Second Amendment and Gun Laws - Research Paper Example

Second Amendment and Gun Laws Introduction The issue of civilian gun ownership has caused a very heated debate and must be looked at in a very critical manner. Needless to say, there are those who believe that civilians should not be allowed to legally own a gun. On the other hand, there are those who believe that in accordance to the second amendment of the American constitution individuals should be allowed to own a gun so that they can protect the their lives if it comes to that (Gerber, 2011). To be able to critically look at the issue, the best way to look at arguments is from both sides. Nevertheless, it is apparent that it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. Those who argue that civilians should not be allowed to own a gun argue that guns are likely to be abused by individuals who mean harm to other people. They argue that, if individuals are allowed to own firearms and keep these guns in their homes, criminals can steal these guns and cause harm to the owners or even other people outside the family. If this happens, it would mean that allowing people to legally own guns would lead to criminals easily accessing guns. While this argument looks very valid and solid, there are a number of issues which are overlooked (Gerber, 2011). First, this argument is made in the assumption that criminals don’t have access to guns already. As Ayoob (201) truth is that even if law abiding citizens are denied the right to own a gun, the criminals will still be able to access the guns and continual to harm law abiding citizens who are helpless because they cannot defend themselves. For a long time, the government has failed to cramp down on illegal firearms dealers, and this has mean that criminals have arms. In other words, the government has hugely failed to protect the lives of people especially those of law abiding citizens. Every day, incidents of home burglary cases in which the victims get harmed sometimes to the extent of losing their lives happen across the United States. In this case, the individuals should be able to be given the right to protect themselves. Even with all the effort that the police departments in the United States have made to make sure that individuals are well protected, the fact of the matter is that crime still happens in cases where the police are not able to protect the victims. Denying people the right to legally own a firearm can be seen as a major violation of human rights especially in the light of the fact that the government is not able to offer personalised protection of each and every human being in the states (Gonzales, 2007). Unless the government is able to either completely curb out illegal guns or to deliver personalised security for every individual, then every individual should be given the right to own a firearm to protect themselves and their families. The other argument, which has been forwarded by those who oppose the right for civilians to own a firearm, is that the firearm can be used in the family to hurt other family members. Like most other arguments regarding the right to own a firearm, this argument is misguided and misadvised (Thompson, 2011). The reason for this is the fact that the chance of a gun being stolen by a criminal or being used by a family member to hurt another member is much smaller than the chance that the individual will be able to safely keep the gun and use it to protect their lives and those of their lives. This argument is based on the argument that some owners will be careless with firearms, and this may lead to harms done. In fact, as Halbrook (2012) says, opponents of the second amendment provisions argue that if people are allowed to have guns in their houses, they are more likely to cause harm within their households than they are to protect the same family with the fire arms. They argue that most families who have guns in their house end up having one member of the family harming another member of the family with the gun. This argument again is misleading because although there are those instances where such a situation may be true, the truth is that these are highly isolated cases. More so, people who want to harm people will always find a way of doing so and the availability of guns do not increase the chance of an individual harming other people. Hurtful people are just that and will hurt people with anything even in the absence of the gun. More so, it is not right to deny millions of people the right to protect themselves because of a few careless individuals. This argument can be related to the case in the motor vehicle industry. For instance, although cars are quite dangerous and many people lose their lives through road accidents caused by careless people every day, cars have not been criminalised but rather regulations and legislations have been developed in order to deal with careless road users. The same case should be with firearms. People should be allowed town guns and only denied this right if they prove to be careless with it. In other words, instead of the government denying people the right to own a gun and defend themselves from criminal on the basis that people will not be able to carefully handle guns. In this respect, as Halbrook (2012) argues, the government should come up with a policy to help in educating people of how to carefully handle guns in order to avoid the guns fro being used for any purposes other than that which it was meant for. The fact that security in most cities, in United States, is in bad shape is not something to discuss. Most people especially those in poorer neighbourhoods may not be able to afford private security, yet, this is where