Category: Gun Control

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 violences 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 individuals right to own firearms since this right was conditioned on service in an organized militia. This advocates state that the individuals 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.

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 todays 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 in regard to 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 (King, p. 317).

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 (Lamb, p. 37).

The main objective is 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. 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.

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.

Criminologists agree with each other that youth equates to violence and are alarmed because the crime prone 16-24 year-olds will be growing in numbers during the next decade. A new breed of youth super predators menace the nation and even hardened criminals are afraid of them. The only real solution is to spend billions of millions of new police officers and to suspend basic civil rights to ward off the onslaught of teen violence. To do that the preliminary method is to introduce a rigid law on gun control. Thus, there are simply no reasons for the authority not to pay heed to the subject (Lamb, p. 337).

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

Opposing member of the society on gun control argues that it is not possible to assume that each and every person would follow the proper enactment and rules of the law. Under such circumstances, it would require more wisdom to support free usage of firearms. Thus, the author openly supports in favor of gun control. The author believes that 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 such text would be instrumental 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 (King, p. 225).

The gun control law is easy and highly workable within a span of a comparatively small frame of time, say a couple of months and the economic aspect behind this would be negligible too. As a result, the success of this law against gun control in the US is ready to be extremely fruitful. Sure, there are oppositions however, apart from these, as per as Ethical issues are concerned there should not be any because the law is targeted towards the greater good of the society.

Works cited

King, H. Principals Today. Auckland: HBT & Brooks Ltd, 2006.

Lamb, D. Cult to Culture: The Development of Civilization. Wellington: National Book Trust, 2004.

Gun control represents a critical set of laws and regulations regarding the control over the proper use, prevention, or restriction of firearms by the civilian population. In the United States, gun control policies are characterized by enhanced strictness; however, it is also a highly controversial concern in the country. The predominant part of American society believes in gun ownership, considering the increased murder rate in the United States compared to international indicators. Most importantly, the vast majority of killings are performed with illegal, unregistered guns by people with severe psychological conditions and mental instability (Laskowski, 2021). In the meantime, the citizens who legally possess an unlimited number of guns are not the ones who will commit such crimes over civil society. Therefore, even by owning the handguns, the peaceful population is not protected from the risk of murder, given the ability to possess the weapon illegally.

As discussed in the video, canceling gun ownership in the country is not an adequate solution to the increased level of criminal activity because it can lead to a civil war. Another issue implies the arms ownership by the military or the police force, which can also cause public concern for the peoples safety. The underlying problem concerning gun possession is deeply grounded in the general disagreement about the primary reason for owning a gun and keeping it at home, which also refers to American history (Laskowski, 2021). Therefore, it is not a contemporary issue in the United States, but a long-standing approach to ensuring the citizens safety and faith in the governments control of crime. Summing up, it is crucial to address the issue of people killing other people, which goes far beyond gun ownership and concerns individual mental problems and intentions. Gun control in the United States is associated more with the person itself than the weapon possession policy.

Reference

Laskowski, R. (2021). BUS 447.30 Business Ethics  Winter 2021. Gun control [Video]. Zoom. Web.

Introduction

The problem of gun ownership and control in the United States of America has been a controversial issue for many decades. It is not surprising because the number of crimes related to gun violence rapidly grows. Moreover, mass shootings that spread over the country and take the lives of innocent citizens, including children and the elderly, have posed a requirement to take immediate action and change the current weapon possession policy. It is only logical to seek the solution in the political paradigm due to the involvement of human rights and safety issues. My political identity is libertarian left and is resembled by the inner corner of the bottom left quadrant of the political compass. In my opinion, it is vital to implement gun control as a regulatory measure with respect to the rights and freedoms of all citizens with a priority set on the promotion of safe firearm ownership. In this essay, the opinions of the representatives of different political views will be discussed to validate a proper solution for the gun ownership controversy.

