The Control of Gun Possession - Essay Example

Full Gun Possession and Ownership should be Strictly Controlled It has been said that guns are not dangerous on their own, that they are not the ones that kill people but it is people who kill their fellowmen. This kind of argument got popular with the issue on gun control. With people wanting to protect the safety of the greater number of citizens, they propose that possession of guns should be controlled. However, there are a great number of oppositions claiming that in order to solve the problems on unnecessary gun shootings; every citizen should be equipped with a gun. Proponents of gun ownership even claim that the second amendment should be implemented because it furthers the safety of individuals, enabling them to protect themselves for instance, in reckless shootings. Considering the equally important arguments of both sides, this paper aims to present that gun control is the best way to minimize if not eliminate reckless shootings. Recently, more and more crimes are being committed with the use of guns. Therefore, it is proposed that possession of guns should be controlled. People who are armed often gain the confidence that they are invulnerable because of the thought that they are protected. This is the reason why criminals are brave enough to act on their evil plans because they rely on the thought that they can thwart whoever will stop them. Therefore, stricter laws should be implemented to verify the personalities, capabilities and abilities of gun owners, that they can responsibly handle weapons. Others may say that the above suggestion is not the solution to the problem. In fact, some people believe that the only way to resolve the shootings that are getting widespread; is to arm ordinary citizens so that they will be able to defend themselves when necessary. “Guns everywhere” is what the opposition suggests so that ordinary citizens can fight the bad elements of society. For instance, in the case of the Jared Loughner who opened fire on a crowd outside a Tucson supermarket in 2011 (Becker & Luo), bystanders were able to tackle him only when he reloaded his gun. It is suggested that if the bystanders were armed during the shooting, they might have tackled him earlier before he fired all his ammunitions. However, since the bystanders were unarmed, they had no choice but to seek for the right time to tackle the offender. Similarly, in the case of the shootings in schools such as Columbine and Virginia Tech, the number of casualties is thought to have been minimized if there were armed people around who could have disabled the shooters. The argument above may be logical because truly, a person can defend himself with the use of a gun. Nevertheless, the leniency in gun ownership seems to have brought the problem rather than resolve it. In the first place, if the law was stricter, the shooters such as Loughner might have been disabled. If gun ownership necessitated stricter requirements such as psychological clearance, Loughner might not have been issued a gun. Nevertheless, with the probable actions of the perpetrator, he was able to acquire four different ammunitions and carry them to a public place. Such incidents serve as examples which should not be easily dismissed by law-makers and the people. Instead, they should serve as examples that necessitate us to control gun possession and ownership. Studies show that gun laws are really inferior and this is what makes the problem even worse. For example, in 2005, Erik Zettergen killed Jason Robinson. Zettergen’s history shows that he was barred from possessing firearms because of two felony convictions and had mental health problems. Nevertheless, he was restored his gun rights upon completion of the requirements which did not even demand for a hearing. Consequently, Robinson lost his life in the hands of the convicted felon who was considered dangerous by the people who knew him. Denis Tracy, the prosecutor in charge of the murder case says that “If he hadn’t had his rights restored, in this particular instance, it probably would have saved the life of the other person” (Luo). This shows that what the nation needs are laws that will strictly look into gun owners such as Zettergen. It is interesting to note that even perpetrators agree that the law is quite lenient. Beau Krueger who had two assaults, said he easily regained his gun rights in Minnesota after a brief hearing where there was no participation of local prosecutors. He says that it is “spooky that we could have all kinds of crazy hoodlums out here with guns that shouldn’t have guns” (Luo). The defense of the opposing side may be the observance of the second amendment. Indeed, citizens have the right to own guns to protect themselves from harmful elements. Nevertheless, the government has to face the fact that not everybody is able to responsibly own a gun. Therefore, stricter laws should be implemented in order to control gun ownership. In the aforementioned examples, it is obvious that if there had been more meticulous processes in the reissuance of gun rights, unnecessary killings could have been avoided. Gun control does not mean that ownership should be prohibited. It simply means that those who want to own guns should be accountable with their actions therefore they should be proven capable of responsibly handling a gun. The act of restoring a felon’s gun rights without serious consideration is tantamount to telling him to commit another offense. According to research, those who committed property crimes need 8-11 years of being trouble free before they can equal people with no criminal records the risk of committing a crime. Drug offenders need 10-14 years and violent offenders need 11-15 years of being free from trouble before they can be cleared of probable offenses. This suggests that a longer period of barring ex-convicts of gun ownership should be allowed before they are given back their gun rights. Possession of ammunitions somehow affects a person’s perception about his safety. This is the reason why some people propose arming individuals with guns so that they can defend themselves in times of troubles. However, it is logical that the reason why those who need to defend themselves from bad elements want guns is because offenders are equipped with guns as well. On the contrary, “guns everywhere” will not solve the problem. Instead, it must be proposed that gun control should be strictly implemented. Consider the case of a felon who was given back his gun rights and repossessed his ammunitions. Shortly afterward, he killed another man. Another felon thinks the lenient laws about gun ownership is scary and says the government is putting guns in the hands of those who are not supposed to be handling them. The second amendment is to be observed but there should be strict requirements such as psychological clearance to ensure that applicants can be responsible enough and are accountable for their use of their ammunitions. References Becker, Jo and Michael Luo. “In Tucson, Guns have a Broad Constituency”. The New York Times. January 10, 2011. Web. April 3, 2014. . Luo, Michael. “Felons Finding It Easy to Regain Gun Rights”. The New York Times. November 13, 2011. Web. April 3, 2014. . Read More