The Banishment of Civilian Ownership of Assault Rifles - Essay Example

? The Banishment of Civilian Ownership of Assault Rifles of the of the The Banishment of Civilian Ownership of Assault Rifles Introduction The recent killings of a number of people in a shooting spree in Newtown of the United States of America compel the policy makers to revisit existing issuance of gun license policy. This is not an easy task in terms of the solution to the said problems that exist for many years in the American Society. The epidemic of using guns at a sweet will of a gun holder to settle the score or make some adventure is not a good omen for a self acclaimed civilized society. To address this broader menace, American Administration has to chalk out a comprehensive plan / an effective strategy. There multi tasking approach is needed to handle firearms related issues inclusive of a) current laws of guns shall be implemented in its true spirit b) legal lacunas in the existing laws should be removed c) issuance of gun license should be linked with the mental health, age and track record of the applicant d) discourage such programs that ignites youngsters for misuse of guns e) back ground checks and gun tracking system should be improved / strengthened f) exemplary punishment should be given to gun laws violators g) awareness program should be launched to make the citizens realize the harm and disadvantages of possessing and misusing of guns and h) gun laws should effectively deal with the violators. Remedial Measures It would be in the best interest of things if the American Administration should recall the stringent version of federal laws, expired in the year 2004, to deal with misuse of assault weapons. This would be of great help in arresting the misuse of firearms. The arms at the use of armed forces should not be allowed to use by the general public (Duggan, 2000). If we take into account the public opinions and the statements of the political figures of repute in the United States of America, it seems that a consensus of all walks of life is built for a new law of assault weapons ban. This could be a right approach in the right direction. The law makers keeping in mind the danger of misusing firearms by the irresponsible gun holders should make an effective gun control law. If this issue is not seriously addressed by the Administration of the USA, there will be more such incidents in the days ahead (Thompson, 1989). Many Americans are in favor of Second Amendment that allows keeping arms by every citizen for his or her defense. However, the same numbers of American society are against of using lethal weapons by American Forces. Further, the license issuing authority while issuing gun licenses should also take into account amongst other things, the purpose of using firearms by the applicant. There is no logic of issuing lethal weapons to a sportsman who uses it for hunting birds and animals (Thompson, 1989). Major Hindrance The key hindrance in introducing the new assault weapons ban law is the infamous National Rifle Association which has unprecedented power on capital hill. The reason being many members of NRA are hand picked members of Congress who had funded their election campaign and provided them desired political support to win the election (Thompson, 1989). Due to influence of NRA, the desired law deals effectively with the freedom of using insecure arms by naive users could not be renewed from the date of its expiration. Hence, the protestors, the other day, in the corridor of power, shouted against the shameful role of NRA (Duggan, 2000). Therefore, the NRA by using its influence intends to defer the matter for some time. They do not even participate in the witness protection program. Restrictions The Supreme Court of America consistently impresses that holding a gun is a fundamental right of a citizen, but it also advocates imposition of reasonable restrictions. Keeping in view the spreading tentacles of cited epidemic in the American Society, the think tank of America felt it necessary to ban at least those weapons which are now in use of armed forces. By way of this, killing of innocent people in a mass scale, as identified hereinabove, could be reduced considerably. Using deadly fire arms by the killer meant killing a number of people in one go (Lott, 2013). Now the question is whether the makers of the second amendment, expecting competent court of law to render legal rulings with regard to allowing citizens to use dangerous firearms with toot and nail which are reserved only for military men at the time of war (Duggan, 2000). Guns Stop Crime Criminologists in their observatory pursuit estimate, firearms that used for self defense by the Americans are around 2.5 million times per Annum. In many cases, no gun shot was fired since its possession by the holder. Despite of keeping firearms by each American, we seldom hear that Head of the family, who saved his family from the intruders before the police could reach the crime scene or the shopkeeper who could save his life and the lives of other people in his store from at the hands of dacoits or woman could save her modesty from the