General Overview of the Problem of Gun Control

No US citizen can be surprised by the question of gun possession because it has occupied a significant place in social debate, media, and political discourse. The issue has been researched from the perspectives of race, political adherence, gender, and age (Pederson 273). No presidential or senate elections campaign has passed without the candidates addressing the problem of gun violence and the need for its control (Blanco 1). However, a single solution or an agreement concerning the resolution of the problem that could satisfy all the people of the US has not been reached. Mass shootings in Tuscon, Aurora, Orlando, Newton, and other American cities have taken away the lives of hundreds of people (Blanco 1; Stroebe et al. par. 1). It is the obligation of those who live in this country now to learn from the heartbreakingly painful experience and stop going to extremes but instead find a compromising solution that would suffice all the arguers. Nonetheless, it is essential to clarify the existing points of view on the problem.

An Authoritarian-Left Perspective

This point of view supports the idea that a strict ban on gun possession should be implemented across the country, so that only military governmental representatives have a right to use a weapon, but civil citizens must live in a weapon-free environment. Indeed, according to Blanco, the authoritarian-left individuals consider guns as the main catalysts of murders, homicides, and other forms of crimes associated with senseless killings and violent deaths (1). They also believe that tighter controls can help to prevent mass shootings (Stroebe et al. par. 2). In other words, the firearm is viewed as a means of power and influence, which are not expected to be given to any entity besides the government.

I agree that free possession of firearms imposes a significant threat to the safety of those who live around a gun owner. There is a reasonable explanation for such a point of view on a right to possess deadly arms. Indeed, if there was no access to a weapon in a situation of crisis or common argument, it would be possible to prevent shooting and severe injuries or death as a result of it. On the other hand, such a strict governmental prohibition of gun ownership contradicts the rights given to the Americans by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution (Masters 1). According to this legislative document, people have a right to use guns as a means of self-protection from criminals or intruders. A democratic society is obliged to preserve human rights in all its forms to ensure peoples safety and well-being. However, there is another perspective that employs less restrictive arguments.

An Authoritarian-Right Perspective

The representatives of this side of political debate claim that only a chosen part of the civil population should be given the right to own, possess and use guns. Racial minorities and refugees that are notorious for a high level of homicide crimes and shootings should be deprived of such an opportunity. Accordingly, society has to be divided into layers of those who have more rights, freedoms, and opportunities, and those who lack them.

I agree that the statistics might imply a higher level of the predisposition of minorities to criminal records, but it does not mean that every representative of this population is a felon. However, racial inequity in the discussion of such an important political issue as self-protection is a direct manifestation of discrimination, which contradicts the US legislature that strives to provide equal opportunity and rights for all. Similarly, any other disparity on the basis of gender, social status, or income level should be used as a measure of priority to use guns. Moreover, such an attitude diminishes the ideas of the role of previous convictions of felons who do not fall under the category of a racial minority but are dangerous for the safety of citizens (Masters 3). In my opinion, such a direction of thought might lead to even more social disparities and grow into an absolute dominance of one social layer over another. It is evident that a different opinion is required to provide an overview of the alternative solution for the problem.

A Libertarian-Right Perspective

According to the beliefs and values of the agents within the libertarian-right wing of the political spectrum, the right to own a gun should be given to all the population residing in the USA. Every person can own, possess, and use a firearm freely regardless of his or her background because the USA is a country of freedom. Indeed, some people argue that the Second Amendment guarantees such an opportunity for all (Masters 1). I support the idea of equity that this perspective elaborates on. However, one should refer to mere common sense to understand that such an approach is a direct way to anarchy where, despite completely equal rights, everyone will be in danger. Thus, such an extreme solution would not provide a sound solution and has to be reevaluated. Individuals under legal age and those with a criminal history would have easy access to a weapon. Therefore, one cannot rely on such a solution and needs to seek a more realistic and humane attitude.

