Statistics” 2005).

Balancing freedom and harmful effect

When balancing individual freedom and the potentially harmful effect of that freedom on society, the right to own guns is outweighed by the destructive consequences. “The most important problem raised in the scholarly debate concerning bans on guns is intentional deaths: most of the anti-gun literature is sharply focused on the idea that guns make deliberate acts of violence more likely. This is the sort of risk that makes them especially dangerous objects” (Lafollette p. 317). The intention of automobiles, for example, is for purposes related to transportation while guns are bought for one main reason, to potentially be used to shoot someone. “No one would deny that a liberal state, even the relatively constrained state of wide liberalism, may prohibit activities that kill or maim others” (Lafollette p. 317).

We, as a society, are continuously growing toward tolerance in both our legislation and our minds. Evidence of this fact exists in the laws enacted since the historic debate between Devlin and Hart on these issues. Lawmakers have altered rules regarding abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and controlled substances since this high-profile dialogue was introduced. Although the ‘no harm, no foul’ concept is equally subjective in its flippant succinctness, it is at the same time easily understood to relate to serious individual harm caused by another’s actions. If no serious harm has been inflicted, it becomes difficult to prove a crime has taken place. Because of the ease with which the concept is both understood and applied, it is natural for society to evolve toward the ‘Harm Principle.’ It is paradoxical that though it is the most liberal-minded who support the ‘no harm’ theory and have been specifically vocal in issues such as those previously mentioned also support gun control. Many opponents of gun control would deny other individual freedoms such as gay marriage, abortion, and the legalization of drugs. Lafollette injects reasoned arguments into the debate. It is the measure of harm and the intent of the action or behavior that must be considered. Given this elucidation, the potential for harm regarding the ownership of guns outweighs the expectations of autonomy first espoused by Mills.

References

1. Hart, H.L.A. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press, (1994), p. 110.
2. Hilgendorf, Eric. “Morality and English Law.” University of Wurzburg. Web.
3. Kipnis, Kenneth. Philosophical Issues in Law. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 1977, p. 44.
4. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. New York: John B. Alden, (1885), p. 9.
5. “Statistics: Gun Violence in Our Communities.” National Health Administration Health Information Network. (2005) Web.
6. Lafollette, Hugh. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology. (Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies) Wiley-Blackwell. New York: Oxford University Press, 29, 2006.

The US is among the most liberal countries in the world. In most of the states anyone who is above 21 years old is allowed to carry a licensed gun. The right to own a firearm is found in the second Amendment of the US constitution. This clause states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (Magoon 2008).

The second amendment provides for certain grounds that allow people to keep gun; however, this has been a subject of intense debate.

Those advocating for gun control point out that it is very easy to get a gun. They claim that only 60% of guns are bought from licensed dealers. The remaining percentage gets their guns from gun shows or internet sources. Hence this makes it very easy even for criminals who are not allowed by law to possess guns to easily access them.

Hence, advocates for gun control require that governments set tough rules, which would make it harder for people to own firearms. The government should also limit the number of firearms which one can buy monthly.

These people also feel that guns pose a big threat to public safety. Suicides or murders happen more often in homes, which have guns than in homes that do not have guns. Pro gun control lobbyists also feel that most gun sellers do not give background checks on their customers mental health and criminal background( if there is any) as required by law.

This they feel makes it easy for people who are prohibited by law to possess guns to easily access them and later use them to commit felony. Most of these arguments used by pro-gun control lobbyists are genuine. However some of the arguments have also be used by people who are against gun control.

Anti gun control lobbyists believe that if more people were allowed to own guns gun related deaths would decrease. This is because these people would use their guns for self protection hence reducing the fatalities which would have occurred if they had no guns. These people also believe that criminals will always find ways of getting guns no matter how strict the laws are to prohibit them.

Therefore making it hard for people to get guns only makes it even harder for honest law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, hence exposing them from the risk posed by gun-trotting criminals.

These people believe that stricter access to guns cannot prevent suicide. This is because people who would like to commit suicide can use many other different means if they are unable to access guns. Some anti-gun control advocates believe that regulations are meant to discriminate against people who are perceived to be of a lower social status from getting guns (eg African-Americans during the 1960s).

Hence, this makes it easy for them to be oppressed by the state. These people also believe that background checks do not work as they are poorly enforced by the government.

The arguments presented by both the people who are opposed to gun control and the people who advocate it are somehow true. But it is important to note the fact that there is a direct relationship between the number of gun related crimes and the availability of firearms.

Gun related crimes are usually higher in countries where it is easy to get a gun than in countries which have stringent rules governing the possession and use of firearms. A good example is comparing the crime rates of the US, which does not have stringent regulation governing possession and use firearms with Japan which has very stringent rules governing the use and possession of firearms.

