The Question of Outlawing Guns - Term Paper Example

Should Guns be Outlawed? Whether guns should be outlawed is a matter of debate in many countries. Although most people assume that they must either support or protest against this matter, but the real issue is something else. It should be decided who should be possessing guns and under what circumstances. However, every human being has a fundamental right which allows him to live life in the way he wants as long as he does not interfere into other people’s rights. Many people feel that keeping a gun at home is important as it ensures personal security. However the question of outlawing guns is a complex matter because huge costs are involved to make any activity illegal, especially in a country like America where most people feel it is their fundamental rights to own guns. At the same time because guns are naturally risky and there are a number of evidence that proves that keeping guns at home is unsafe therefore it is not wise to protest against the government’s policy of deciding who can own guns and under what circumstances. It is the government’s prerogative to decide the rationality of continued gun ownership and steps should be recommended to family members to minimise the potential of unsafe behaviours. It is however not ethically right to entirely outlaw guns because it will make law-abiding citizens vulnerable in the hands of hard core criminals. It is also clear from evidence that criminals will find ways to procure guns even if guns are outlawed. Guns should not be outlawed: the pros In the light of basic rights of human beings the right of owning guns and keeping them at home should not be restricted. This is the reason why it is “incorporated as the second amendment to the US constitution (1791) as part of the Bill of Rights” (Sather, 1999, p.264). The basic rights of individuals will be violated if guns are banned. Guns can allow people to protect themselves and stop occurrence of bad events. In America there are forty states where law allows people to carry guns and these laws have been in force for more than 80 years. There are eight other states where laws have imposed some restrictions but people can be allowed to carry guns. There are some states which maintain detailed information about the people who own and carry guns to keep track of their activities with guns. It has been seen that many mass shootings have been prevented by citizens because they have legal rights to carry guns. There are also cases where the person carrying a gun does not need to fire his gun because the fact that he is carrying the gun is enough to stop a potential criminal activity. (Lott, 2007) In this modern world the number of criminals is on the rise and this makes the regular law-abiding citizens more vulnerable. Gun-related crimes are increasing at an alarming rate especially in the United States and Europe. This makes it even more a necessity for citizens to legally own and carry handguns. Even though violence is detested in every country, gun ownership is practical so that every person can defend himself. As long as the government and the police fail to curb the growing number of criminals and their possession of firearms, it is not morally right to expel the rights of individuals to carry guns and remain defenceless. If handguns are outlawed then the criminals will have the upper hand and can conveniently attack any law-abiding citizens on the streets knowing that they are completely vulnerable (Sather, 1999, p.264). In America, on a study based on one hundred talk shows on radio, it has been concluded that just by carrying guns many people have been able to save their own lives. There is an example of a woman residing in New Jersey who told on radio that just by brandishing her gun she succeeded in making two men flee who tried to attack her by opening the front doors of her car she was driving. (Lott, 2010, p.2) The moral issue in favour of owning guns can be emphasized more when “convicted American felons reveal in surveys that they are much more worried about armed victims than about running into the police”. (Lott, 2010, p.5) Although there are undeniable benefits of possessing and carrying guns, there should be regulations regarding usage of guns without overt government intervention. There is an option of making owners of handguns and also other kinds of guns strictly liable for any kind of injury (whether fatal or otherwise) caused by their use of guns. Thus, if someone is injured by a gun belonging to a particular person, then the owner of the gun is liable to compensation even if the gun was not held by him. This kind of approach is morally justifiable because it will make people more conscious of the risks arising from carrying a gun and will compel them to take responsibilities. This approach has another advantage that many people will feel reluctant to own guns or those who possess guns will take more care of them. This will lead to a certain level of gun control without direct intervention of the government. There is another matter to be considered which is that some types of guns like shotguns and single-shot rifles have a much wider use. Unless there is strong proof that such guns are being used for unnecessary violence, they must not be abolished. However, there must be regulations to use the guns in the manner that there is minimum potential of harm (LaFollette, 2000, pp.279-281). Gun-related crimes will always happen and such tragedies cannot be prevented by laws, reason, humanity or conscience. No gun control laws however stringent can prevent criminals and psychopaths from carrying guns (Sather, 1999, pp.264-265). There is no doubt that if there is total elimination of guns in a country then there will be sharp decline in the number of murders. But, in this modern world it is not possible to eliminate all guns and as a result gun-related crimes will continue. It is a proven fact that “no gun restriction is going to stop a criminal from committing a crime, but gun restrictions may prevent the victim having any feasible means of defense”. (Cook, n.d.) Formulating policies for gun control can be a burden for the government “to show that a regulation will not unduly impede the use of firearms for self-defense” (Levy, 2011). The fact that regulations should also be such that they will not compromise public safety in any manner is outweighed by strong evidence that “past restrictions have not lessened the incidence of gun-related crimes” (Levy, 2011). In Washington, handguns were banned for 33 years. During that time the city was regarded as murder capital of America. Criminals who are inclined to murder cannot be discouraged by laws against murder. In the same way criminals cannot be deterred by laws against possession of guns (Levy, 2011) Rebuttal of pros Gun control acts cannot abolish criminal activities and the increasing rate of violence. Moreover presence of guns at home can provoke people to react violently at the slightest instigation because using of guns requires little preparation. If gun ownership is allowed in the name of basic human rights, then that perspective should also be modified in the modern world because violence cannot be advocated under any circumstances. Although guns can provide a sense of security to the owners it has however been proved by various surveys in America that in the periods of stringent gun control there has been an increase of violence and crime. Guns should not be