Are Gun Control Policies effective or ineffective - Essay Example

? Are Gun Control Policies effective or ineffective? Introduction (Thesis ment) Gun control measure are made stiff every time there is an event of irresponsible shooting that indicates that crime and deaths are facilitated by the right of individuals to own licensed guns. This has resulted to the gun control policies discussions to take two perspectives including legal and criminological (Lott 25). Legalists have argued that right to own guns in some countries pose legal barriers to gun confiscation and on a realistic perception, the right to own a gun improves individual security. Consequently, these legalists oppose gun restrictions, which they say it opposes the freedom to own ammunition. On the other hand, criminologists have taken a different approach in perception of gun control arguing that strict gun control measures may result to reduced crimes and deaths caused by misuse of guns. This debate is of great important to provide a way out of misuse of guns, not only in U.S., but also in the global perspective (Kopel 3). The debate regarding gun control measures has been a recent topic in the U.S. following a number of incidences including school shoot outs that has led to loss of many lives. The Obama administration has recently responded to school shoot out pronouncing intensified gun control measures. However, critics indicate that even intensified gun control policies would have not prevented the school shootings. According to Fulkerson, the deterioration expertise on the topic of firearms amongst the gun control society is disturbing. Viewpoint A Implementing strict and effective gun control measure serves as a platform to reduce the increasing crime rate and deaths that result from firearm’s misuse. According to criminologists, intensified gun control measures focused to disarm every citizen are the solution to the recent misuse of guns and increased crime in the United States. Remarkably, the reduction of guns in the streets contributes substantially to the reduction of armed crimes and deaths. Increasing gun control does not reduce crimes by itself, but the enforcement of the law is the way forward to solve the dilemma of gun control and crime rate. Criminologists have conferee to the realistic reasoning that the absence of a gun in the hands of a criminal of angered member of the family would not result to fatality. The possession of firearms by an individual is always perceived as a factor that increases the likelihood of gun fatality. Through observations, the presence of firearms trigger the gun attack that increases the possibility of deaths involved in a conflict. Advocates for stiff gun control measures are contented that many lives would be saved if the government made it harder for people to own guns. There are a number of reasons behind intensified gun control measures. One of the realistic rationale on gun control lies on the fact that citizens services no military or police duties and should not thereby own riffles. The laws restrict the public from taking law into their hands. As a result, gun ownership serves more of breaking the law than ensuring personal security. Similarly, ownership of firearms by citizens’ law may not contribute to crimes directly, but has an underlying loophole for gangs to access firearms to use in criminal activity. The ban on firearms saves lives among the citizens because it deprive the victims an easy way of suicidal mission. Remarkably, ownership of gun has seen the rise of suicides committed in a country. The absence of a firearm within an angry or depressed individual may be the difference between life and death that critical point. The public is more of the side of gun control with fifty –four percent of the Americans being in support of strict gun control policies. While a considerable number of citizens may advocate for gun anti-control, it is evident that the public does not see possession of firearms as way to improve persona security, but as a threat to the lives of others. This has clearly been demonstrated by the school shooting leaving a controversial question on the use of citizen-owned firearms. Viewpoint B Strict gun control policies do not serve to reduce crime activities and misuse of guns that lead to fatality. Legal advocates and anti-gun control have pushed with the idea that increased gun restrictions oppose the freedom of the public to own firearm. Anti-gun control activist further indicates that there is no correlation between high number of guns among citizens and the increased crime rates as well as deaths. The legal advocates have contracted the criminologists’ argument that increased number of guns has led to increased crimes. They have argued that despite numerous laws to regulate firearm position, there are still high incidences of firearm crimes and the result of the move has been substantially unimpressive. Consequently, they have decided to push for more guns among the citizens to improve personal security. The main reason for the gun advocates to oppose the gun control measures is that they believe that firearms improve the security of the society. According to the gun activists, firearm possession reduces muggings and armed robberies. They support this argument by giving examples of how hijacked passengers in an airplane can fight the terrorists if they had a chance to get into the plane with firearms. Anti-gun control advocates easing the gun-control measures would allow most of the citizens to own firearms indicating that the presence of a firearm inhibit attacks, and in case of the occurrence of the attack, there is reduced possibility of injury as well as fatality. This indicates that the presence of a firearm has only a warning impact. Consequently, legalists conclude that firearm presence increases the odds of deaths. Gun advocates argue that firearm possession does not pose any danger among the public with the exception of handling guns under the influence of alcohol. They advocate for prohibition of firearms ownership to alcoholics. However, they acknowledge the increase of homicide due to increased firearms indicating the weakness of the point of view. Viewpoints analysis The two points of views have considerable and valid arguments. However, the argument by criminologist is stronger than that presented by the gun advocates. Criminologist argument is more realistic and applicable in the real society. Notably, the suggestion made by gun advocates leaves a number of questions because of the current school shootings have been experienced in the U.S. and other countries that may have lenient gun control measures. The shootings may be described as misuse of firearms. Consequently, this brings a weakness on the argument of gun advocates regarding the issue public safety when individuals own firearms. Furthermore, the more tat number of guns and loose firearm control measures, the more the loopholes for gangs to access the firearms use in criminal activities. Personal viewpoint (conclusion) In my point of view, I support implementation of strict gun control measures that will ensure that it becomes a nightmare for individuals to possess a firearm. From my observation, children have become orphans because of domestic violence that turned out fatal leading to the misuse of the firearm by the parents causing their deaths. Alcoholism is not liable for the recent high crimes and deaths as indicated by gun advocates. It is not that am against the freedom to own a firearm, but against what the gun can do in cases of uncontrolled anger. After the mass school and club shootings, am fully of support of Obama’s move to improve the gun control measure to ensure that such incidences are evitable in future. Works cited Kopel, David B. "The ideology of gun ownership and gun control in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Ideology, 3. (2004): 3. Print. Lott, John R. More guns, less crime. Chicago [u.a.]: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Print. Lott, John R. More guns, less crime. Chicago [u.a.]: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Print. Read More