Student’s Name:
Professor Name:
Course:
Due Date:
Gun Control
The right of the United States citizens to bear arms is entrenched in the nation’s Constitution. The United States Second Amendment of the Constitution declares that the right to hold and keep arms cannot be infringed. Gun control has been a very divisive political issue in America for a long time. As cases of mass shootings continue being recorded in America, antagonism increases between opposing arguments regarding gun control. The people who believe in strict gun regulations fear that their safety is compromised in a country where more people are allowed to buy and own guns every day. Opponents of stringent gun control strategies also to worriedness of losing the rifle. It is argued strict regulation on the liberty to own guns could make Americans exposed and incapable of protecting themselves, especially if the state ever turned against its people. Two recent landmark United States Supreme Court decisions have affirmed that the Second Amendment upholds the rights to own firearms for self-defence. Therefore, the debate has shifted on gun control and regulation.
Modern governments are opposed to the idea of an armed public that is ready to stage a resistance. The government enforces measures to disarm the citizens to repress their capacity (Ehrenfreund). I aptly uphold the constitution of the United States of America and believe citizens’ rights to bear arms should never be infringed, “more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008, District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated,” (Scalia). The government should step up its efforts to educate and train the people on how to manage guns in their possession. Strict gun control regulations will only leave firearms in the hands of illegal holders and leave the people vulnerable and exposed. Citizens that are armed and trained on using firearms are better prepared for self-defence and ready to rise against the government in case it turns against its people.
Gun control versus gun rights debate in the United States goes beyond the issue of access to firearms (Ehrenfreund). I believe the colonialists fought the British to gain freedom and liberty and eliminate tyranny. The American Constitution in which the Human Rights is enshrined was designed to protect these rights and freedoms. Understanding the history of the nation’s founding is critical because it’s implied that an attack on the principles established by the Constitution is an attack on the United States. Citizens’ rights which are explicitly provided in the Constitution, cannot then be taken away.
Gun ownership is traditionally part of the American culture. A poll conducted in 2015 by Gallup indicated that 41 percent of American owned guns in their homes. Another poll in the same year showed that 71 percent of Americans are opposed to laws that ban gun ownership except by authorized persons (Albritton 92). The poll is a strong indication that Americans are in favour of short gun ownership and it’s therefore upon the government to come up with effective ways of training and educating the citizens on laws governing the use of these ammunitions. The United States citizens are traditionally suspicious of the government, which takes the form of deep suspicion against the federal government. The country was born out of a revolution that freed thirteen colonies from what was regarded as the tyrannical and oppressive rule of the British (Albritton 95). The argument is extended in the modern world to imply that the government has no mandate to deny people the right to own guns. A second argument is that the armed citizenry is well prepared to defend democracy from turning tyrannical.
Gun violence has been a societal problem facing the U.S and is impacted by the restrictions the local, federal, and state government-enforced in the nation. Gun control entails the policies the U.S government enforced against the use and ownership of various firearms. The restriction of guns has become a more debated issue in the United States than in any other country worldwide. Hence, the problem has raised concern for coming up with particular policies regarding gun control. Many U.S republicans are having conflicting views concerning their socioeconomic importance. The Republicans who support the gun control policies claim that the regulation will reduce the gun rates and thus save more lives. In contrast, non-supporters of the gun control measures argue that it might increase crime rates experienced in the U.S and hence incapable of saving lives. This category of people believes that gun use restriction will prevent republicans from defending themselves should armed criminals attack them.
United States citizens are allowed to own a rifle as provided by its constitution, which gives individuals freedom over 18 years. However, this has created a negative climate within the nation, as seen from the increase in gun violence. These massive shootings experienced in the U.S influence environmental guard, the judicial system, public health, and fairness within the nation. Besides the gigantic shootings being a social problem, it has also been a financial challenge in the United States (Hurka, Steffen, and Christoph, 67). This is because the increase in gun-related misconduct can affect the business’s development and growth by creating a hostile environment unsuitable for various commercial activities. I support gun control regulation because it will guard people’s lives and decrease socioeconomic instability. Over the years, the United States has been the safest country worldwide when citizens are given the freedom to own and use various firearms.
The argument concerning gun relations is impacted by various people’s interpretations of the Second Amendment. Supporters and non-supporters of the debate argue on the provisions of the U.S constitution’s Second Amendment. However, I believe that U.S citizens require riffles to protect themselves against a criminal attack. Mass shootings and other ill-fated things continue to happen, yet some republicans are out there misusing the freedom of gun ownership and use. When one is asked to select between the release of gun ownership and self-defence and not possessing any firearm or weapon, one is likely to pick the first choice. The Second Amendment in the U.S constitution provides that every republican is given the freedom to possess and use riffles. From research, currently in the United States, three out of ten grown-ups are having a gun. Hence, non-supporters of the gun regulation issue claim that the regime contradicts their rights as provided in the Second Amendment because it restricts them from defending themselves in case of an attack.
On the other hand, a proponent of the debate argues that such regulation on gun use and possession will help reduce gun violence and, in turn, lead to massive loss of lives within the U.S. However, the mass shootings experienced in the U.S today have raised concern for the need to come up with strict policies to ensure that gun violence reduces. The systems put in place to regulate firearms and explosives weapons will help prevent criminal groups and unlicensed personnel from using various guns in the wrong manner.
