The Changing Politics of Gun Control - Research Paper Example

The Changing Politics of Gun Control Introduction Gun control is a policy set to limit the production, possession and shipment and sale of firearms. The main reason for this is often for security purposes whereby the government fears the observed behavior of violent crimes involving the use of guns within the country. There has been an alarming increase of such cases which has heightened the dire need for gun control purposes. Opponents against this rule argue that guns are used for self defense, thus should not be denied to any citizen in need of one. The increase in insecurity within the country has led to increased desires among the citizens in the country to own guns. The situation is aggravated by the increase in the different tribes, hate groups ranging from racial, ethnic to religious. This has increased the percentage death toll of murders committed with guns. That is the main reason why America as a government was lenient in the issue of public gun purchase. The argument against and for the gun control policy desire has caused so much disagreement, thus the government has been urged to create laws which permit ownership of guns (Sharmila, 2012). The government will have to create laws that will control the extent and usage of guns in the U.S. These laws will include laws like one gun one bullet amongst each family for security purposes. Laws against freely exposing guns in public, and keeping children and young teenagers away from the knowledge of guns in the house. Only retrieving the gun in case of self defense that is seriously warranted. Individuals with criminal records should have stricter laws against ownership of guns. Stringent measures in form of punishments for those found parading their guns or using them unnecessarily like to threaten. For this to happen then the government will have to heighten the fight against the black market which is the largest distributor of illegal guns within the country. What are the current laws with regard to the issue of gun control within the country? What is the reason why the set gun laws are not strict enough to effect the desired change? Which are the possible solutions for this law and why are the already set solutions not effective? There are consequences to free ownership of guns especially the mass killings and continued violence (Trotter, 2013). What is the next step for U.S in terms of gun control? Main body In order to be mindful of everyone in the world there is no such thing like absolute freedom. The law is necessary to exercise its strength and ensure that everyone gets a share of the national cake. Freedom dictates that any sane individual should be allowed to make their own choices and only then shall they be exercising their human right to be free and exist in the world. However, what if this right denies another person the ability to enjoy the same? Man in almost all countries of the world has been extended the right to human life this gives reason for their existence. A right is a moral principle that dictates the strength and need for man’s freedom. The most important right is the right to life, and the rest of the rights are just substitutes to this main one. Right to exercise free speech, right to procreate, right to free religion, right to work and many others would be ineffective if the right to life is denied. The bill of rights protects the American citizen from intrusion by the government. This bill contains ten laws which protect the right of the American citizen. It has been amended several times, but the second amendment is clear on this that a regulated militia is needed to ensure the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This law permits the ownership of guns and it is what is tying the governments arm. Freedom is a concept that depends on an individual’s right. Man being a rational being is required to have individual rights. Right to life which guarantees man a space in the world deserve that they be able to have freedom to use their minds and reason freely, right to make own judgment and right to work and keep the benefits of their work. This is what led to the encryption of human rights. The push for a pro gun law is said to be a safety net for the citizens against a tyrannical government, a government with a dictatorship form of ruling that will deny the citizens its rights and rule in an unfair and just manner (Bruce, 1998, p.152). The proponents for such arguments should realize that fighting against the government can be harmful for the citizens more that the government. Definitely many resources will be depleted if something of the sought ever came up but, the probability of the failure of such an action is almost a guaranteed 95%. The citizens will have to fight against armed militias who have been trained for war and battleship. Many lives will be lost not counting the innocent ones like the children, who will most probably not be fighting. Democracy has so far ensured that a tyrannical government is not something that citizens of United States of America have to worry about. Thus, considering such an argument is warranted before it is supported. Insecurity has worsened due to the fact that a majority of the population has no work, thus, they engage in illegal activities so as to sustain their lives. The American dream whereby there is always hope, this being the case the surge of guns in and out of the country is far away from over. Many citizens in the U.S may safely own guns, but there are others who due to mental or criminal backgrounds may pose a threat. This is also another area of concern as guns are sold to individuals with very little credibility. The rights ACT does not choose and it applies to all individuals even those with criminal record. To curb the violent use of guns and the mass killings is it necessary to deeply screen whoever is purchasing a gun for the security of the country at large. This thus, demands that guns be owned only by individuals with high social security credits. Guns should also only be purchased by individuals with no criminal record (Kopel, 2012). Those buying guns should also be screened to confirm their mental status and physical conditions. The responsibility does not only end with the buyers but the sellers also. Stores dealing with the sale of firearms should have more stringent laws regarding selling of guns to unqualified