Gun Control Synthesis Essay

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Guns have been in our society for centuries, which people have been a sensitive topic to talk about but have been subject to discussions. In the recent events of mass shootings, the issue has divided individuals regarding what the best solution is for gun control. One side some people favor is having restrictions placed on guns. On the other hand opposed regulating and having gun control. Guns have the potential to be dangerous and are used for self-defense, law enforcement, hunting, and to protect individuals from others who are trying to harm them. Weapons that are in the wrong hands would lead to catastrophic events, which we have somehow witnessed in the past. Based on the result of these horrific events, guns have been put on a platform and have been labeled as too dangerous for American citizens to handle, and the right to own a firearm discretely should be taken away.

Mass killings and serial shootings have produced their kind of horror. Mass killings are committed within minutes or hours of unexpected suddenness (Briggs, 2017). Serial or spree shootings are prolonged and unpredictable, and they last until the assailants are caught (Briggas, 2017). With this problem, people who are for gun control have believed “the more lax laws are… the more likely one is to face someone with a firearm which has no business owning one'(Holt, 2013); however, criminals are not called criminals for they obeyed by the law (2013). According to Jason Howerton (2013), who was a pro-gun advocate, societies that were against gun control have believed otherwise and considered that a gun ban has a dangerous side effect. It encourages criminals since they would know the law-abiding citizens are unarmed and defend less. There have been studies done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which shows that firearm killings have decreased by 39% percent since 1993. Another study by the Pew Research Center was even more significant based on the result showed an even more remarkable decline to 49% percent (Barrett, 2013). The same research, also showed that the government had reported about 22,000 non-fatal shootings occurring each year from 1993 to 2002 and 2002 to 2011; the number has gone down by close to 50% percent. Even with this dramatic decline, anti-gun supporters still want to establish strict gun regulations making it tougher to own a gun. A good portion of these supporters really would like to see carried arms entirely taken out of society.

Guns have been part of U.S. history from the arming of patriots and the mustering of militia during the Revolutionary War. It leads to the disarming of slaves and freedmen tracing back to the Jim Crow Laws that were enacted back in the early 1800s (Briggs, 2017 ). During the 18th and 19th centuries, guns were tools that were used for survival purposes and for defending against any foreign enemy. As time went on and American grew and expanded to the West, guns were used for defending against hostile Indians and other potential dangers in the unexplored territory. Guns were a vital part of American history; since the 1920s mob violence increased, and Congress began its quest for gun control measures. In 1927, mail-order gun sales were declared illegal including concealed firearms. As mob violence increased in 1934 with the use of the ‘Tommy Gun’, Congress approved the National Firearms Act of 1934, taxing firearms and requiring gun registration. This became the first federal gun-control law however it does not end there. In 1938 President Roosevelt was able to pass the National Firearms Act 1938 which required the licensing of interstate gun dealers and prohibiting the sales of guns to individuals under indictment or convicted of crimes of violence (Kim,2013).

Gun control seemed to be minor until the 1960s which was an unsettled time of the 60s killing of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 including Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968. These assassinations kick-started Congress to enact the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act has prohibited the sale of guns to felons, drug users, and those deemed to have considered being mentally ill, including firearm dealers to get licensed and enforced interstate restrictions on gun sales. The act even required a person to be twenty-one years old to legally purchase a handgun. There were some attempts to pass gun control bills that have failed including some that were relaxed or repealed. In 1981, an assassination attempt on President Reagan resulted in the almost killing of Press Secretary James Brady who had taken a bullet wound to the head. For 12 years after that occurrence, Sarah and James Brady led the fight for better gun control. With the support of NRA members and ex-President Ronal Reagan, the Brady organization succeeded in getting “The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” approved in 1993. The important agenda of this law was to create a system for checking the background of the individual gun buyers which was under the control of the FBI. Even though this NICS system prohibited criminals and other possible violent people from buying handguns. The Brady Bills were unable to control private sales from one person to another. Interestingly enough, a survey done in 1993 by the Pew Research Center showed that 57% of the people said gun control is more important than defending Second Amendment gun rights. In 2012, the same survey was done that showed the percentage had declined to 47% (Kim, 2013).