More importantly, these policies enacted to regulate gun use and ownership in the United States have been present since 19020 (Wu, 52). The U.S government back then enforced the restriction through the National Firearms Act. The regulation was approved after the extermination on February 14, 1929, during the valentine’s event. Various judicial systems such as the supreme court have supported the restriction on gun possession and use. For example, the supreme court has upheld the bans regarding the ownership of various firearms and explosive weapons. The policy also prevented organizations from vending firearms to individuals without a license. The U.S local, state, and federal governments have also enacted policies to prevent gun violence.
Nevertheless, different countries within the U.S could also implement certain restrictions regarding the use and ownership of firearms. Today, a greater population in the United States supports and adapts to the new policies as possession of riffles has never made the country nonviolent. In 2016, President Barrack Obama also assisted in combating gun violence (Kleck, Gary, Tomislav, and Jon, 94). For instance, he declared that for one to own a gun, one has to get for it a license, and people should not purchase highly loaded riffles. There have been many factors that have contributed to the need to regulate the use of various firearms. One aspect is the rise of gun violence and murder killings, leading to the ban of either ownership or usage of riffles. Also, many U.S citizens are against gun ownership freedom because it creates an unstable environment, therefore making it hard for them to participate in daily business activity. The decrease in business development happens when there is a rapid increase in the number of gun violence taking place throughout the country. In turn, individuals tend to lose their various occupations and decrease the percentage of those participating in several activities. Also, gun violence tends to influence multiple sectors, including; health maintenance, the judicial system, and security.
The debate on gun regulation in the U.S is examined because many studies have shown various opinions concerning gun restrictions and law. These sources elaborate on the social and economic problems regarding gun-related crimes and the effect of these challenges on human well-being, security, fairness, and justice. There is a substantial cost of gun violence is the number of lives lost in the process. The youths in the United States are likely to suffer from gun-related crimes. Research proves that about 40,000 U.S residentials and no-citizens were shot dead in the year 2017. According to Wu (56), the U.S must develop suitable measures that regulate the sale, purchase, manufacture, and use of various riffles. Also, all United States citizens and non-citizens are expected not to misuse their freedom of gun ownership. Therefore, supporting the notion that each individual has a part in making the United States a safer place to live in. This will also ensure that such character is extended to the next generation to attract tourists because they will be guaranteed their security. In contrast, some U.S residents also happen to believe that catastrophes and massacres will change things. Nevertheless, the presence of these mass shootings disapproves of such suppositions.
There are so many deaths associated with gun violence in the United States that that is not even noticed or reported in the news. Many youths are known to associate themselves with criminal gangs within the United States. They happen to participate in various criminal offences, which is impacted by the freedom of gun ownership. This makes some states dangerous than others. For instance, Florida is dominated by black criminal gangs who find happiness in taking people’s lives. Also, when they are out there stealing, they may either injure or kill the person whenever they come across an individual. When such gangs attack an individual, the individual’s life is at stake because they lack to weapon for self-defence (Kleck, Gary, Tomislav, and Jon, 94). If there had been strict policies that prohibit such behaviour, people would be assured of their safety and thus be free to visit any state of their interest.
Even if most United States citizens misinterpret the issue of gun control, the challenge seizes the country’s attention and is far away from gun violence. The United States has enacted specific policies to restrict the ownership and use of various riffles and other weapons to decrease the excessive mass shootings experienced in the country. For instance, the U.S government has partnered with local, state, and federal agencies to fight gun-related crimes. Also, the government is monitoring companies that engage in the manufacture and sale of various firearms and other weapons. Similarly, the government can also neutralize each domestic abuser and prohibits the usage of weapons with high-capacity of bullets.
In conclusion, the agreement is that human beings require riffles to defend themselves from criminal gangs. Also, the freedom to own and use guns in the U.S has led to various socioeconomic influences. This is because the freedom to use pistols amongst U.S residents has not enhanced the United States citizens’ security and well-being. Numerous policies are being implemented to monitor and restrict the use of high-capacity riffles to save the lives of many U.S citizens. However, the U.S government has not yet discovered an appropriate measure to combat gun violence. But the government could also enact particular policies like the ban of high-capacity firearms to reduce gun-related crimes, hence saving the lives of many U.S republicans. The U.S government could also facilitate the programs within the country that fight against gun violence. The ban on the manufacture of dangerous weapons and riffles can also help combat the mass shootings witnessed in the United States. Nations that permit possession must ensure that they have appropriate measures to monitor the use of various firearms and dangerous weapons like gun powder. The regulations that different countries implement regarding gun control reduce crimes related to guns; hence, prohibiting the misuse of riffles.
.
Works Cited
Hurka, Steffen, and Christoph Knill. “Does regulation matter? A cross‐national analysis of the impact of gun policies on homicide and suicide rates.” Regulation & Governance, (2020).
Kleck, Gary, Tomislav Kovandzic, and Jon Bellows. “Does gun control reduce violent crime?” Criminal justice reviews 41.4 (2016): 488-513.
Wu, Stephen. “The Effects of Cueing and Framing on Youth Attitudes Towards Gun Control and Gun Rights”. Social Sciences, vol 7, no. 2, 2018, p. 29. MDPI AG, doi:10.3390/socsci7020029.