Gun Control: Finding the Real Suspect - Research Paper Example

?Gun Control: Finding the Real Suspect Introduction In recent years, our nation has come under a barrage of bullets as schools, workplaces, and businesses have been subjected to an increase in gun violence. Most notably is the devastating event that happened in December at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut. On this horrific day, a gunman forced himself onto campus and opened fire, killing twenty first-graders and six staff members. Though the plea for gun control has been ongoing since the Columbine Massacre on April 20, 1999, it was the slaughter of twenty innocent children that prompted millions of people to speak out against gun violence. However, while everyone acknowledges that initiatives need to be taken to significantly decrease gun violence, the methods of doing so have caused a rift between Americans. Narration The concept of gun control, which “refers to any action taken by federal and state governments to regulate the purchase, safety, and use of firearms” (Saxton & Skinner 1), has been a political debate for many decades. Politicians have been trying to determine if citizens are obtaining guns in ways that could be considered reckless toward the safety of society. In the past two decades, though, with more people than ever being affected by gun violence, and gun violence going from an occasional terrible event to daily headlines on various news channels throughout the United States (Hunt 1), the debate of gun control has moved into the public. With the ease at which it seems people are able to purchase handguns and assault weapons, there has been a rush to create rigorous regulations to ensure that these objects do not end up in the wrong hands. Unfortunately, the attempts to decrease gun violence by proposing the moderation and control of firearms have caused more controversy than beneficial solutions to this issue. There are potentially three sides to the gun control debate: the neutral, the proponents, and the opponents. Those that have taken a neutral stance concede that gun violence has increased significantly due to the overwhelming ease at which people can purchase handguns and assault weapons, and while certain measures should be taken to prevent the wrong people from purchasing guns, these individuals do not feel that citizens should be completely disarmed. Proponents of gun control feel that guns do not belong at all in the hands of private citizens, and that only police officers and military men and women should have access to firearms. The opponents of gun control, also acknowledging that measures need to be laid out to decrease gun violence, believe that gun ownership is not just “our right as per the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution” (Burton 1), but a requirement to guarantee our own safety against criminals. Partition There is no question that gun violence needs to be deterred in America. Very seldom does a day go by anymore that does not end in multiple gun-related deaths. However, placing extreme restrictions on guns will only prove to be more dangerous as doing so would prevent citizens from protecting themselves and their families should they ever be confronted with a dangerous individual or group (Worsnop 507). Strict gun control is not the answer to putting an end to gun violence, but making sure that obedient citizens have the means to protect themselves against those on the other side of the law. By restricting and controlling firearms, honest citizens are being punished, the ability to self-protect is being taken away, and the restrictions will not prevent criminals from purchasing firearms to use as weapons. Argument and Refutation Those that are opposed to gun control make the argument that they are being punished as a result of the dangerous actions of criminals. The criminals are the ones who are misusing and taking advantage of our Constitutional right to own firearms, using them for robbing businesses and individuals, and for causing harm to their enemies and, more often than not, to innocent bystanders. Many criminals do not even own their guns legally, but obtain them through theft or shoddy gun distributors. On the other hand, the vast majority of individuals that would be affected by stricter gun laws are those who have abided by the laws already set in place (Levy 1). These people went through the proper channels to obtain their guns, submitted required information for background checks, underwent lessons and classes to learn proper gun maintenance and use, and have not used their weapons for anything more than hunting or protection. If stricter gun restrictions were set in place, these law-abiding citizens would be required to adhere to the punishment meant for the criminals. In essence, the innocent and law-abiding individuals are being punished for following the law. Opposers to gun restriction also argue that their abilities to protect themselves will be taken away if these new laws are enacted. Though many gun owners maintain guns for hunting purposes or recreational shooting, the most common reason for gun ownership is for protecting the individual and their family. In this dangerous day and age, such protection is vital to one’s survival. While law enforcement officers are usually effective at what they do, and their presence does indeed make others feel safer, there are many instances when time becomes a factor. If a police officer cannot arrive in a timely fashion to a crime scene, citizens like to be guaranteed that they have some other means of protection - that is, gun ownership (Saxton & Skinner 1). Furthermore, police officers cannot be everywhere that a crime takes place, especially as soon as one happens. Since criminals will not wait to start their reign of terror until the police arrive to give everyone a fair chance, citizens should be able to protect themselves in the meantime. The most profound argument that opposers to gun control have brought to light is that any amount of gun control will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns (Worsnop 505). Indeed, the United States government could destroy every single firearm within our nation, and criminals would still find ways to get them. Since criminals do not obey the laws against murdering and theft, nothing will prevent them from disobeying gun laws (Levy 1). While stricter gun laws may decrease the amount of available guns or make it difficult for criminals to purchase or steal them, very little impact will be seen on gun violence since criminals will continue to have access to their