they are most likely to be attacked by criminals bearing illegal arms. Denying such people the right to own a gun is a major violation of their human rights and especially the right to protect their lives and their properly which is an inherent right promised by the United States constitution (Policy Mic, 2013). Those who are against the possession of firearms by civilians also argue that a gun in the hands of civilians may never be needed. They argue that the occasion in which the gun could be used to protect the owner or the family of the owner from a criminal rarely occurs. Yet, as they say, every day the gun is in the hands of these individuals, it increases the risk to the owner, the family of the owner and by large the community in which such an individual lives because the gun could be stolen by criminals and be used harm the very life it is was meant to protect. The problem is that in as much as this argument sounds coherent and valid, there are quite a number of issues which must be looked at with regard to the validity of this argument. First of all, according to Ayoob (2011), when it comes to protecting the life of an individual, it is necessary to understand that life is infinitely valuable, and every possible measure must be taken to protect it. In this regard, arguing that these guns are rarely ever needed and, therefore, it is not necessary to own a gun is an invalid argument. The very fact that there is the slightest chance that an individual may at one point need the gun to protect his family means that the individual should have the opportunity to own a gun to protect their lives and their families. This is, in fact, becoming increasingly so as the rates of crime continue to increase in the United States of America (Lott, 2002). The other issue is the fact that it cannot be said that these guns are never or rarely needed. This is mainly because once the criminals understand that most households have guns with them, they will be shy to go and attack these families because, ironically, even criminals also value their lives and wouldn’t risk having their lives taken away from their by their potential victims (Kleck, 1997). In this regard, allowing civilians to own and keep a firearm with them can be seen as a preventative measure, that is, it prevents the criminals from easily attacking the law abiding citizens (Halbrook, 2012). Whether it is true or not true on that the guns are rarely needed, the truth of the matter is that that time when one needs a gun to protect their lives and the lives of their families is always a very vital and critical time and cannot be belittled. To fully understand the issue revolving legitimacy of possessing a gun, it is better to break down this question to a simpler question. That is, is it more advantageous to own a gun or it is more advantageous to not place firearms in the hands of the citizens? Given the fact that the common citizen in United States of Americans is faced with increasing crime rates from criminals who have easy access to illegal arms, the answer is definitely that it is better to allow civilians to own a gun. In fact, having a gun and not needing it only leads to a nil effect. On the other hand, needing a gun and needing it would lead to a law abiding person to lose their property (in the case of robbery), their health, and in the worst case scenario, their lives if the criminals use their illegal arms to kill them. So, in a nutshell, it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it. Conclusion The issue of civilian gun ownership is a very complicated one because it raises some very emotional issues especially with regard to those who have been affected by the issue in some cases (Thompson, 2011). The truth is that criminals continue to have easy access to illegal guns most of which are imported across the porous border. At the same time, the government has failed in its mandate to protect the lives and property of the law abiding citizens. It is, therefore, only logical that individuals be allowed to own a gun to protect their lives and their property, until such a time that time when the government is able to provide maximum security to the lives and property of individuals. The act by the government to deny law abiding citizens the right to own a gun and protect themselves from criminals while the government has failed to prevent criminals from owning guns is a gross violation of the second amendment of the United States constitution which gives people the right to own a gun for the same purposes. References Ayoob, M. (2011). Gun Digest Book of Beretta Pistols: Function, Accuracy, Performance. Hoboken, NJ: Gun Digest Books. Gerber, L. (2011). The Second Amendment: Amendments to the United States Constitution: the Bill of Rights Series. New York City, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group. Gonzales, D. (2007). A Look at the Second Amendment: To Keep and Bear Arms. New York City, NY: Enslow Publishers, Inc. Halbrook, P. (2012). The Founders Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms: Independent studies in political economy. New York Cit, NY: IVAN R DEE Incorporated. Kleck, G. (1997). Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control: Social Institutions and Social Change. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Lott, J. (2002). More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Policy Mic. (2013, January 02). 9 Things You Didnt Know About the Second Amendment. Retrieved July 02, 2013, from Policy Mic: http://www.policymic.com/articles/24557/9-things-you-didn-t-know-about-the-second-amendment Thompson, D. (2011). Phil Spector: Wall Of Pain. Los Angeles, CL: Music Sales Group. Read More