A Libertarian-Left Perspective

As for my opinion, which falls under the category of the libertarian-left, responsible individuals should be given a right to have and use weapons according to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. I also believe that the government should have partial responsibility for the control of gun use. According to Blanco, gun ownership education is necessary to protect the citizens against any threats, violence, and attacks perpetrated by criminals and felonious individuals (1-2). Naturally, it is the right and obligation of every citizen to protect oneself from dangers, the number of which is growing across the states. Mass shootings and other signs of inadequate theoretical and practical knowledge concerning the use of firearms only increase social awareness and imply better special education and licensure for responsible ownership of guns. Therefore, the solution to the controversial question of whether to possess a gun should not be sought in extremes but rather in compromising ideas that provide benefit for all sides of the argument. American society can use its own experience, as well as the advancement of other countries of the progressive world, to keep people alive and safe.

Conclusion

In summary, like any other highly disputed question, the issue of gun control and violence has raised a significant number of opposing views resembling diverse sides of the political spectrum. Some of the opinions are based on extreme ideas that seek a decisive measure of complete restriction, absolute freedom, or discriminative selection. However, in such a culturally and socially diverse country like the USA, it is impossible to find a revolutionary answer to a question of such social relevance. It is vital to try to comply with the requirements of all but with an application of the current legislature, common sense, and reasoning. The lack of education in the sphere of gun usage is the key element of mass killings and gun-related crimes. By eliminating this crucial factor, the government will be able to increase the level of social responsibility in weapon ownership and ensure public safety by peaceful measures.

Works Cited

Blanco, Dennis Vicencio. The Gun Control Debate: Why Experience and Culture Matters. International Journal of Public Administration, 2015, Web.

Masters, Jonathan. US Gun Policy: Global; Comparison. Council of Foreign Relations, 2015.

Pederson, JoEllen, et al. Gun Ownership and Attitudes Toward Gun Control in Older Adults: Re-examining Self Interest Theory. American Journal of Social Science Research, vol. 1, no. 5, 2015, pp. 273-281.

Stroebe, Wolfgang, et al. The Impact of the Orlando Mass Shooting on Fear of Victimization and Gun-Purchasing Intentions: Not What One Might Expect. PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 8: e0182408, 2017.

Introduction

Gun politics and gun control has been one of the most controversial issues in the United States of America politics. The bone of contention mainly stems from the debate on an individual liberty to own a protective weapon in this case a gun and the governments duty to introduce more gun laws so as to prevent crime and maintain public order. Under the Second Amendment, the United States constitution upholds the right of an individual to bear arms.

Party positions

Gun politics do not play out to as a strictly partisan issue but the Democrats are seen to be in favor of gun control. This is especially so if you look at the public opinion on the position of party members on this issue. Although Republicans are seen to mainly lean on anti-gun control measures, public opinion suggests that they are divided on the issue. For instance, President George Bush in his 2000 campaign supported trigger lock requirement, increasing the age limit and applying limits on gun shows but no legislation on gun control was initiated by the president after his election. The libertarians on the other hand overwhelmingly oppose gun control. (Nolanchart) In fact, the Libertarians approach this with very clear and straight forward sentiments that could almost be termed as radical. They see gun control as having racist motivations and refer to the pre-civil war era when gun ownership was outlawed to the black slaves. Libertarians perceive those who want to have introduced or want to introduce more legislation on gun control as restricting individual rights of self defense and effectively infringing on individual freedoms. They go ahead to associate gun control with dictatorial ruling systems such as communism and fascism. Rights restriction and victim disarmament are other terms the Libertarians use to refer to the act of gun control. (Nolanchart)

The democratic officially however do not have such strong views on gun control to counter those of the Libertarian party in its role as maybe the only active advocate of gun control. In its official position it recognizes the right of an individual to own an arm in accordance to the second amendment. However, they indicate the importance of reasonable regulation on the ownership of firearm and also cite that different realities exist in different areas. This is seen to mean that uniform laws cannot be imposed on the whole nation but localities can come up with their own legislations of gun control that suit their respective area. (Phelps) In their opinion, people can enact what they (democrats) call commonsense laws and improvements. This, they point out include improving the background check system, closing gun show loophole and reintroducing the ban on assault weapon. The reason that Democrats give for these measures is for the people to ensure that these weapons do not fall in the hands of criminals and terrorists. They cite the importance of respecting the wide range of views on this issue and acting responsibly. This way Americans can uphold the right to own arms and keep the communities and the children safe. (Phelps)

Conclusion

The Republicans seem to lie in the middle of the debate but they nevertheless oppose strong legislations aimed at gun control. In my opinion the issue of gun control is going to remain a thorny one but no significant or landmark legislation is going to be enacted to enhance gun control. One can though expect a scenario contrary to this if the Libertarian came to power. They sure would even scrap the existing laws on gun control. Problem is-public rating is not on their side.