In Japan there were 22 crime incidents for every 100 people whereas in the US there were 43 crime incidents for every hundred people in 1999. The rate of gun murders for Japan in the year 2000 was 0.2 for every 100,000 people in 2000, whereas that of US was 3.72 for every 100,000 people.

This comparison clearly shows that the lesser the regulation the higher the rate of crime. The banning of all privately owned handguns in mainland Britain after the Dunblane shootings, which occurred on 13th march 1996, led to a continued decrease of handgun related crimes in Britain. This is a clear example that availability of guns fuels gun-related crime. In America guns have been used to kill some of the most influential people.

Martin Luther king Jr was shot and killed by a gunman as he stood from the balcony a motel in Memphis. J.F Kennedy was also shot and killed while he rode on the back of his convertible car. These are examples of prominent people who have been killed by gunmen who could easily access guns and hence used them for evil motives.

The argument posed by anti-gun control advocates that criminals would always get ways of acquiring a gun with or without stringent regulation must not be used to make governments make it easy for people to obtain guns for self-protection. This is because making it easy for people to get guns would aid people with a criminal mind to easily be involved in crime. Otherwise more stringent regulation would have made it harder for them to get access to guns hence reducing the probability of them committing a crime.

The government usually has many arms involved in the protection of citizens. These arms include the police and the military. These are people who are paid by taxpayers for the sole purpose of protecting them. Therefore by allowing citizens to easy access guns in the excuse of self protection, these citizens would be performing the work of the state.

This can fuel impunity in the government arm entrusted with protection since their work would be performed by citizens who they are hired to protect. Easy access to possession of firearms for self-protection also proves a lack of confidence in the arms of the government entrusted with protection of its citizens.

Generally, criminals, children and people of unsound mind are prohibited from possessing certain kinds of high risk military firearms. These firearms include machine guns and some semi-automatic assault weapons. However barring these people from possessing this firearms does not really prevent them from committing felony since they can easily access other types of guns which are just as lethal as the other types of guns as they can also be used to kill.

Regulation requiring that people who sell guns provide records of all the people that they sell their guns to is in my view not effective in controlling the use of the guns in crime. This is simply because the authenticity of the information provided by the gun sellers is not easy to verify.

These sellers can easily collude with the criminals to enable them get whichever guns they want for them to use as they please. This is because the sellers are entrepreneurs who can easily bend existing laws to suit them as long as they are making money out of it.

However the most traumatic effect of easy access to guns is usually exhibited in some parts Africa which continue to be ravaged by war. In most of these countries guns are imported from countries where there are no stringent regulations governing the use and possession of firearms. This guns fuel the wars in those countries. Therefore people who are against gun control should know that people are the ones who kill but not the guns, however guns make killing to be far much easier such even a child can kill.

Works Cited

Magoon, Kekla. Gun control. Minnesota: ABDO. 2008. Web.

Introduction

Americans highly value their right to bear arms and the US has the highest number of private firearms ownership among industrialized nations. However, the relationship between the increase in firearms related violence and gun ownership has led to calls for more stringent gun control policies by the government.

Branas et al. (2009, p.2034, para.1) observe that guns are among the major issues facing the American public with people holding polarized views on whether gun control should be made stricter or loosened. In spite of the many years of debate over the issue, gun control remains to be a bitterly contested issue in the United States.

Much of the controversy comes from the fact that gun regulation will have direct impacts on individuals all over the country. Many Americans are wary of the implications that gun control has on issues such as waiting periods and purchasing permits. This paper will set out to argue that gun control is desirable since the benefits attributed to private gun ownership do not justify the risks.

A Case for Gun control

A major argument made in support of guns is that more guns result in less crime in the country. Proponents of gun control dismiss these assertions as unfounded since there is no valid research backing up these claims. Lambert (2004, p. 3, para. 3) observes that the decrease in crime attributed by opponents of gun control to relaxing of carry laws could be attributed to other factors such as better policing or increased economic well being in the state.

Opponents of gun control also maintain that increased possession of guns will have a deterrent effect on criminals who will be deterred from committing crimes due to the additional risk that the victim may be carrying concealed weapons. This assumption is baseless since criminals normally overwhelm their victims with excessive force.

In addition to this, Lambert (2004) points out that permit holders will “not always carry their weapons and will not always get a chance to use them” (p.4, para.3). In addition to this, cases of defensive gun use are marginal. Lambert (2004, p.4, para.7) articulates that defensive gun use by permit holders is extremely rare which means that criminals are not going to be worried about the marginal probability that the victim will engage them in a gunfire exchange.