Laws regarding gun control are introduced with the intent to control the sale of guns including their uses. While the important concern is based on the issue in the U.S. let us just take a look at a situation where gun control is harmed. In 2001, American Rifleman, the magazine of the NRA, published an article by Dr. Halbrook explaining the utilization of firearms registration lists that resulted in the seizure of firearms, and ammunition, including the killing of firearm owners. Dr. Halbrook (2001) made an interesting observation about this control; ‘Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and to make a prey of its subject.” The author was referring to Hitler and how he was able to take guns out of the hands of German citizens. All over the world gun control, legislation by the government has made it easy for those in power to do whatever pleases their people. There are those in the U.S. that believe that if the government continues to pursue gun control laws the citizens will be vulnerable to all sorts of criminal activities.

Over the last 40 years, gun control activist has tried to ban handgun or attempted to create restricting reform in the U.S. and have not done so very well. Including, some of the reforms that have surfaced are not reforms at all rather than just an attempt to satisfy people. In 2013, Senator Rand Paul who is a pro-gun advocate implied to the new proposals and said to Obama, “Call me if any of your reform would save those kids at Sandy Hook” (“Sen. Rand Paul Talks About His Career, 2013”). Senator Paul does not believe that any new law on gun control would even prevent another tragedy, such as what happened to Sandy Hook, it only affects law-abiding citizens. After a week of what happened at Sandy Hook, Wayne LaPierre, Vice President of the NRA, stated that schools that posted Gun-free Zones would only attract the criminals who mean to do real harm. He then challenged Congress to fund all schools so that they could hire armed police officers. On another note, there are schools within the same district that should have police officers presented while Sandy Hook had none. Had Asam Lanza known of this fact or was Sandy Hook somehow randomly chosen? Those who have disregarded the law would not have paid attention to a sign that is harmless to them. The sign would not sound an alarm or flashy bright lights if someone with bad intentions is coming near one of these zones and would not stop mass shootings such as Sandy Hook. With these areas in mind, they have the most restrictive gun regulations (Gucciardi, 2013).

A society that is pro-gun control believes that gun control legislation is a necessity for the well-being of our nation. Advocates feel that many of the deaths caused by guns could have been prevented by contorting the ownership of guns within the U.S. Based on the BusinessWeek article, Paul Barrett (2013) states that the focus of gun control advocates for years has been more severe restrictions on firearms are required to cut crime. This was proven wrong; the states with the highest amount of murder rates by guns had some of the strict gun control laws. An FBI Uniform Crime Report in 2011 showed that California was the number one in gun-related murders in the country while maintaining the strongest gun control law. The District of Columbia, having very strict gun laws, had the highest gun-related murder rate of around 100,000 in the U.S. (Howerton, 2013). To support the statistics, a group called Slate has tracked gun deaths since the Sandy Hook incident. From January up to July 2013, studies have shown California, has the most gun deaths starting at 677. In the same time frame, 10 states had severe gun laws with 2,0002 gun deaths while the other 10 states with the least gun laws totaled 696 gun deaths (Gucciardi, 2013).

Upon reviewing these studies and reports, states have the toughest gun laws and do not show a relationship with the idea that having fewer guns equals less crime, in reality, it is just the opposite. An article published on TheBlaze.com stated ‘Guns in the right hands help public safety. Huns in the wrong hands harm public safety’ (Holt, 2013). This fact seems true however societies with strong gun control laws have a hard time with this argument except for those with mental illness who should not be able to obtain a gun.

Gun control and pro-gun advocates have looked at and interpreted the Second Amendment to try to justify their cause. As a result, the founding fathers of our nation created the Bill of Rights with 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As we know the Second Amendment gave the citizens the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates have sometimes said the Second Amendment was added due to a need for an American armed force to be able to defend America in a time of need and for that reason it does not justify the individual’s ownership of numerous guns. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted that the Second Amendment is the law of the land which allows the people to bear arms and it would not be infringed upon (Fetzer, 2013). Mostly, banning guns would take away the individual rights that are given in the U.S. Constitution and therefore illegal.