Work cited

Position of libertarian and other political parties on gun control: 2009. Web.

Shawn Phelps: Position of political parties on gun control: 2009. Web.

The debate over gun control and legislation addressing gun violence in the U.S. remains of high importance. While some individuals believe that there is a need for stricter laws, others argue that bearing a legal firearm is a fundamental human right that must be protected. As Wilson states, any consideration of guns and gun control in the United States must begin with the Second Amendment (19). This paper aims to discuss the importance of the issue of firearms regulation and explore the main perspectives on the problem presented in Wilsons book.

First, it is crucial to explore the importance of the issue addressed by Wilson. The chapter studies the far-reaching implications of guns in the U.S., emphasizing that the Second Amendment needs to be considered and presenting two theories of its interpretation (Wilson 19). The author states that the difference in understanding the amendment causes the debate between two opposite opinions. The first idea is supported by people who view it as a guarantee of an individuals rights and the second perspective involves citizens who see the right as communal and applied to state militias. The issue is important since the Americans right to bear a firearm is rooted in the countrys history. At the same time, the mass shootings, gun incidents, and associated injuries and deaths indicate the need to take action in terms of firearms regulations. Furthermore, political parties, elected officials, and interest groups play a significant role in controlling the issue.

To better understand the problem, the perspectives and findings of other authors need to be discussed. In particular, Shalhope states that the Second Amendment has become a virtual cottage industry among law professors since various in nature law reviews have been published (599). In this regard, the regulation is considered an attempt to combine the two opposite but interrelated perspectives on gun control. At the same time, Shalhope suggests a historical perspective, according to which a collective right to possess guns does not preclude individual freedom (599). As Gallia argues, even though some people consider the Second Amendment politically incorrect, it should be considered by the Supreme Court when deciding how to interpret it (135). According to Wilson, the belief system rooted in the current American approaches to the issue is based on classical philosophy, which makes the discussion controversial (22). Hence, all the arguments of the researchers mentioned above emphasize that the debate is not easy to resolve, and the moral and political beliefs define an individuals perspective on gun control and associated issues.

Another important finding to discuss is the analysis of the language in the Second Amendment. As Volokh claims, it contains an operative clause protecting the individual right and a justification clause explaining its importance, which is not common for any other amendment (795). Therefore, such an observation can explain the difference in views. Nevertheless, some state constitutions are characterized by similar language without implying that the right is only limited to one situation or instance.

An essential question to explore is how the Second Amendment impacts current policies in gun regulation. According to Wilson, the statement is not self-evident, and the philosophical foundations of the amendment are controversial (19). While being regarded as a strong argument for the citizens right to bear firearms, it is, in fact, a matter of symbolism for people defending gun ownership rather than a powerful legal principle. Wilson investigates the role of the Supreme Court in the adoption of firearms regulation measures (28). The lack of the Supreme Courts definitive pronouncement and clarifying comment on the issue contributes to the ongoing debate.

The relationship between the two interpretations of the Second Amendment is crucial to explore. It is notable that the question regarding the understanding of the statement was raised long after the Bill of Rights adoption. One perspective is that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a gun for lawful purposes like self-defense. However, the other interpretation suggests that the right can only be executed by militia organizations. Hence, the language of the amendment identifies the controversial relationship between clauses and interpretations. As a result, the two opposing views emerged: an individual right theory and the collective right theory, both appealing to different parts of the text.