Gun control legislations are effective in decreasing the rate of suicide by guns in the country. Suicide by firearms is an important issue considering the fact that guns are the most favored tool of suicide by white males aged 20 to 64. The availability of guns increases the chance that they will be used for suicide with reports indicating that “urban areas with less strict handgun laws had a 5.7 fold higher rate of suicide involving firearms” (p.129).

Weapon availability increases the risk of committing suicide among suicidal-prone individuals. Hemenway (2011, p.509, para.2) notes that many suicides appear to be impulsive acts and guns provide a quick and lethal instrument during such periods. A study by Lambert and Silva (1998, p.129, para.2) revealed that gun control legislations could decrease these firearms-related suicides significantly.

Opponents of gun control point out that gun control is not the only way through which suicide rates can be decreased. While it is true that other means can be used to decrease suicide rates, the benefits of gun control should not be ignored. Gun control laws should therefore be imposed to help reduce the number of guns and hence the suicide rate in the country.

One of the most common arguments raised by opponents of gun control is that having a concealed weapon protects a person from being a victim of an armed assault. This is not the case and possessing a gun does not decrease the probability that the individual will be shot at in an assault.

Research by Branas et al. (2009) highlighted that on average, “guns did not seem to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault” (p.2037, para.9). The justification that possessing a firearm will safeguard a person from being assaulted is therefore invalid.

On the contrary, possession of a gun may actually increase risk of being assaulted. Branas et al. (2009, p.2037, para.10) explains that people who have guns may feel empowered to enter into a dangerous environment that they would normally avoid and therefore expose themselves to risk of assault.

Gun possession poses significant risk in the home of the owner. Hemenway (2011, p.502, para.3) states that while handguns are desirable for protection against crimes; they pose greater health risks in the home than the benefits they bring. Hemenway (2011) highlights the main risks of having a gun stemming from the fact that “someone inappropriate can be shot or intimidated with the gun” (p.503, para.2).

Cases of accidental shootings in the US are 11 times higher in the US than in other developed countries. Gun control policies can help reduce the unintentional firearm fatalities that the US currently faces.

Male partners also use guns to scare and intimidate their female companions in cases of domestic abuse. Reports indicate that hostile gun displays occurred more often than self-defense gun uses in the home (Hemenway, 2011, p.506, para.9). More stringent gun control laws would decrease the availability of guns at home and therefore increase the safety for women.

Arguments Against Gun Control

Gun control can be termed as an intrusion of the government into the private citizen’s life. The USA is a country founded on the principles of liberty and governmental intrusion in personal life is not welcome. Guns are used for a myriad of legitimate personal activities including hunting and sporting.

Wolpert and Gimpel (1998) documents that the values associated with the gun culture are “ideologically related to individualism” (p.244, para.3). There is a strong connection between guns and the country’s early struggle for independence. Opponents of gun control therefore demand that the government should remove the restrictive policies against guns and let gun owners enjoy their freedom to bear arms.

While gun control does reduce the rights and privileges of gun owners, it cannot be equated to an intrusion by the government into private individual’s lives. Moorhouse and Wanner (2006) note that gun control laws restrict the “types of firearms that may be purchased, designate the qualifications of those who may purchase and own a firearm, and restrict the safe storage and use of firearms” (p.103, para.1).

These actions are not an infringement on individual rights by the government but rather positive steps to ensure that gun ownership by an individual does not pose safety and security to the rest of the public.

Opponents of gun control argue that possession of guns by older Americans (those over 25) does not result in an increase in gun related violence. Wintemute et al. (2004, p.734, para.5) supports this view by noting that America’s young people are at a higher risk of engaging in gun violence.

Enacting gun control rules that ban gun sales for the entire population would therefore be wrong since it would penalize the older possessors who are less likely to use their guns to carry out crimes.

A more astute approach would be increasing the price of guns to prevent the younger generation, which has financial constraints from purchasing guns and banning the sale of inexpensive guns. Wintemute et al. (2004) reported that a ban on the sale of inexpensive pistols was “linked to a 9% decrease in homicide rates in Maryland” (p.740, para.7).

However, young people might still access guns even if their prices are high. Research by Cao, Zhang, and Ni (2008, p.161, para.5) on carrying of weapons to school for protection indicated that the likelihood of adolescent gun carrying increased with the prevalence of local gun ownership. A decrease in the overall ownership of guns will therefore reduce the changes of American’s young people possessing guns and using them for violence.

Proponents of gun control suggest that these policies result in less crime. However, research indicates that gun control does not reduce crime rates in the country. Moorhouse and Wanner (2006, p.121, para.4) assert that there is no linkage between gun control and crime rates. States with relaxed gun control laws continue to experience crime levels that are equivalent to those of states with stringent gun control legislations.