The Supreme Court has not stepped in on the issue of gun control issue. If the case ever happens to be accepted into the Court, then the judges would have to interpret it according to the law of the land. This is exactly what happened in 1939 in the case of U.S. vs. Miller wherein the Supreme Court decided that the regulations in the National Firearms Act did not in any way violate the Second Amendment. Along with the ruling, the court even ruled that the Second Amendment concerns only a citizen who is in service in a government-organized and regulated armed force (Gucciardi, 2013). This would have been an interpretation that would have made gun control advocates happy since the Supreme Court, in the ruling, viewed the bearing of arms as the right armed force and not as an individual. After seventy years, the Supreme Court did not openly address the Second Amendment. Based on the analysis the Amendments were solely for the protection of state armed forces which was the basis for many states affecting legislation that has imposed gun restrictions.

Believing guns are the reason there is a lot of crime rather than there are just violent people in the world which just seems a bit ridiculous. Take into consideration the fact that human beings are the ones that control objects, such as guns, not the other way around. If that was the case, why not ban weapons? With the theory, Gucciardi (2013) offered statistic from a 2009 FBI report showing homicides committed with firearms and non-firearm source that adds up to 9,146 firearm death.

With that said and done in any case ignoring the Second Amendment and banning guns would create chaos with many pro-gun citizens of the U.S. Though with gin control it is a good idea with a background check and at least someone 21 years of age to purchase a gun, there should not be aby reasons to put any more laws into the effect. As said in the paper above criminals would get their hands on a weapon one way or another. If it is not a gun, then it could be something else that might harm someone else.

No other gun control legislation can have prevented the disaster that had to happen in Connecticut or Colorado. Each event had a mentally incomplete person involved in the massacres, and we have laws for these types of people. Also, more gun regulations would stop violent crimes in the U.S. It is how we use our resources to stop these people from creating even more violent events, and that is letting citizens have the right to own their guns. Gun control is not going to save lives as many pro-gun control advocates believe. The only thing that would save lives is educating students who know nothing about guns including providing knowledge to the widespread nation. There are so many who have never held a gun, and even be in the same room as a gun to decide for or against gun control. The only way people would understand the information is to inform, rather than going off other opinions. History has shown when disarming citizens, the government would gain too much power leaving the citizens defenseless and unable to protect themselves or their families. It is highly unsure that the U.S. would ever come to that point and take the people of basic rights; however, it is always better to prepare than not prepare. Based on a quote by Thomas Jefferson on the opinion of gun rights, “No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government” (“Quotes on Firearms Right”)

References

Barret, P.M. (2013). Good News on Gun Violence Could Shape Gun Control Debate. Businessweek.
Briggs, W. (2017). How America got its guns: a history of the gun violence crisis. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Cooper, T. L. (2017). Are Unlimited Gun Rights Constitutionally Protected? Public Integrity, 19(2), 101–103. doi: 10.1080/10999922.2016.1254489
Fetzer, J.H. (2013). Why gun control is bad for America. Veterans Today. Retrieved December 5, 2019 from https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/08/16/guns-and-chips-and-irony/
Fetzer, J. H. (2014). Why gun control is bad for America? Press TV. Retrieved December 10, 2019
Halbrook, S. (2001) Registration: The Nazi Paradigm. American Rifleman, 149, 52.
Holt, M. (2013). Do Strict Gun Laws Really Stop Gun Crime? TheBlaze.com
Howerton, J. (2018). The Firearms Statistics That Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want to See. TheBlaze.com https://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/05/06/the-firearms-statisticsthat-gun-control-advocates-dont-want-to-see
Gucciardi, A. (2015). Disarmed: A History of Gun Control Documentary Film (Video File). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7b4I1HLCsk
Kim, C. (2013). A look back at gun control history. Retrieved December 11, 2019, from http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/look-back-gun-control-history.
Sen. Rand Paul Talks About His Career. (2013). Retrieved December 8, 2019, from https://www.c-span.org/video/?312196-1/sen-rand-paul-talks-career.
Quotes on Firearms Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, from http://catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html

Click Here To Order Now!

References

Related