individuals. The government will also have to find means of fighting the growth of the black market (Mehalko, 2012) Most of the guns that are easily sold off to minors are bought at the black market. If in reality the main reason for gun ownership is for self protection, it only makes sense that some weapons like explosives and the like should not be existent in the stores. The solution towards banning the use of guns has to go beyond just banning the use from the citizens. The first step must come from ensuring that the black market has very little or no access to weapons. Majority of the guns sold to the public are attained illegally and sold at cheaper prices making it affordable. Citizens priding at the ownership of guns need awareness of the repercussion of their actions. This will need deeper involvement by the government in ensuring that all public means are installed in education of such issues. Give fear to those owning guns and any other weapon geared to be used towards causing harm to others. This is part of taking responsibility for their actions and ensuring protection of the innocent civilians. Weapons have been made part of everyday life and it is necessary if need be for ownership of guns that in depth scrutiny into their past and present lives. This will entail checking their background for any deformity in life patterns including but not limited to psychological problems, felony convictions and low social security credits. There have several shooting cases in the United States of America, all these have risen because of the leniency in the ownership of guns and laxity by the internal security in terms of laws set regarding use of guns in public. One example is the Otis McDonald case in Chicago challenged the court by asking to be allowed to own a gun and the court sided with him giving the ruling in his defense. His reason for such a move was that the streets were unsafe with drug dealers and gang bangers. He argued if the whole of Chicago were allowed to own guns the streets would be safe (Stadnyk, 2010). Another incident is whereby Charles Whitman standing at the Texas tower shot uncontrollably at students it was as if the tower was meant for the purpose of shooting. Being a service man in the army this calls for psychological intervention of army men before they are allowed to mingle with civilians. Their experiences while in the field often more than is expected cause trauma that leads to mental damage (Sterns, 2008). Atlanta school shooting raises doubt as to effectiveness of metal detectors in schools. A fifteen year old boy managed to evade the detectors and sneak a gun inside the school compound whereby he ended up shooting a 14 year old student in the school courtyard. This has raised the question of security within the school grounds (Khadaroo, 2013). The Sandy hook elementary school shooting, is another case that causes worry about school security and the measure that should be put in place to reduce the vice of violence and the fondness of guns among teenagers. The Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Newtown saw Adam Lanza use a semiautomatic rifle to shoot 26 people including 20 six year olds and 7 year olds before finally shooting himself (Elaine et al., 2012). The issue of gun control cannot be taken lightly, apparently whether the public considers it an option or not, it is guns that are used in most violent situations, guns deprive people of the comfort they should get in their homes, and guns makes school unsafe for our children and the generations to come. Is it a case that needs more than just public arguments and deep consultations onto a way forward? I believe, if not well controlled they are going to lead to a generation that is unworthy of the beautiful world we have. The overall consideration of what gains is received from ownership of guns should be considered and compared to what disadvantages the same brings about. Gun ownership could be for security purposes as many perceive or argue. But, it is also used to cause harm to many. This might require more input from the security arm, more hours at work, and even becoming an enemy to the public (Vernick , 2013). Then again what better way is there to ensure that the streets are safe to walk and live. The arguments or assertions by the public are often that the government and the police force are not outing in enough or desired effort. The problem is that the effort should be more than just from the government section; the involvement of the public is also required to unearth those who are already deeply involved so that they can be extracted from the society for cleansing to be started. A collective effort will guarantee success in the field of pursuing security, but it has to start from taking away weapons from untrained civilians. This is because guns kept at home can only be hidden so far away from children. Children are curious and they often venture where they are warned not to go, and discovery of guns gives them the desire to practice what they see on television which is often the start of the mass shootings. Parents, teachers, police men, the government, the religious leaders and many others it is all a collective effort to ensure safety within the country. References Bruce John. M. (1998). The changing politics of gun control. Lanham (u.a): Rowman & Littlefield. Elaine et al. (2012). Sandy Hook elementary school shootings. People, 78 Issue (27), 52-59. 7p. Khadaroo Stacy. (2013). K. Atlanta school shooting raises doubts about metal detectors. Christian Science Monitor, 08827729. Kopel, David B. (2012). The great gun control war of the twentieth century-and its lessons for gun laws today. Fordham Urban Law Journal. 39 (5), 1527-1616. 90p. Mehalko, Laura.(2012).This is gun country: the international implications of U.S. gun control policy. Boston College International & Comparative Law Review, 35 (1), 297-330. 34p. Stadnyk, Sophia M. (2010). Otis McDonald Had a Gun: A Brief History of the Law and Local Firearm Ordinances. State & Local Law News, 34(1), 7-9. 3p. Stearns, Peter N. (2008). University of Texas. Journal of Social History, 42(2), 299-318. 20p. Sharmila Davie. (2012). Gun control. Lancet, 380(9853), 1545-1545. 1p. Trotter, Gayle S. (2013). Gun control. Congressional Digest, 92 (3), 25-31. 4p. Vernick, Jon S. (2013). Gun control. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Supplement, 41, 84-87. 4p. Read More