The main problem to explore is finding a way to deal with firearm accidents and regulate gun ownership without affecting individual rights. In this regard, politics plays an important role in the debate. Wilson highlights the importance of gun regulation in the elections, emphasizing the direct connection of the issue with the responses and perspectives of political parties and interest groups (19). Furthermore, the American context and history contribute to the debate. As Wilson states, the Supreme Court has preliminary rulings on the Second Amendment, and insufficient attention continues to affect the progress in resolving this issue. At the same time, long-term solutions need to be found to prevent gun injuries and deaths.

The source discussed in this paper is a chapter from Wilsons book Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms that deals with the relationship between gun debate and the Constitution. In his book, Wilson offers an overview of the current gun control politics structure, addresses the discussion through a historical perspective, and explains the role of politics in the issue (19). Besides, the importance of firearms regulations in the presidential elections and state campaigns is studied. Overall, the book focuses on gun policy and its impact on the current world.

The book chapter by Wilson adds to the discussion on gun control in an accessible and informative way. It explains the two rival theories of interpreting the Second Amendment and proves that the historical context plays an essential role in the modern perception of the issue by the nation. The chapter argues that the debate on gun control is rooted in the controversial nature of the statement made in the amendment and complains that this implication is not studied enough. Furthermore, it discusses the early Supreme Court cases and points to possible ways of interpreting its decisions. Overall, the author sees a solution in searching for the actual meaning of the Second Amendment.

To summarize, the difference in the interpretation of the Second Amendment text can be found in the historical context of the nation, as well as the language used in the statement. Wilson examines the theoretical and philosophical history of the right to possess guns in the U.S. and points to the role of politics in the diversity of opinions. The obscurity of the Second Amendment is viewed as the main factor contributing to the ongoing debate.

Works Cited

Gallia, Anthony. Your Weapons, You Will Not Need Them. Comment on the Supreme Courts Sixty-Year Silence on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Akron Law Review, vol. 33, 1999, 131-150.

Shalhope, Robert E. The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment. The Journal of American History, vol. 69, no. 3, 1982, pp. 599-614. JSTOR. Web.

Volokh, Eugene. The Commonplace Second Amendment. New York University Law Review, vol. 72, no. 3, 1998, 793-821. Web.

Wilson, Harry L. Guns and the Constitution. Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms, edited by Harry L. Wilson, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007, pp. 1946.

Dramatic incidents involving firearms in the United States are drawing more and more attention to gun control. The availability of guns leads to episodes of violence with their use. The Washington Post reports 163 incidents of mass shootings between 1967 and 2019 (Berkowitz and Alcantara). Moreover, from 2014 to 2016, the homicide rate increased by 20 percent (Cook). Concealed carrying of weapons is allowed in all states, and in some, it is permitted to do that openly. However, there are no uniform rules governing gun ownership. The essay discusses the current situation with gun control in the United States and possible measures to improve it.

Often, gun ownership is associated with safety and self-defense, which is proved by fifty-eight percent of Americans agreeing that weapons make them feel safer. However, the data refuse this position, proving that increasing the number of weapons also leads to the growth in the number of incidents with their use (Lopez). However, permitting civilians to carry weapons is regarded as a fundamental citizens right (Amar and Brownstein). Thus, supporters of free gun ownership argue that any restriction is a violation of constitutional rights. However, it is wrong to read the constitutional provisions as absolute. For example, the Constitutions right to freedom of speech is also prescribed; nevertheless, in specific cases, it is limited depending on various factors (Amar and Brownstein). The freedoms described in the Constitution are often restricted when necessary to ensure the security or regulate social balance.

The public guns control debate is focused on the implementation of measures to limit the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. It is assumed that it is necessary to consider the needs of the state and public safety. It is noted that in states with restrictive laws, homicide and suicide rates are remarkably lower (Florida and Javorsky). Gun control measures already exist, but not all of them are effective. Researchers identify three types of the most effective restrictive measures: bans on violent offenders purchasing guns, may-issue laws (freedom of action of the police when issuing permits to carry weapons), and universal background checks. These three laws, according to the researchers, have a significant statistically confirmed impact on reducing the number of incidents with the use of firearms (Florida and Javorsky). Thus, the most effective measures are based on who has access to the weapon. Simultaneously, attempts to restrict access to a particular type of weapon are of much less importance.