In spite of this lack of correlation between crime and gun control, high crime rates “provide a powerful rationale for passing more restrictive gun laws” (Moorhouse & Wanner, 2006, p.119, para.1). Opponents of gun control therefore call for a reduction in gun control since they do not have any desirable impact on crime. While this may be the case, gun control laws do reduce the chances of individuals with criminal backgrounds from acquiring guns.

Opponents of gun control are concerned that small restrictive measures such as a one-week waiting period for the purchase of firearms might lead to even greater restrictive measures in future. Wolpert and Gimpel (1998) best articulate this concern by noting that minimal restrictions on gun ownership are a slippery slope that could “eventually lead to more prohibitive measures late including an outright denial of the right to bear arms (p.244, para.1).

Such a move would hurt legitimate gun owners who have developed a gun culture over the decades. While there is a possibility that the current minimal restrictions on gun ownership might evolve into more stringent restrictions, this is all highly speculative.

The government has not engaged in any action that suggests that it will strip American’s their right to bear arms. Arguments that current gun control measures are paving the way for a ban on all private ownership of guns are therefore alarmist in nature and should be ignored.

Conclusion

This paper set out to argue that gun control is important to ensure the safety of the nation. It began by highlighting the controversy surrounding the situation with some people calling for more gun control while others oppose such moves. The paper has highlighted some of the merits of gun control including less access to guns by criminals, reduced accidents involving firearms, and reduced suicides.

Some of the arguments presented by opponents of gun control have been discussed and counterarguments offered. The paper has conceded that gun regulations will result in loss of some personal control by gun owners all over the country. However, this is a small price to pay for the enormous benefits that such regulations promise to bring to all citizens.

References

Branas, C.C. et al. (2009). Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault. American Journal of Public Health, 99 (11), 2034-2040.

Cao, L., Zhang, Y., & Ni, He. (2008). Carrying weapons to school for protection: An analysis of the 2001 school crime supplement data. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36 (2), 154–164.

Hemenway, D. (2011). Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 5 (2), 502-511.

Lambert, J. T., & Silva, P.S. (1998). An Update on the Impact of Gun Control Legislation on Suicide. Psychiatric Quarterly, 69 (2), 127-134.

Lambert, T. (2004). Do more guns cause less crime. Web.

Moorhouse, J.C., & Wanner, B. (2006). Does gun control reduce crime or does crime increase gun control? CATO Journal, 26 (1), 103-124.

Wintemute, G.J., Romero, M.P., Wright, A.M., & Grassel, K.M. (2004). The Life Cycle of Crime Guns: A Description Based on Guns Recovered From Young People in California. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 43(6), 733-742.

Wolpert, R.M., & Gimpel, J.G. (1998). Self-interest, symbolic politics, and public attitudes towards gun control. Political Behavior, 20 (3), 241-262.

History of bans

Legislation is the process a bill goes through in the legislative house for it to be approved as law. Documents produced during the process serve as reference material for the judiciary to investigate whether a particular bill should be enacted into law.

There have been quite a number of legislative bans on products and services throughout the history of the United States. Most bans are implemented as a means to control what is considered harmful. In the United States, a good number bans have been imposed citing health and public safety risks as the main reason.

The bans are not always outright prohibition of consumption of products. They can also assume the form of content regulation. For instance, this is evident in the lead content regulation in children’s toys (Lead-Free Toys Act). One of the acts that stand out in recent history is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This bill set the threshold for new testing and documentation of products. Consequently, this act increased safety certification requirements (Worrall, 2007).

It would take more than this report to give the history of individual products. However, a quick overview indicates that harmful narcotics with an outright negative effect on people and immense contribution to social decay were the first products to be banned. This can be traced to as far as 1860 when cannabis was banned from medical and recreational use.

Most recently, products that have been banned include foods such as authentic Italian meats, haggis which is a Scottish sheep meat delicacy, pigs blood cake, safaras oil etc. Other non-food products include fire arms, hunting trophies, fish and wildlife among others.

Of all the bans, the strictest and most rigid ones fall on guns and drugs. Guns fall under the fire arm law and the government restricts the sale, use and possession of fire arms. Concern for the safety of the America public mainly fuels these kinds of bans and regulations.

Each state has its own view on the form a ban or regulation should take. This has resulted in almost every state having its own law governing firearms though they all fall under the federal law (Worrall, 2007). For example, in the case of Oregon and Idaho, Oregon recognizes Idaho’s permits on fire arms. However, Idaho does not recognize Oregon’s permits on firearms.

