Comparative Analysis: Gun control in the United State - Essay Example

Comparative Analysis: Gun control in the United s Introduction Summary of the policy debate: Possessing firearm has long been a tradition in the United States as the means of protection and hunting or sport. However, the problem started where the use and purpose of possessing firearms changed. There has been an increase in the crime rate and in the fight for the right of owning arms for protection; the gun control policy was introduced. The aim was to reduce the rate of crime in country but rather it gave a rise to a never ending debate. One side of the debate believes that gun control policies violate the right of citizens to bear arms as the second amendment states. However, others suggest that gun control policies and legislations are necessary in order to lower the rate of criminal activities using guns. The major aspects covered in this debate are the sociological, legal and ethical considerations that apply differently to the discussion. The social scientists have their own point of view and according to them the gun control policies are an effective measure taken to reduce the criminal activities that take place with the use of handguns. These regulations are very important for the social security and the well being of the society. From the ethical pint of view, the citizens should be given the right to protect themselves and thus they should be allowed to bear arms. They believe that of the citizens are given the right to protect themselves; there would be no one to be harmed by criminals. However, the most important aspect to this debate is the legal point of view under which the second amendment of the US constitution is interpreted. The constitution says that every person has the right to bear arms. The overall debate shows that the democrats support the gun control policies and the republicans are divided between the gun control and gun rights (Winkler, 2011). Statement of position: I believe that the gun control policies are an efficient measure taken to reduce the criminal activities and violent events to happen. Although the debate is very strong and it is impossible to reach to an agreed conclusion, in my view the gun control policies should be enacted by the citizens as it is for their betterment. The change in the trends of the crime rates and the use of guns show that for the present day safety measures it is important that the policies regarding gun control are applied around the country. Approach of this paper: My approach for this paper is to carry out a comparative analysis regarding the two sides of the debate. I will carry out a research analysis about the different aspects of thought delivered by both the sides. The paper will show the many aspects of this debate including the federalism, state and constitutional perspective. It is important to look into all the perspectives to be able to come to a conclusion. I will also give a framework of the solution that can be applied to this problem, its consequences and implications. The national ongoing policy will be debated through the lens of American Enlightenment in this paper. Comparative and Analysis Social Contract: The social contract theory suggests that all the people living under a state have access to certain rights and responsibilities that could not be taken away from them and are inalienable. These rights are not fixed but can be altered only at the choice of the people. Thus one of the rights granted to them by the state in return of their rights towards the state is the right to protect their own selves. The social contract theory also explains the gun rights of several varying states. The state government can represent the people’s wishes more than the national government because the state government is closer to its people. This is because the state government has to take care of a smaller group of people with less diverse opinions. The national government in America cannot protect the rights of the residents as it is based on the rule of majority which means that the government is not fulfilling its part of the social contract (Lunger, 2002). Classical Liberalism: The concept of natural rights tells us that even if the second amendment of the US constitution did not exist, the absolute right of the people still exists. The concept says that every person has the right to defend himself and no law or policy can take away that right of defense from him. This is the principle of defense and it is not subjected to a person alone, however it is extended to the liberty and property of the person. Not just the person alone, but the liberty of all those who are associated or related to him such as his wife, children, parents etc. Moreover, the principle extends to all those people who are in danger or whose liberty is being targeted forcefully or unjustly. The rule applies to the law of humanity and justice. Faction: There are many factions that have been created within the country due to the debate on the gun control policy. The political factions include the political parties that support and oppose the gun control policies for their own reasons. The Democratic parties carry out campaigns against the gun control policies and the Republican parties fight for the gun control regulations. Other groups involved are the terrorists who want loose policies regarding gun control, while the gun registrars and gun selling shops also fight for the right to individuals to bear arms for their personal interest. Ambition: It has been a long debate that gun control policies are hit by elitism. Many of the politicians who are against the right of citizens to bear arms have a number of guards to protect them wherever they go. They themselves have guards to protect them and provide them security, but they are anti-gun for the citizens under their right to keep arms. These elite groups consider their security and protection important than the citizens of the society, and believe they are the elite group who deserves protection against violent crimes, while ordinary residents have lesser control on their self defense. Federalist Position: The Federal law gives no guaranteed right to the individual to bear and keep arms for lawful purposes granted by the US constitution. Any declaration of the Federal Constitutional right to bear arms is therefore, wrong and merely a misconception. The Second Amendment, according to the federalists, provided that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Militia was regarded as the group of citizens who were