The statistics of the dependence of the homicide rates on the number of weapons and the impact of restrictions clarify that public concern on this issue is not unfounded. The main problem is the availability of firearms, because it is much easier to be a legal gun owner in America than it is to be a legal driver (Gregory and Wilson). Thus, it is necessary to complicate the procedure for obtaining a license, which, in addition, should include a training course. An increase in citizens education regarding weapons can be crucial because it is common to talk about the dangers of smoking or of not wearing a seat belt in a car (Gregory and Wilson). Many people keep weapons at home in case of self-defense, which has tragic consequences. It is also evident that investing in smart guns that can identify the owner is also obligatory. The proliferation of such technology will lower the percentage of unauthorized use of weapons. Finally, it is essential to promote the study of statistics on gun incidents and to inform the public.

The right to carry arms has been a problem in American society for a long time. Gun control is intended to stabilize the current situation in the increasing number of incidents involving the use of firearms. The proposed measures are aimed at reducing dramatic episodes; the main fact is that they work. The major challenge now is to implement restrictive laws at the federal level.

Works Cited

Amar, Vikram D., and Alan E. Brownstein. Opinion: What the Gun Lobby Gets Wrong About the 2nd Amendment. Los Angeles Times, 2019.

Berkowitz, Bonnie, and Chris Alcantara. The Terrible Numbers That Grow with Each Mass Shooting. The Washington Post, 2020.

Cook, Philip. How Dangerous People Get Their Guns in America. CBS NEWS, 2017.

Florida, Richard, and Nicole Javorsky. The 3 Gun-Control Laws That Work Best in the U. S. Bloomberg, 2019.

Gregory, Sean, and Chris Wilson. 6 Real Ways We Can Reduce Gun Violence in America Time, 2018, Web.

Lopez, German. Poll: Most Americans Say Guns Ownership Increases Safety. Research: Nope. Vox, 2018.

The United States have one of the most liberal gun control policies in the world. Due to this, mass shootings have become common and school shootings are almost exclusively associated with the US in the public mind. There are many measures and restrictions that the US government can imply to overcome the gun problem in the country but there is a high chance they will face public outrage by doing so. The first step to taking control over the issue may be keeping guns away from teenagers and young adults for as long as possible.

Teenagers in the US have access to guns at an early age, considering the number of shootings done by minors. In most cases of unintentional firearm deaths among children the shooter is also a child, which means there is much work to be done in regard to gun control (Hemenway and Solnick 6). Even if the shooters did not acquire the gun for assault legally, it is not uncommon that teenagers use the firearms their parents possess before buying their own. Speaking about legal age, people in the USA are allowed to purchase some firearms from the age of 18, which is lower than the drinking age in the country (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives). This is probably due to the fact from the age of 18 people can join the army, so increasing the legal age for gun possession would probably affect military laws.

Another way of keeping people away from guns while they are still young is to ban passing purchased weapons to a third party. The background check is only done for the person who buys a weapon and whether the person who is being gifted is responsible enough is up for the buyer to decide. Aside from this, weapons can be gifted to minors, which, while they cannot carry them until they reach a certain age, still sets a bad example, and can lead to romanticization of gun possession. What is more, having a weapon has an effect on a persons psyche, whether it is the feeling of safety or power. The latter can lead a minor to pursue violence, as teenagers tend to be more impressionable than adults.

Minors also should not see guns on everyday basis and get used to its look. For example, Walmart has weapons on display in regular stores and they did not remove them even after facing public outrage (Bhattarai). Minimizing the visual representation of guns in civil spaces can change the attitude towards them. The officials should also make some regulations concerning adults who have children. Parents who own weapons should do their best to conceal firearms from their kids and follow the rules for storing them. The so-called social gun culture  being pressured into purchasing a gun  forces adults who face it buy firearms later in life (Kalesan et al. 218). Thus, to decrease the risks connected with gun ownership and use, the society should stop normalizing the social gun culture.