The regulation recognition is thus made on state to state basis. It is, thus, advisable to know one’s state laws on firearms. In America federal laws are more restrictive than state laws; this however does not shield you from prosecution under federal law. With the recent trend of increased violence resulting from firearms, more laws and restriction are coming up to limit the availability and use of firearms.

The other sector marred by similar bans is the drug industry. Use of drugs such as cocaine, meth and other strong intoxicating drugs is completely prohibited. Some like marijuana are banned from recreational use but permitted for medicals use. Even in this situation, marijuana has to be bought only through a prescription from a doctor and form an approved seller. Other narcotics seldom enjoy leave ways in which they can be used on medical grounds (Worrall, 2007).

In other instances, drugs ban can extend to purely medical drugs. This include strong antidepressants that have similar effects to some narcotics, and which can still cause addictions and negative effects while overly consumed. Other light forms of drugs such as alcohol and tobacco products attract sin tax that makes them more expensive.

Effectiveness of the bans

The effects of these bans are considered relative since some products still find their way back to the market as illegal commodities. Whether these bans are effective is a matter of consideration. To some extent, however, the bans have led to less accessible of firearms and drugs. Banning drugs such as narcotics has worked well since some people are deterred from using them due to the heavy penalty and jail terms that might result if one is apprehended.

Studies indicate that fear can deter a person better than legislation can. In the case of drugs, these bans have been effective and the public is now safer. The standard checks ensure the medical drugs in use are of superior quality and of higher benefit to the people.

On the other hand, ban on hard drugs has brought about more organized crimes and black markets. The role they play, however, does not warrant one to consider lifting these bans. These are just loophole and criminal minds that stay in the way of a drug free society. Besides, banning guns has not been implemented yet most people, over 60%, do not comply with gun regulation. Moreover, the American tradition supports gun possession.

Gun control advocate Tom Mauser

Tom is gun control advocate in Denver. He took to lobby for gun control after his 15 year old son was killed in the massacre at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. This, without a doubt, brought so much distress to him that he decided to take on the challenge of confronting the thorny issue of gun control. Tom felt that the death of his son could have been prevented if only those involved in policy making could just devote a substantial effort towards restriction of gun control.

His life was altered by this event and he has, since, devoted his time towards advocating for stiffer controls on guns so as to save more lives in future. Toms says his fears are confirmed as more and more devastating attacks are made to innocent citizens using guns in incidences similar to Colorado Theater shooting (Mauser, 2012).

Tom blames the high number of fatalities resulting from gun usage on the ease of access. He feels that more should be done and can be done to limit access of these weapons by unwanted hands. This can be done through a deeper back ground check on the individuals purchasing these weapons. In case of doubt, the person should be denied the chance to own a weapon.

According to Tom, the government is not doing much to stop the killings arising from the easy availability of guns in the society. Instead, it focuses on mainly restrictive measures under recent cases but makes little or no effort to prevent such from happening in the first place.

He suggests that some policies to cover this would be to find out the exact purpose for which a person is purchasing a gun. This will help issue a guide line on how many rounds he should get. He also feels the American public forgets too fast and this results in hundreds of lives being lost in gun related incidents. He urges the public to be more vocal and demand more from its leaders especially on policies that will guarantee their safety.

John Lott, advocate against gun control

John Lott is a political and academic commentator. He is a well-spoken individual on academic and political matters. He is also a PhD holder in economics. Moreover, he also does research in public finance, public choice theory, economics, law and many other areas. He is however well known for his outspoken views against gun control in America.

John put forth an argument that the overall crime rate in America will decrease significantly if the adult population is allowed to carry concealed weapons. He went further to provide statistical evidence based on mathematical models to prove is theory. With the capacity to defend themselves against attacks, Americans will be much safer and gun control will withdraw this advantage from the public.

Lott’s work was contested by many scholars on it validity. However, after further analysis of his work, many agreed that legalizing of concealed weapons does not lead to increase in violence as many of his critics had insinuated. Lott argues that with the knowledge that one has a weapon and can defend himself from any attacks, there will be a decrease in crime. This is prompted by the fact that many will refrain from attacking a person who may be only too well prepared.

He, therefore, suggests the incapacity of the public to protect themselves against attacks, increases the rate of violent crimes. To substantiate his claims further, Lott factors in the effect of drugs in the holder of the weapon in his model, which shows it does not increase chances of committing a violent crime.

Gun control in America

Gun control is the legal limitation on the use and ownership of a gun. America has several gun control laws that limit the usage and acquiring of guns. Statistically, it has been proven that more guns in the general population lead to reduction in crime. However, gun control advocates refute these allegations vehemently arguing that more guns bring more crime.

