Posted by Winnie Melda on November 29th, 2018
Guns have been part of America’s society since the birth of this nation. The US citizens throughout history, have used firearms to protect their families, protect the country and for the purpose of hunting for food. Gun control is a controversial issue in the United States since both sides firmly embedding on their beliefs. The supporters of gun ownership and the right to bear and keep guns rely on the fact that such rights provisions are part of the Constitution. On that note, there is no any original study that shows that gun control in the US has any positive outcome on crime (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013).
My position/ thesis statement
This essay argues that our society can only benefit from the use of firearms if responsible citizens only use it.
Audience: the public members, law enforcement and policymakers
At the present times of growing violence and turmoil, I support the gun advocates in saying that we need the use of guns more than never before. Additionally, a large number of citizens like me believe that if the gun acts would have strict enforcement. Threats of crime and violence will be in every part of this country. Thus, many citizens who are responsible deserve the right to bear arms for the purpose of protection. The challenging aspect of gun control requires a harmonizing act of considering the extreme measures. Weighing the liberties and rights for each against the safety and welfare of the public is a risky act to balance. Every attempt to take way firearms from the citizens contribute to more harm than good. To some, they believe that banning the use of a gun is the way to saving lives, but this is an incorrect statement. For example the Prohibition Act of 1920 which certainly did not stop individuals from drinking. Instead, it only made individuals sell alcohol in an illegal yet richer way than before.
Also on the illegal drugs, just because there are labeled illegal; it does not mean that people are not suing them. Individuals in all parts of the world have access to these illegal drugs. Therefore, in the same light, banning the use of guns would not imply that people will not have them. Americans are particularly interested in knowing how far is too far when passing laws that restrict of the second amendment. Is American not ‘“The land of the free?” (Historical Documents, n.d).
The United States’ constitution of the second amendment is very much controversial. The rights to bear arms specifically states that “The people’s right to bear and keep Arms (Historical Documents, n.d). The way a person interprets the Amendments wording has an impact on their point of view on the person with the rights to bear and keep arms. Second Amendment controversy is as a result of the failure of the Amendment to clearly define who these individuals are. Such an ambiguity leaves room for action by the courts and legislative to make interpretations and pass laws that will impact the way this amendment is enforced and applied. The second Amendment specifies that “ militia that is well regulated and considered necessary for the Free State security means that the individuals have a right to bear and keep ARMS and shall not be infringed" (Historical Documents, n.d).. The main argument presented by the advocates of gun control is that since a “militia’ is no longer viable, then it is upon each state to define its Reserves or National Guard.
The advocates of gun control, on the other hand, argue that the Second Amendment clearly stipulates that individuals have the right to bear and own arms even when they are not members of a militia. They interpret the second Amendment indicating that any person is its military personnel or not have to be allowed the ownership of firearms activist of Anti-gun control also believe that the Constitution grants the rights that should not be taken away since it leads to violation the Second Amendment purpose on the bill of rights. Additionally, Jefferson Thomas said that ‘the main reason for individuals to retain a right of bearing arms is a last resort of protecting themselves against a tyrant government (White House, n.d).
Therefore, gun control is a subject that brings about various other issues.To some gun control is a rights issue while to other it is a crime issue. Also, gun control is a racial issue, an educational issue, a safety issue and a political issue. In all these issues there are those in support for more legislation for gun control and there are those who need less. On these two sides of the opinions are also the extreme and moderate issues. The bottom line is that guns are not for all people (Gun Owners of America, n.d). There are some individuals who cannot handle firearms safely while others choose to use the firearms in inappropriate ways. Therefore should those citizens who have not done anything wrong to deserve punishment for the mistakes of others?
There are those people who drink and drive making them a danger to themselves and others and killing people. Therefore, should we deny everyone a right to own and drive vehicles? Our country has passed various laws to regulate the use and ownership of firearms, and there are considerations for more legislation. Most of these legislations to some degree restrict the rights of individuals to use and posse’s firearms (Mauser, 2003). Though some restrictions can be necessary, there are some laws which have gone way too far. A society will reap the benefits of firearms if they are in the hands of responsible citizens. Efforts of restricting these citizens from using and owning firearms will lead to more harm than good. Over time, the government has set up restrictions for gun purchasers and owners. The Brady Act of 1993 naming after James Brady, who passed the bill after the shooting in an assassination attempt. The shooting attempt was in 1981 by John Hinckley on President (Reagan The History Channel Website, 1993).
The supporters of this cat use the incident to garner support for their gun control legislation with the claim that it would save lives and reduce crimes. The act provides a five-day waiting period for purchasing a handgun. The law subjects the buyers to a background check. This Brady Act clearly has flaws because there are numerous examples showing how background checking has not even stopped crimes such as mass shooting. 26 people died in Newtown, Connecticut, massacres after they were gunned down by Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook Elementary School. Lanza did not have a background check in owning and using the gun (Johns, & Samuel, 2013). The gun belonged to his mother Nancy Lanza, who was the legal purchasers and under her registration. The same case also applies to Jared Loughner, who shot 19 people including Gabrielle Gifford and killing six others in January 2011 in Tucson. There was no flagging of his application via the NICS databases that determine the eligibility of a firearm buyer (Johns & Samuel, 2013).
Thus, with no doubt the Brady Act is flawed. It is because if a person badly needs to buy a gun, they will find a way of doing it. Thus, by passing the gun control laws, the only thing they do is to restrict the rights of citizens who are law abiding. The banning of guns only means taking the firearms away from honest citizens owning them to the criminals who know they can take advantage of the citizens who they know is unarmed. Therefore, banning guns will not help since criminals care less as to whether or not they are breaking the laws and they could not in the first place considered as criminals. Is that not the main reason they are trying to reduce crime by banning guns? It will also leave the law abiding citizens like us into more danger. No laws that can be established to keep guns out of the criminals hand or stop them from using firearms in illegal ways. Thus, there is need to consider other options when passing laws since the current gun control legislations do not work.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2013). Preliminary annual crime report 2012.
Gun Owners of America. (n.d). GOA.
Historical Documents. (n.d). Bill of Rights.
Johns, J., & Samuel, S. (2013, April). Politics background checks.
Mauser, G. A. (2003). The Failed Experiment Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England.
The History Channel Website. (1993, Nov). Brady Bill.
White House. (n.d). Preventing gun violence.
Like it? Share it!
About the AuthorWinnie Melda
Joined: December 7th, 2017
Articles Posted: 364
More by this author