legally compelled to come for active service for military on the orders of the several states (Lott, 2013). Anti-Federalist Position: The Anti-Federalists take the side of the limited government and rebel against the idea of the central government. In accordance to the gun control policy, they believe that their state citizens should have the right to bear arms regardless of their elite status and position. State government reflects the wishes of their people better understand their needs and are more aware of the rights and responsibilities that can be given to the citizens. They believe that the right to bear arms should be given to the citizens under their natural and constitutional rights. The Anti-Federalist position is that the right to bear arms is incorporated in the constitution by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus, it is applied to the states. Constitutional Perspective: In the constitutional perspective, the proponents say that the constitution says clearly in the Second Amendment that the citizens have an unrestricted right to bear arms. This is the strongest basis of the argument held by the proponents of gun rights. The democrats and citizens debate over the fact that constitutionally, all the people have the right to keep arms no matter what their mental capacity is, conviction status is, they can keep and bear arms as they wish. The debates opposing the gun rights say that the civilians cannot bear arms either constitutionally or lawfully because in their view, an average person was not to be trusted with arms, and he didn’t hold the expertise or knowledge to keep or own firearms. This side of the debate thought that if there will be no guns, there will be no crime. Furthermore, about the constitutional element, they state that the Second Amendment is outdated and should be abolished from the constitution and declared an unimportant part of it (Wilson, 2007). Bill of Rights Perspective: The Second Amendment to the constitution is made under the Bill of Rights. According to the Bill of Rights there are certain fundamental rights that are granted to every human and cannot be interfered by any person or body. The proponents declare that under the Bill of Rights every person has the right to bear arms for his security and protection, and this right shall not be infringed by the state. Many debaters highlight this point as mentioned as the basic human rights. It is clearly mentioned in the constitution however still there are many interpretations being made on the issue by the judiciary. In Heller’s case the Court held that the interpretation of the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment is that the right to bear arms should be given to every citizen until it is being used wisely and lawfully such as for self defense. This decision created a new debate in which the opponents held that this right was not being used efficiently by those who hold firearms and use them for criminal activities and thus regulations should be made on this Amendment (Carter, 2002). Solutions: the principle of compromise and consensus Federalism Perspective: In the Federalism Perspective, the solution is to enforce the gun control laws on the citizens in order to reduce the violent crimes done from handguns. There have been immense incidents in the past decade which show how the right of bearing handguns is misused. However, strengthening gun control policies does not mean that the crimes are reduced. It is a misconception that more guns issues means more crime activities. President Obama has imposed new gun control policies following the murder of the children in Washington. Citizens are positively affected by the regulations and policies that are imposed by the government and thus, the solution will be made for the best interest of the citizens (Gerber, 2011). States Perspective: In the states perspective, the gun control policies should be loosened and the citizens should be given their rights under the constitution which clearly states that every citizen has the right to bear arms. As the states’ government believes that they understand their state people better, they argue that the solution to the debate is to give the free rights to the citizens to practice their rights. Under the natural rights and the social contract theory the citizens have the rights to practice their constitutional rights freely. Their perspective says that the state government can handle the rights and responsibilities of the people better because they have a smaller group to govern. Cooperative Federalism perspective: In the Cooperative Federalism perspective, a mutual solution has to be presented in order to solve the gun policy debate effectively. Both the groups should compromise at a certain point. The Second Amendment should be interpreted in the sense the Court stated that the right to individual is to bear arms to protect themselves lawfully, that is for self defense purposes. The states government should understand that there should be some regulations made on the use of handguns so that the criminals do that take extra advantage of that right. The federal government should provide enough security to their citizens that the gun policy laws do not abide them from their own rights. My proposal and perspective: I believe that the principle of consensus and compromise should be essentially applied in order to reach an effective solution. I believe that the government policies are for the better of the citizens but they should not be much tightened. The government should loosen up the policies and allow the citizens to bear arms under the constitutional right, but for the purposes of self defense which comes under natural rights. The citizens and the political parties should support the government and join hands in order to reduce the number of criminal activities taking place with the use of handguns; in return the government should loosen their policies and eliminate elitism from the policies. References Carter, G. (2002). Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture and the Law. NY: ABC-CLIO Gerber, L. (2011). The Second Amendment. London: The Rosen Publishing Group Lott, J. (2013). More Guns: Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Lunger, N. (2002). Big Bang: The Loud Debate Over Gun Control. NY: Twenty-First Century Books Wilson, H. (2007). Guns, Gun Control and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms. Texas: Rowman & Littlefield Winkler, A. (2011). Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. NY: W. W. Norton & Company Read More