There are three primary gun control legislations in America. National firearms act (1934), Gun control act (1968) and Brady bill (1993). More states have however made their own gun control laws. They seek to cover the loopholes left by the federal laws in gun control.

These laws govern guns within the boundaries of these states. The federal laws are however superior and an individual can still be liable under federal laws where states laws are lenient (Goss, 2010). According to research, one of the effects of gun control is that it leads to an increase in other non-gun related assaults. For instance, England’s mugging rate is six times higher than in America.

The second amendment is said to be the power source of gun rights to the citizens. Many people argue that it enlists the right of the people and not of the militia. This protects individuals who want to possess a gun for self-defense. Many policies and laws are continually coming up with some favoring the gun rights movement and others favoring the gun control movement. This implies the issues of gun control will remain as controversial as ever.

References

Goss, K. (2010). Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. New Jersey: Princeton University Press

Mauser, T. (2012).Walking In Daniel’s Shoes: The Ongoing Legacy of Columbine Victim Daniel Mauser. New York: Ocean Star Publishing LLC.

Worrall, J. (2007). Crime Control in America: What Works? New York: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

In accordance to Encarta, gun control is defined as “law controlling gun ownership: legal measures to license, control, or restrict the ownership of firearms by members of the public“. (Encarta, 1) It has been found that there are many short and long term affects of victimization especially in relation to fee usage of firearms. There are many short and long term affects of victimization especially in relation to adolescence. In today’s perspective, an individual carries many different emotional and physical responses to sociological and economical stress and these stresses can be affected by violence and probable chance of violence. There is a constant paranoia of fear psychosis acting on the resident of an economically and sociologically developed society due to different stress.

This paranoia of fear psychosis is instigated to become violent once the subject is armed with a firearm. It is easy to deem this as a trigger-happy syndrome but the fact remains to be very volatile and fearful. The statistics that have been formulated about continuations of violence and the sources of the violent behavior have become staggering. In November 1998, a Japanese student new in California was shot dead when he tried to find a specific address from a middle-aged resident at the middle of the night due to miscommunication and language problem. (Lamb, 243).

Such examples are abundant and this is the reason it is necessary to look into the matter of gun control policy. Furthermore, experts amidst researchers and policymakers should managed considerable thought toward understanding how short and long term influences of abuse, including drugs, alcohol, and other substance abuse along with mental health stress. The understanding of immediate affects abuse would have, how it relates to voluntary behaviors. The main objective of the research would to develop a form of argumentative system that would be instrumental in helping out the policymakers and enable them to lead a normal logical conclusion on the subject of gun control policy and life within the main stream of the society. (Liptak, 1).

It is needed to formulate a policy or practice that would enable the government to determine a policy to put restriction on the guns. It s important to include population from different occupations and interview them for their views on the subject opposing the policy unrestricted access to firearms. The formulation of this research would be based on the surveys taken on the various government officials, general population and adolescents whereby it would be ascertained about the amount of agreement on the topic of gun control in the United States.

Alongside a large amount of data would be collected to determine the detrimental affects of free ownership of guns in the mass population without government restrictions. This would also be accompanied by data regarding firearms related crimes in the United States and United Kingdoms. United Kingdoms would be taken into consideration to evaluate the effects of government regulation of firearms and the firearms related crime rates of the two nations would be compared. A memorandum prepared in this process would be a vital part of the proposal to eradicate the policy-unrestricted access to firearms. (King, 126).

In conclusion, it should be stated that it is believed that the adolescents suffering from victimization goes through a huge psychological defoliation therefore it is important to address this case and the ultimate affect when some of them get free access to firearms. The government officials would be taken into consideration, specifically security and law enforcement officials, because these are the section that could convey the actual result of free access to firearms. Lastly, the general population would be considered because they are the main sufferers and it is important to incorporate their individual and social views. Experts have identified a new demographic scapegoat for America’s violent crime: our own kids. A growing media campaign scare about an epidemic of teen violence has gripped the nation. (Lamb, 245).

Works Cited

Encarta; Gun Control; encarta.msn.com; 2008; Web.

Lamb, Davis; Cult to Culture: The Development of Civilization on the Strategic Strata. (Wellington: National Book Trust. 2004) pp 243-245.

Liptak, Adam; Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship; 2008.

King, H; Social Principals Today (Dunedin: HBT & Brooks Ltd. 2005) pp 126.

Introduction

Nowadays, an individual carries many different emotional and physical responses to sociological and economic stresses and this is particularly applicable to individuals with an unstable minds. These stresses can be aggravated by violence and the probable chance of violence. (Cooper, 1) These stresses give rise to fear psychosis. As a result, an individual can become volatile and potentially dangerous. Handing such a person a weapon can result in lethal actions that stronger Gun Control Laws can prevent. Gun Control Laws are instituted to prevent unstable people from possessing arms. It is easy to deem this as a trigger-happy syndrome but the fact remains to be very volatile and fearful.