Preventing children, teenagers, and some young adults from being exposed to guns and gun violence in their everyday life is important, because it is a prophylactic measure. By doing this, the politicians would solve the problem before it occurs. It is hard to change an adults opinion on something they have lived with for years. However, by forming a cautious and responsible attitude towards firearms in younger generations, the society can minimize the risk of gun violence.

Works Cited

Bhattarai, Abha. Walmart backtracks, begins putting guns back in stores. Washington Post, 2020. Web.

Hemenway, David and Sara Solnick. Children and Unintentional Firearm Death. Injury Epidemiology, vol. 2, no. 26, 2015, pp. 16.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. May an individual between the ages of 18 and 21 years of age acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who is also a resident of that same state? 2020.

Kalesan, Bindu et al. Gun Ownership and Social Gun Culture. Injury Prevention, vol. 22, no. 3, 2016, pp. 216220.

Abstract

The adoption of stricter gun control laws can be useful for reducing the risk of shootings in various educational organizations. In particular, this policy can prevent students from taking firearms without proper authorization. Additionally, this approach can ensure that a person with firearms cannot enter schools or colleges. It should be mentioned that this approach proved to be effective for limiting the occurrence of such incidents in various countries. These are the main details that should be examined more closely.

Gun Control and School Shootings

The increasing frequency of school shootings has become a cause of great concern for many policy-makers, teachers, and parents who want to make sure that the life and health of learners is not endangered. Such events normally attract close attention of mass media. Various legislators suggest that stricter gun control laws should be enacted. Overall, it is possible to say that this initiative should be supported since one should develop and enforce safety procedures that can minimize the risks to which students can be exposed.

Additionally, one should motivate people to act in a more responsible way while using or storing firearms. Yet, they are not supposed to ban the use of firearms since these tools can be vital for protecting the life and health of an individual. This is one of the limitations that should not be overlooked. On the whole, it is possible to say that this policy will prevent people from bringing firearms into educational organizations and harming students or teachers. This is the main argument that should be elaborated in greater detail.

At first, it is necessary to mention that in many cases, school shootings could have been averted provided that there had been proper regulations regarding the storage of firearms. Many of the shooters were students who took firearms owned by their parents (Neal, 2009, p. 165). For example, one can mention tragic events that took place in Red Lake Senior High School.

Additionally, the findings of scholars indicate that a significant proportion of shootings can occur due to the failure of parents to take safety precautions (Doll, Haas, Bonzo, Sleet, & Mercy, 2007, p. 317). Therefore, it is necessary to develop strict regulations for the storage of these weapons (Doll et al., 2007, p. 317). Furthermore, one can speak about criminal liability for the failure to store firearms in a safe manner.

The key problem is that parents do not always comply with the necessary safety procedures (Doll et al., 2007, p. 317). This incentive can be useful for motivating these individuals to act in a more responsible way. Overall, these people can play a critical role in protecting the health and life of many students. This is one of the main benefits that should be taken into account by policy-makers who want to protect the lives of students.

Additionally, one can argue that those countries, which have implemented stricter gun control rules, are less exposed to the risk of shootings in educational institutions (Boecker, Seeger, Sitzer, & Heitmeyer, 2012, p. 96). It is important to remember that policy-makers have not eliminated the problem of school violence. Nevertheless, such incidents do not involve the use of firearms. For example, one can speak about knives, hammers, or box cutters (Boecker et al., 2012, p. 96).

Such weapons are less dangerous, especially in comparison with firearms. So, it is easier to render violent people harmless. Therefore, strict gun control regulations can be a useful precaution. In particular, it is possible to raise the minimum age at which a person can purchase firearms. Similarly, the state can impose stricter punishment for illegal distribution of firearms. These are some of the issues that can be singled out since they indicate that gun control can increase the safety of many schools as well as colleges.

Apart from that, stricter gun control laws can be beneficial because they can prevent a person with fire arms from entering the territory of a school or a college. It should be kept in mind that gun shooters were able to enter the territory of educational organizations without facing any resistance.