rapists. Moreover, the school administration could stop shooting spree in their premises. It shows that keeping an arm is not the solution to the problems in the American Society. Only exemplary punishments to the violators would deter others not to follow the suit of a criminal (Lott, 2013). Crime Control, Not Gun Control After the incident of Newtown, masses are airing their voice for justice to the victim’s family is quite understandable and justifiable. It is the need of the hour that the American Administration should introduce strict laws that will keep the criminals away from unlawful activities in the future. Showing sympathy with the criminals amounts to injustice with the victim and the victim’s family which should be discouraged (Lott, 2013). More than twenty thousand gun laws deal with the gun related issues. Despite a number of laws, the violators of these laws are on the verge of increase. There should be a law which is more responsive to such crimes rather than adding another law in the existing laws (Lott, 2013). The irony of the matter is that any law causes further usurpation of rights of those who are known as law abiding citizens. The criminals always find a loophole in the laws that make their escape good. Therefore, the lawmakers should introduce laws free from all lacunas to deter criminals and to provide more relief to the law abiders. Treating law abiders and the non-law abiders with the same stick would not be beneficial for the State and its citizens (Lott, 2013). Disarm Law abiders The recent move to ban weapons for the general public needs more focus. For ease of understanding, take the example of Dr. Suzanna, Texas State Representative, who left legally owned firearm in her car in pursuance of the instructions of local safety laws which does not allow carrying licensed weapon in the mentioned places. By virtue of local safety laws, she had to watch the murder of her parents and the murders of other twenty people in a restaurant in a shooting spree that had happened in the year 1991. The reason being Suzanna followed the law and the criminal violated the law. Had the local safety law not restricted her to carry a firearm in certain places, the situation could have been the other way round (Levitt, 2004). In view, the mentioned example, the new law should empower law abiders to cope with cited situation. This is the only way left for the law abiding citizens to beat the crimes. Pay back in the same coin is the ultimate solution provided law enforcers fail to deliver. Arm the law abiders to the teeth would be a message to the violators that they will have a tough time ahead before the police could reach at the crime scene (Levitt, 2004). To substantiate our stance to arm virtuous citizen to the teeth, the example of Pearl should be cited here for clarity, Mississippi who at the age of 16 murdered former girlfriend besides wounding seven others at a high school. Further, he intends to kill more students in the nearby junior school, the deputy principals took his firearms from his car and make the boy hostage till police came to place of incident. If we refresh our memory with reference to Pennsylvania incident, where a local merchant abruptly ended the rampage by holding the boy at gun point till the police accompanied him for interrogation. If the local trader and the principal had not held the boys from their own licensed weapons, more children would have been died. Thanks to local safety laws that had not prevented them from owning and using firearms (Levitt, 2004). Take one more example of 9/11 incident wherein number of precious lives had been lost. These lives could have been saved provided a pilot, an air marshal or a passenger qualified for using a firearm. Gun Ownership Reduces Crime Rates Considerable reduction of violent crimes has the direct relationship with the ownership of the arms and its legalized possession. In a book entitled “More Guns, Less Crime”, Professor John of University of Chicago provided comprehensive and most reliable statistics relating to firearms comparatively (Kleck & Patterson, 1993). As per the analysis, Crime rates that relates to rape and dacoity dropped down to six percent as compared to ten percent of the previous year where law abiders were permitted to carry their own legally permissible firearms. Such permission, in our opinion, will obviously weaken the strength of law breakers (Kleck & Patterson, 1993). The mentioned principle is not a new for the historian. For many decades, the town of Georgia through an ordinance permitted each and every citizen to keep at least one firearm at home for safety and security. Due to mentioned ordinance, burglary rate in the said town went down by 80 per cent. To follow the foot steps of Georgia, Virginia introduces the corresponding ordinance to curtail the crimes up to the desired level. The same is the case with Switzerland which allows military firearms and ammunition to keep at home in order to face an ugly situation if arises. Possession of firearms that range from pistols to semi-automatic machine guns by the civilians is closely monitored. The regulator should play their appropriate role in reducing