The statistics that have been formulated about continuations of violence and the sources of the violent behavior are staggering. On April 16, 2007, “Thirty-three people were killed today on the campus of Virginia Tech in what appears to be the deadliest shooting rampage”. (Hauser, 1) This is a prime example of an individual with an unstable mental condition who got access to firearms and the result was deadly. Many such examples express a crying need for gun control policies. At present, any citizen can buy a firearm under Federal law. (Cook, 692)

Main body

Guns play a major role in rapes or sexual crimes. It is also reported that rapes or sexual crimes that occur on the street and in a parking lot or garage involve the use of guns. It has been reported very recently in Massachusetts, “Three Lynn men have been indicted on separate cases involving rape, narcotics and firearm charges by an Essex County grand jury.” (Kapsourakis, 1) It has been reported that about 65% of these crimes are executed at gunpoint. (Moore, 193) Thus, it is most logical to control the use of guns.

Researchers and policymakers should determine the nature and the extent of gun-related violence to formulate the most appropriate policy against guns. It is important to consider the fact that guns worsen the result of the condition of the action taken by people already affected by alcohol and drug addictions or under mental health stress. The research work Gangs, Guns, And Drugs: Recidivism Among Serious, Young Offenders by Beth M. Huebner, Sean P. Varano, Timothy S. Bynum published in Criminology & Public Policy in 2007 conveys this truth. (Huebner, 220)

It should be mentioned that there would always be a segment of the population who would surely argue that the U.S. Government should allow U.S. citizens to own guns and continue with the existing policy about firearms because regulation of firearms would certainly mean an attack on the free will of the population or a direct attack on the U.S. Bill of Right. Furthermore, there would be arguments that ownership of a firearm is a guarantee of self-defense and there should be no policy that would revoke that right. Lastly, there would still be a population that would believe that enquiring into such individual and social context while interviewing would result in a violation of privacy.

However, it can be said that the gun control law is easy to formulate keeping in view the problems and highly workable within a comparatively small frame of time, say a couple of months. As a result, the success of this law against the free use of guns or firearms in the U.S has a high possibility of success. Sure, there are oppositions to the gun control policies but they are easily overridden by logical reasoning already placed forward. As per as Ethical issues are concerned, there should not be any because the law is targeted towards the greater good of the society and so there should not be any significant opposition against this law. (Liptak, 1).

Works Cited

Cook, Philip J & Jens Ludwig; Aiming for evidence-based gun policy; Journal of Policy Analysis and Management; Volume 25, Issue 3, 2006, 691-735

Cooper, Michael; Thompson Brings Gun Control to the Fore; NYTimes. 2007. Web.

Hauser, Christine and Anahad O’Connor; Virginia Tech Shooting Leaves 33 Dead; NYTimes, 2007; Web.

Huebner, Beth M, Sean P. Varano, Timothy S. Bynum; Gangs, Guns, And Drugs: Recidivism Among Serious, Young Offenders; Criminology & Public Policy; Volume 6, Issue 2, 2007, Pages: 187-221.

Kapsourakis, Karen A; Lynn men indicted on gun, rape, drug charges; ItemLive.com; (2008). Web.

Liptak, Adam; Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship; NYTimes. 2008. Web.

Moore, Mark H; The bird in hand: A feasible strategy for gun control; Journal of Policy Analysis and Management; Volume 2, Issue 2, 2005, 185-195.

Gun control debate has gained a lot of momentum within the past few months. The article by Krouse (21) on gun control clearly brings up a contentious debate that has been in existence for the last few months since President Barrack Obama was sworn in for a second term in office. There has been increasing cases of homicide in the recent past.

The shooting of students and their teachers by a gun wielding criminal, the indiscriminate shooting of holiday makers at an island and many other such cases have made various authorities reconsider the law that allows people to own guns. When an individual is able to attack holiday makers in an island and kill a number, then it means that there is a problem somewhere that the government must address. When the law was enacted, the main aim was to increase security among the civilians.

When the gadget proves to be a source of threat, then it is a clear indication that something must be done to ensure that security for all Americans is achieved. This has made a large section of Americans consider enacting gun control legislations that would limit type of guns, and people who are allowed to own guns in this country. On the other hand, there is another group that opposes any attempt to control guns in this country, citing the security of the civilians when they are denied opportunity to own guns.