In turn, legislators can require educational institutions to use technologies and procedures that can be useful for identifying the threats posed by potential shooters. For example, they can apply metal detectors on a regular basis. This safeguard might have saved many students who were shot within schools or colleges. This is why this element of gun control should be taken into consideration by legislators and school administrators.

Overall, these examples indicate that effective gun control laws can be helpful for minimizing the risk of school shootings that can take the lives of many students. Admittedly, this policy should not be the only precaution against such events. Much attention should also be paid to the identification of those individuals who may commit such acts of violence.

Furthermore, one should understand why a person may decide to kill other people. Nevertheless, this strategy can be beneficial for minimizing the accessibility of firearms. These regulations do not deny a persons right to bear firearms since this right is critical for a persons self-defense. These are the main details that can be singled out.

Reference List

Boecker, N., Seeger, T., Sitzer, P., & Heitmeyer, W. (2012). School Shootings: International Research, Case Studies, and Concepts for Prevention. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

Doll, L., Haas, E., Bonzo, S., Sleet, S. & Mercy. J. (2007). Handbook of Injury and Violence Prevention. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

Neal, A. (2009). National Trauma and Collective Memory: Extraordinary Events in the American Experience. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

U.S. Gun Control Dilemma

Gun Control is one of the main issues in the United States, which should be a major topic that should be discussed and taken care of. While America does have a large number of gun-related violence, these incidents are still a very low volume to the US population. Gun control is a very toxic topic from either side, making it an ineffective argument. Gun violence has increased tremendously over the past years, which has caused anxiety to Americans due to the lack of gun control laws. Gun control laws have been a debate for years and still is an ongoing issue today. Having gun control laws that require additional security measures to obtain firearms will result in a decrease in violent crimes. The Supreme Court voted on the idea that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to protect the state militias from the deactivation of weapons by the government.

Preventing Gun Tragedies

It was found that the Amendment allows people the privilege to maintain and remain battle ready detached from military administration, which uplift, above all other interests, the right of law-abiding, accountable citizens to use arms in defense of their home. One of the many reasons why we need gun control is due to school shootings. School shootings are happening more often, and it is terrifying to look at, but there are ways to help prevent the massacres from ever happening again.

Violent crimes can be prevented in the United States if the ability to purchase dangerous weapons is harsher. Lawmakers should require training on how to safely secure firearms in the homes of citizens. Lawmakers should also diminish gun access to youth and people who are capable of injuring others or even themselves. Weapons should be retained from individuals who have been vicious toward their peers and those who have a history of violent tendencies. America’s support for harder firearm enactment regularly changes, expanding in the wake of a mass shooting and dropping memories of those horrendous occasions blur.

Debating U.S. Gun Rights

There are several people who are against gun control laws, but the discussion in the United States doesn’t seem to be leaving. In a country where there are extremely large amounts of guns, not everyone approves of stricter rules. Citizens think gun control laws will violate their constitutional right to bear arms. The Second Amendment ensures individuals’ idea to own a gun not connected with military personnel and to utilize that arm for customarily legalized purposes, such as protection in one’s home. Traditionally, there has always been pressure for gun control which was spawned by two situations: first, enormous growth in the level of violent crime and, second, the assassinations of presidents and other politically prominent individuals. Many presidents have been killed because of the lack of gun control; President Lincoln was one of the presidents that have been killed.

Gun Laws and Death Rates

When the weapons fall into the wrong hands, many issues arise. Many agree with the idea of eliminating mass murders; however, the question at hand still is what laws can be created to decrease mass shootings. More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths. As written on procon.org, “there were 572,537 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2016: 336,579 suicides (58.8% of total gun deaths); 213,175 homicides (37.2%); and 11,428 unintentional deaths (2.0%). [162] Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide (67.7% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.8% of all suicides)”. So if we would have more laws for gun control, the numbers would go down by a lot, and everyone would be safe.

References:

1. APA: ProCon.org. Retrieved from https://www.procon.org
2. MLA: ProCon.org. https://www.procon.org
3. Chicago: ProCon.org.  https://www.procon.org