weapons. This final point that gun control will not dissuade criminals from obtaining firearms should be considered with the aforementioned point that gun control will disarm law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves. Criminals will only strike harder and with more ruthlessness if they know that their victims are unarmed. When the victim “has a weapon to fight back with, the chances of victim fatalities in a crime are greatly diminished” (Lott 1). This is due to either the criminal being scared off knowing that they have someone capable of fighting against them or the victim being able to put an end to the criminal before they do any lasting damage on the victim. With fewer guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens who have the potential to become victims and more guns in the hands of criminals, there will only be an increase in crime and victim fatality. On the other side of the argument, those that are in favor of stricter gun laws are not denying that people should have the right to protect themselves, but they believe that the most important movement in decreasing gun violence is to decrease the amount of weapons in the hands of criminals. The most prevalent argument on this side of the debate is that guns kill people, and should therefore be illegal to own. This is also the favorite argument that opposers of gun control like to debate. When proponents of gun control put the blame of the crime on the weapon used, the individual or group that actually committed the crime becomes almost free of fault. While these criminals will be tried accordingly in a court of law, the proponents focus more on the fact that a gun was used, and not that a criminal was the one in control of the weapon. In reality, it is “not guns that kill people, but people with guns kill people”. If a person is desperate to kill and they cannot obtain a gun, they will use some other instrument (Johnson 1), whether it is a knife, a car, or a pencil. It is not the object that we should be focused on when it comes to crime deterrent, but the criminals themselves. In a similar counterargument, proponents of gun control argue that guns should be banned because they are dangerous. While there is no doubt that this is true, proponents seem to be ignorant of the fact that, like the previous point made, it is not the weapon, but the person using or misusing the gun (Hunt 1). In the hands of a law-abiding citizen, a firearm is a means of protection, and possibly a tool for hunting. This person will take proper care of the firearm and use it appropriately to ensure that others do not get injured. In the hands of a criminal, though, the firearm becomes a weapon. This person not only does not care if someone becomes injured because of their misuse of the gun, but often knowingly uses the gun for the sole purpose of injuring others. Again, the same can be said for a car or a pencil; a proper student will use their pencil to complete their homework, but a misbehaving student could turn that writing utensil into a deadly weapon, but you will not see a ban on pencils anytime soon. Recent events involving psychologically unstable suspects of shootings in public locations have prompted a third argument for those in favor of gun control. This argument is that there are too many misguided and unstable people in our world, and it would be in the best interest of society if these individuals had less access to guns. Again, proponents of gun control are focusing more on the weapon being used than on the person in control of the weapon. This argument also brings to light a new area that government and health science officials alike should look into, and that is the fact that many mentally or emotionally unbalanced individuals are not getting the proper treatment that they need (Johnson 1). The more unhinged they become the more likely they are to crack completely, which often involves harming others in the process. Instead of focusing on, as previously mentioned, disarming law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves, the various branches of government should be putting more energy and effort into why these crimes are being committed in the first place. Conclusion Gun violence has definitely increased over the past two decades, and too many innocent people are dying at the hands of gun-wielding criminals. There has been a rush in activity to prevent further gun violence through tougher gun restrictions (Hunt 1), but both sides of the argument have brought any such actions to a standstill. The proponents of gun control concede that a lack of guns will prevent gun violence and that criminal activity will decrease if the government makes the purchasing of firearms more severe. The opposers of gun control, though, argue that gun control is not the answer to a safer society, but ensuring that citizens have the means to protect themselves should they come under attack by another. By instilling stricter gun laws, the government will only be punishing law-abiding citizens and taking away the rights of the people to protect themselves, as well as not deterring criminals from purchasing guns. If our society is eager to bring an end to gun violence, we not only need to focus on stopping the criminals causing the devastation, but we also need to guarantee that citizens have the means to protect themselves and others, which in itself could drastically decrease the amount of gun violence taking place on our streets and within our schools and businesses. Works Cited Burton, Daniel. "Studies Suggest Gun Laws Won't Stop Violence, but They Do Infringe the Second Amendment." Phoenix and Arizona Breaking News. N.p., 22 Jan. 2013. Web. 7 Apr. 2013. . Hunt, Kasie. "Biden: New Gun Controls Likely Won't End Shootings." NBC News: First Read. N.p., 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 7 Apr. 2013. . Johnson, Fawn. "We Need To Talk About Mental Health Even If It's Only A Sideshow To The Gun Control Debate." National Journal (2013): 7. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Apr. 2013. Levy, Robert A. "Gun Control Measures Don't Stop Violence." CNN. N.p., 19 Jan. 2011. Web. 5 Apr. 2013. . Lott, John. "Making Guns Less Available Does Not Reduce Gun Violence." Opposing Viewpoints in Context. N.p., 15 Sept. 2011. Web. 6 Apr. 2013. . Saxton, Bobby, and Will Skinner. "The Truth About Gun Control Laws." The Daily Californian. N.p., 24 Jan. 2013. Web. 7 Apr. 2013. . Worsnop, Richard L. "Gun Control: Will It Help Reduce Violent Crime in the U.S.?." CQ Researcher Online 4.22 (1994): 505-528. CQ Researcher Online. Web. 6 Apr. 2013. Read More