The argument has been whether or not the government should come up with measures that would control the type of guns that people own, and to determine who deserve to own a gun. The proponents of gun control act cite increasing number of homicide and suicide cases. Opponents cite security of the civilians. This study will be focusing on the need to enact laws that shall regulate ownership of guns in this country as stated by Krouse.

Krouse (36) says that the United States of America is one of the developed economies in the world. The living standards of the Americans are above the average. Insecurity is therefore, not a big problem to people of this nation. However, the scholar notes that this does not mean that there are no crimes in this country.

Although the country does not have high incidents of organized crimes where criminals attack people for the purpose robbing them, incidents where one attacks another over conflicts is common. The recent cases of homicide are a worrying trend because the targets are innocent children and adults.

The United States is a generally secure country. This scholar appreciates the fact that gun control may come with some negative consequences. For instance, there was an incident where one complained that denying civilians access to guns may jeopardize their security, especially single mothers. Gold (114) gives a case where a single mother is attacked by a group of four men in her house. This woman is faced with a scenario where she has to protect the life of her children and herself.

When such a woman has a revolver with about six ammunitions, this scholar says that such a woman will feel helpless because when the gun runs out of ammunitions, she will be at the mercy of the attackers. However, when she has a rifle with enough ammunition, she will feel safe, and will be in a position to protect her family. In as much as Krouse (78) agrees with this argument, he still holds that there should be regulations on ownership of guns in this country.

Krouse makes some assumptions in putting forth his arguments. He says that insecurity is higher in those states where there is higher prevalence of poverty. When these people lack the basic needs, they may be forced to look for awkward means through which they can get what they need. This may include the use of a firearm when it is within their disposal. To support this argument, this scholar says that Maryland is one of the safest states in the United States.

This is because most of the residents of this state are empowered economically. On the other hand, Mississippi is one of the states with the leading cases of insecurity and incidents of homicide and suicide. This scholar says that this is because of lack of economic power. When people lack the capacity to get what is considered basic need, they despair. This despair would always lead to cases where an individual fails to cherish some values in life.

They develop resentment towards some of the important issues within the society. This despair can easily lead to actions that may jeopardize security of the individual or people around him. Before one can consider taking a gun and then spraying bullets into innocent children in schools, this scholar says that there are always series of incidents that would take place in his or her mind.

Such individuals are always traumatized to an extent that they stop reasoning in an upright way. They will act in that manner due to forces that are beyond their control. The same is the case with those who commit suicide. This scholar therefore, says that allowing such individuals access to sophisticated weapons will be putting jeopardy to the lives of several innocent people.

The author successfully brings out his message to the audience in a convincing manner. The facts that he is giving out clearly supports the assumptions made over the issue of debate. It is factual that people who commit crimes using guns are always under due mental depression. The argument that it all starts with poverty is true.

The level of security in Maryland is by far better than that in Mississippi. One may try to look for supportive facts that may support this argument, but one that comes out clearly is the difference in economic status. In Maryland, residents have economic power. They do not have time to spend idling around. This has minimized chances that they can think of any criminal activity, including the thought of committing suicide.

On the other hand, a good number of the residents of Mississippi are economically challenged. The thought of how to provide and care for the family may be so traumatizing that they may think of activities that may be considered a crime under the law of this land. The claim that this scholar brings out in regard to the security threat posed by civilians who own sophisticated guns is valid.

This is specifically so when this gun is accessible to younger individuals. For instance, when a gun is in the hand of an individual going through serious depression due to the inability to care for the family, then such an individual can easily commit suicide with the gun. This author has clearly shown a mastery of knowledge in psychology and stress management, and crime prevention strategies in his support for the motion that seeks to introduce regulation on ownership of guns.

The argument brought out by Krouse clearly demonstrates the current status of security in the United States of America. The United States laws have been relaxed in its laws in regard to ownership of guns. Recent incidents however, clearly show that action must be done, and it should be soon enough in order to avoid further deaths that are related to misuse of guns.

It is a fact that guns may be important as a form of security, especially to those who feel helpless such as single mothers. It is a fact that when civilians own guns, an attacker will be forced to think two about his or her actions because of the knowledge that the intended victim is also armed. However, the negative effects of owning a gun supersede the benefits. That single mother who owns a gun should be aware that any form of carelessness with this weapon will make it turn from a tool of protection to a tool of destruction.

When a child gets hold of the weapon, it can be a big challenge to the security of the entire family, and even to itself. When a teenager gets access to the gun, he or she can use it against others at any slightest provocation. Mentally depressed people may also use such guns to cause damage to members of the society. The more sophisticated the weapon is, the more it will be dangerous to people.

Works Cited

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

Krouse, William. Gun Control Legislation. Congressional Research Service 7.57 (2012): 1-118. Print.