the crime rates in the United Kingdom. The surprisingly low crime rates attribute to limited gun control laws (Kleck & Patterson, 1993). Guns Prevent Oppression The intention of government to ban firearms and disarm their owners based on the fear that it will play havoc in a free society. It is true that personal arms for the safety and security are guaranteed. America had in mind when the Americans acknowledge their right to keep an arm as enshrined in the Bill of Rights (Kleck & Patterson, 1993). In the 20th century, Americans were manufacturing cars, building factories and constructing shopping malls; the history had witnessed approximately seven worth mentioning genocides wherein around 50 million people were mercilessly killed. Each atrocity was done in the name of public safety and in the interest of public (Kleck & Patterson, 1993). The best example of such atrocities is the Nazi Germany. Prior to mass scale, killings, a systemic program of gun control and registration was in force. Due to the registration system, owners of the guns were located easily to disarm. Due to disarmament, the public could not stand before their slaughters. History witnessed when the conquerors were allowed their subjugated people to keep an arm had ended up with their downfall. The outcome of Holocaust and other government sponsored genocides are before us which had done in the name of public safety (Kleck & Patterson, 1993). Therefore, even the preacher of non-violence, Mahatma Ghandi was in favor of keeping firearms by the people for their safety and security as their fundamental rights. In his auto biography, he rightly pointed out "Among many misdeeds of the British Raj in India, history will not forget them depriving the whole nation of arms” (Kleck & Patterson, 1993). Guns Stop Crimes Gist of the discussion is that firearms can stop crimes, prevent atrocities, and save lives of the people. On the other hand, it can be misused like other instruments or tools due to irresponsible attitude of its users. Putting a ban on the mentioned tools amounts to injustice to the law abiders coupled with depriving them their undeniable benefits (Kleck & Patterson, 1993). Societal Norms We live in a hypocritical society which is more polite politically rather than truthful. We are in a society where the status of truth is subjective instead of objective. Our society always blames outside world for their problem. There is a need to an effort to settle the external problems (Duggan, 2000). Thousands of years ago, a myth was ritually followed that banishing all wrongs within the community and amongst the individuals turned into an innocent goat. People at that time had a strong believe that all sins within each individual and community would disappear for good. Such rituals are to be performed on a continuous basis so at to take the bull of firearm by the horns. Hence, gun control measures are nothing but sugar coated pills to bury all the sins that had committed in the past within the humanity. It is undeniable that people are killing people even before the introduction of firearms. It is another means of treating people and individuals with evil intentions (Duggan, 2000). We must find out ways and means to reach victims well before they face irreparable losses at the hands of culprits. Now the time has come to revisit existing laws aims at to restructure it and to restore moral, social and ethical values in our society to make it a livable society. By following the said norms, we may proudly say that guns do not kill people instead people kill people (Duggan, 2000). Conclusion Thorough review of banishing of assault rifles to civilians negates the notion that guns kill people. No doubt firearms can be misused by criminals. Except firearms, misuse of other tools can cause human lives. However, there can not be two opinions that Guns are the most effective instrument to protect individual lives and to kill them alike. It is true that firearms have two fold usages, either to protect someone or to kill someone. It should not be restricted to the law abiders only. The issuance of firearms license should be linked with the mental soundness of the applicant and his or her past track record. Crime reporting should be through a foul proof system. It is also the responsibility of States to furnish reliable data of mentally ill people and the criminals to National Instant Criminal Background Check System so that such categories should not be allowed to buy arms to satisfy their nefarious designs. References Duggan, M. (2000). More guns, more crime (No. w7967). National Bureau of Economic Research. Kleck, G., & Patterson, E. B. (1993). The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9(3), 249-287. Levitt, S. D. (2004). Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: Four factors that explain the decline and six that do not. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,18(1), 163-190. Lott, J. R. (2013). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws. University of Chicago Press. Thompson, T. R. (1989). Form or Substance-Definitional Aspects of Assault Weapon Legislation. Fla. St. UL Rev., 17, 649. Read More