The Problem of Weapons Ownership - Coursework Example

Ownership of weapons Introduction Over the past few years, criminal acts have increased especially in the suburbs and among the youth. There is a positive relationship between the crime rate and the numbers of weapons owned by private citizens. The rate at which weapons are proliferating among the private individuals in the United States is alarming. This trend should come to a stop in order for the country to uphold values and enjoy prosperity. Numerous arguments have been advanced for and against the ban of handgun ownership in the United States (Ellis and Fedrizzi 94). Background of the problem The United States constitution allows for the right of an individual to own weapons, but the gun ownership should be regulated in order to reduce the violent crimes. More than half of the US households own more than 400 million guns. Much legislation has been enacted to control gun ownership in the United States. Some previous legislation includes the Violent Crime Control Act (1994) that banned the sale of new assault weapons for a period of ten years. In 2003, the Tiahrt Amendment was enacted to protect the gun manufacturers from lawsuits while in 2007, the congress suggested measures to close the loopholes in the national gun ownership databases that had facilitated gun proliferation (Ellis and Fedrizzi 95). Proponents of private gun ownership ban Private gun ownership is responsible for many violent crimes in colleges and schools. Between 1962 and 1994, one million Americans died due to suicides, unintentional shootings and firearm homicides. Handguns were responsible for more than half of the deaths. On October 2002, handguns were responsible for shooting spree and killings in Washington Municipal area while in 2007; there was massive shooting in Virginia tech school. More than 14,000 killings were committed in 2005 alone with guns while more than 16,000 firearm related suicides were committed the same year (Ellis and Fedrizzi 95). In 1999, 12 students and teachers lost their lives due to shooting spree in Colorado’s Columbine High school while in 2007 another 32 students and teachers perished in Virginia teacher from a student shooting. A recent shooting case that raised the alarm for ban of guns is the 2011 shooting in Tucson. More than 25 percent of the commercial robberies are executed using handguns. Without private guns, most of the suicides would not have happened. From the above statistics, it is clear that private gun ownership should be banned since most of the affected citizens are teenagers. Innocent students in schools and colleges have lost their live due to rampant shooting sprees by other students (Ellis and Fedrizzi 96). The US economy has also suffered through the loss of workforce. Criminals target the most productive members of the society like professionals since they are associated with high income. Majority of the victims of commercial robberies are the professionals who contribute highly to economic growth and development. The economy has also been hurt by the high medical expenses that have been incurred in treating the victims of gun related violence. The US government has spent a lot of resources in the social welfare of the citizens who sustain disabilities due to gun related injuries. It is clear that private gun ownership should be banned in order for the country to enjoy sustained economic progress (Ellis and Fedrizzi 97). The licensing of private gun ownership has not been able to curtail the handgun related crimes. Numerous legislation like the Gun control Act that expired in 2004 have failed to reduce the gun related violence and murder. Gun ownership databases experience many loopholes that allow teenagers and youths to access handguns. Private gun related violence has led to a cycle of crime whereby teenagers are more likely to engage in gun violence in their adulthood due to easy access to guns. Private gun ownership should be banned in order to reduce gun related murders, suicide and violence in the economy. Opponents of private gun ownership ban Opponents of private gun ownership ban argue that the Second Amendment of the constitution of the US constitution guarantees private citizens the right to own guns. They assert that banning private guns will be a violation of the Bill of Rights that is guaranteed to all citizens by the constitution. According to the Amendment, the rights of private citizens to own arms should be safeguarded. They argue that the constitution guarantees the right of protection from tyranny and collective right to maintain alarmed militia (Ellis and Fedrizzi 98). Opponents of the ban assert that handguns act as a protective measure. They assert that banning the use of handguns would provide criminals with advantage since the black market weapons would increase. The ordinary citizens will then engage the criminals while unarmed thus more fatal shootings from the criminals would be witnessed. They argue that the police would not be effective in responding to the numerous crime incidents that would occur after the ban. According to them, the police take about 30 minutes to respond to crime alarms while it takes only 10 minutes for criminals to rob and cripple the victim’s life (Ellis and Fedrizzi 96). Opponents of the ban argue that other countries that have licensed private gun ownership enjoy political stability and low crime rates. They argue that private guns are not related to the crime rates in the economy. They assert that other social issues like low income, unemployment and lack of family cohesion are the leading causes of crime in the country (Ellis and Fedrizzi 97). Opponents also argue that possession of handguns does not make the individual a criminal. They argue that strict gun control laws have increased the criminal rates. For instance, it has been illegal to own handguns in Washington, DC since 1976, but the State has experienced some of the highest murder and gun violence rates in the country. Criminals will have access to weapons in the black market thus murder and criminal rates will not decline after the ban (Ellis and Fedrizzi 95). Opponents of the ban argue that private gun ownership is used for many recreational activities. They assert that Americans have a tradition of safe hunting and shooting. Banning private handguns would interfere with their cultural traditions and pursuits. For instance, West Virginia has introduced hunting education in the school curriculum and most students have already shown interest in the subject (Ellis and Fedrizzi 98). Conclusion The rate of weapon proliferation among private individuals is alarming. Gun control measures have failed to reduce gun related crime and proliferation of handguns in the country. The proliferation of weapons among the youth has hindered efforts of the government in providing security to all citizens. Private gun ownership is responsible for the majority of the fatal shootings and suicides. The government should ban private gun ownership in order to reduce the access of handguns among teenagers and youth. Banning private weapon ownership will uphold the national values and ensure economic prosperity. Works cited: Ellis, Randy and Fedrizzi, Mariann. Debate. Mason. South-Western Cengage. 2011. Read More