outlawed: the cons The basic rights of human beings do not include ownership of guns. Firstly because “it is only in the American Bill of Rights, and not in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) or the European Convention on Human Rights” (Sather, 1999, p.264). Secondly rights of individuals cannot be permanent and unchangeable but must be flexible with time. In America permission of owning guns has existed historically, but in the modern world this must be viewed with a new outlook because of the rising gun-related criminal activities. If people have the legal rights to own and carry handguns, then there will be increasing number of people who can misuse those guns. The laws that allow people the right to own guns must be abolished because it will “reduce the number of deaths from firearms-related incidents, accidents and crimes” (Sather, 1999, p.264). On moral grounds violence can never be advocated under any situations. Even in cases of racial unrest or mugging, the morally acceptable way of protests is non-violent resistance. Although defense for self is necessary it is however not wise to use guns. When a criminal is armed with a gun while attacking a person, it is dangerous for that person to pull out a gun as this may result in “greatly increasing the chance that one or more parties will be injured or killed” (Sather, 1999, p.264). Since it is the responsibility of the police to protect the private citizens, therefore it is their right to be armed so that they are able to fight with armed criminals (Sather, 1999, pp.264-265). There is also the issue of concerned risks among the older population who has ownership of guns. The older adults face a common problem regarding their competency and behavioral patterns which in many cases lead to a diagnosis of dementia. In countries like America and Canada ownership of guns is increasingly becoming popular among the older adults, many of whom acquired their licence to use guns at their young age. Since this section of population is aging, cases of dementia is not uncommon which rises the risk of holding and using guns or any kind of firearms. Unlike other activities like driving a car, there are fewer regulations to guide the proper use of guns among the older people. The matter is of grave concern particular for those older adults who have declining faculties but are yet not declared incompetent by a court of law. Although there are certain classes of people who are considered ineligible to hold ownership of guns, there is no restrictions on upper age limit crossing which a person is not liable to purchase a gun or any other kind of firearm (Greene et.al, 2007, pp.406-407). Another noticeable factor in this case is that “older adults are more likely than younger people to commit suicide using a firearm” and this can be a result of mental disorders like “schizophrenia or paranoid psychosis” (Greene et.al, 2007, p.410). Of late, many people who are crazy and homicidal possess guns and the result is that there are numerous killings of innocent people. In such cases, it is inevitable that there should be stringent gun control measures. (Stein, 2012) After conducting a survey in America, the data was analysed to determine the level of risks associated with keeping guns at home. People who keep guns at home are likely to die from homicide or commit suicide than those people who do not have possession of guns. The findings also suggest that availability of guns at home encourages people to commit homicide or suicide with a firearm than any other means. This is because “guns are highly lethal, require little preparation, and may be chosen over less lethal methods to commit suicide, particularly when the suicide is impulsive” (Dahlberg et.al, 2004, pp.929-936). There have been many occurrences of tragic massacres in countries like England, America and Scotland which are indirect results of legal ownership of handguns. In 1998 there was one shooting incident in a school in Jonesboro, where one of the young boys involved was trained to use handguns by his family from a very early age. If ownership of handguns are outlawed then such incidents will almost certainly decline even if they are not altogether eliminated. With lesser circulation of guns, the young boys will have fewer opportunities to use guns (Sather, 1999, p.265). Rebuttal of cons In spite of the argument that keeping guns at home can be risky, in most cases it is not necessary to actually fire a gun in self defense. Merely brandishing the weapon can scare the criminals away. Also it is not necessary to abolish gun ownership, instead necessary precautionary steps can be recommended for careful use of guns. Another argument that young boys will be less involved in violence if there is lesser circulation of guns also do not always stand. This is because if criminals can acquire guns then it will also not be difficult for young boys to do the same. Conclusion The topic question whether guns should be outlawed has always been a matter of controversy. Although there has been opinions for and against gun control measures, it has however been seen that the common perspective favors the right-to-carry gun laws. Polls from American citizens have provided data that most Americans believe that crime rates can be reduced if the citizens have the rights of licensing their guns. According to the advocators of gun control laws firearms increase criminal activities, but it has been seen that rates of spousal homicide declined in the years 1976 to 1985, the same period when private ownership of handguns made a steep rise (Wollstein, 1994). On the other hand, there is a paradoxical fact that gun control laws contribute towards more crime and violence than actual possession of firearms. In the United States of America, crime and violence take severe form when stringent laws are passed to control ownership of guns. References Cook, C. (n.d.), Should Handguns be Banned, keepandbeararms, retrieved on September 2, 2012 from: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1753 Dahlberg, L.L. et.al. (June 7, 2004) Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 160(10), 929-936 Greene, E. et.al. (May, 2007) Granny, (don’t) get your gun: competency issues in gun ownership by older adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(3), 405-423 LaFollette, H. (January, 2000) Gun Control. Ethics, 110(2), pp.263-281 Levy, R.A. (January 18, 2011) Gun control measures don’t stop violence, CNN, retrieved on September 2, 2012 from: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-18/opinion/levy.anti.gun.control_1_gun-control-gun-regulations-gun-related-crimes?_s=PM:OPINION Lott, J.R. (2010) More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws: 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Lott, J.R. (April 24, 2007) Debating Gun Control Laws, The Washington Post, retrieved on September 2, 2012 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/20/DI2007042001760.html Sather, T. (1999) Pros & Cons: A Debater’s Handbook: 18th ed. London: Routledge Stein, B. (August 19, 2012) Stricter gun laws won’t cut shootings, CBSNEWS, retrieved on September 2, 2012 from: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57491081/ben-stein-stricter-gun-laws-wont-cut-shootings/ Wollstein, J.B. (July, 1994) Will you be safer if guns are banned? Part 1, Freedom Daily, retrieved on September 2, 2012 from: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0794c.asp Read More