Gun Control Activists - Annotated Bibliography Example

Gun Control Currently there is much debate among politicians and the public alike, focusing on what Gun Control is specifically and how it affects everyone in America. Gun Control activist argue there is a need to have more restrictions on gun ownership and everyone has the right to own guns but more importantly the process in which guns are purchased; their opponents are Gun Rights Supports, it is their argument that the more restriction that are levied the more citizens rights are being infringed upon. A closer look at the portion of the 2nd Amendment that is the focus of the debate can bring to light the controversy of each opposing side’s argument. Americans generally feels that some gun control is necessary, however, people argue to what degree "Control" is necessary without taking their right to keep and own guns, the focus is then, is the right to own a guns is a inalienable right as outlined by the 2nd Amendment, "the right to keep and own a gun should not be infringed upon. Kleck and Kates (2001) have argued that “handguns are actually used by victims to repel crime far more often than they are by criminals in committing crimes - as much as three times more” (Kleck and Kates p.16). They have also pointed out that “Liberal allowances of concealed handgun carry by thirty one states have coincided with a reduction of thousands of murders, rapes and other violent crimes in those states” (Kleck and Kates p.17). Many people are of the view that the crime rates in America could be reduced with the help of gun control. They are forgetting the fact that the situation would be worse if the public deprived the opportunity to own a gun for their self defense. Gun control legislatures may prevent the public from owing a gun for self defense; however, these laws may not prevent criminals from owing or using guns for executing their missions. In other words, the absence of guns in the hands of general public for self defense will serve as a blessing for the criminals in executing their plots easily. It is because of the above fact that public opinion polls consistently show their opinions against gun control laws. “Most Americans are skeptical that gun control can do much about crime and particularly dubious about the likelihood of disarming criminals through gun control” (Kleck and Kates p.112) “People also insist even if you do have gun laws it will not help control all the violence. They say there are still knives and weapons that can kill also” (Against Gun Control). Gun is not the only weapon used by people to kill others. There are incidents in which even screw drivers were used to kill the opponents. A criminal can make use of any other weapons to execute his missions, if he doesn’t have access to guns. It is evident from the above fact that the authorities should give more emphasize to change the attitude of the criminals rather than putting ban on gun use. “Gun control is a limited form of prohibition. Its purpose is to regulate and control the production and ownership of guns. But just as with drug prohibition, gun control does not work” (The Case Against Gun Control). When production and selling of guns from legal sources are unavailable, production and selling of guns from illegal sources may increase. It should be noted that even though the narcotic drug use and selling are prohibited in America, it is easily available from illegal channels at present. Prohibition remains simply on papers, but in practice drug users find no difficulty in getting drugs for misuse. “The right to self-ownership entails a right to own weapons that can be used in a purely defensive manner. Gun control is a violation of the right to self-ownership, and ought to be abolished” (The Case Against Gun Control). Life is precious to all and the governments have the legal and moral responsibility to protect the lives of its people. When governments fail to give adequate protection to human life, it is the duty of the public to make use of self defense mechanisms. Gun control legislation can be considered as a basic human right violation when we consider the right of a person in protecting his life. Death is irreversible. No government or authorities can compensate for the loss of life. It is impossible for the government to produce life in a laboratory and compensate the killed person. Under such circumstances, it is logical to allow people to make use of weapons for self defense. Some people argue that prohibition of guns may reduce the criminal activities. However, Kates (1990) pointed out exactly opposite views; Studies trying to link gun ownership to violence rates find either no relationship or a negative, i.e., cities and counties with high gun ownership suffer less violence than demographically comparable areas with lower gun ownership. Summarizing these and other studies, a recent National Institute of Justice analysis finds: It is clear that only a very small fraction of privately owned firearms are ever involved in crime or [unlawful] violence, the vast bulk of them being owned and used more or less exclusively for sport and recreational purposes, or for self-protection. Concomitantly, it has been estimated that 98.32% of owners do not use a gun in an unlawful homicide (over a 50 year adult life span) (Kate). The above statistics clearly favor the anti gun control campaign. The maturity of the people is important in determining whether he would engage in criminal activities or not; not the passion of guns or any other weapons. Matured people will never use guns for criminal activities. On the other hand, people with criminal nature may make use of any other weapons available, even if they do not have a gun in hand. In short the increase in crime rates has nothing to do with the possession of guns. It is illogical to think that a matured person may become a criminal if he possesses a gun. Another argument in favor of gun control is as follows; “Guns are designed to kill, injure and frighten, and that is what they do. Whether they are being used by a criminal or by an experienced member of a gun club, no matter how much training and experience the user has had, guns are always dangerous”(Gun misuse). The above explanation or the generalizations about the use of guns cannot be accepted. Of course, it is a fact that guns can kill people; at the same time it should be remembered that guns can save more lives than it kills. For example, one or two terrorist can kill many innocent people within few minutes using machine guns or other sophisticated weapons. It is already witnessed in the recent Mumbai terrorist attack that how three or four terrorists killed hundreds of innocent Indian people with the help of machine guns. If somebody among the Indian public had a gun in their hand, they could have soot this terrorists down and further damages could have been avoided. In India, general public do not have the authority to keep guns even for self protection, without license from the government. In short, a hand gun could have saved hundreds of lives in Mumbai when the terrorist attack occurred recently. Wilson (2007) has made some similar observations in his article “Gun Control isn't the Answer”, published in Los Angeles Times (April 20, 2007). “Somewhere between 100,000 and more than 2 million cases of self-defense occur every year. In one Mississippi high school, an armed administrator apprehended a school shooter. In a Pennsylvania high school, an armed merchant prevented further deaths” (Wilson) The following chart clearly shows that the number of people who started to keep a gun in hand for self protection has increased gradually from 2001 onwards. The 9/11/2001 World Trade Centre attack forced people to think in terms of keeping a gun at least for their self defense. In other words, people started to realize that the government has limitations in ensuring 100% security to the life of people. Under such circumstances, nobody can blame the public for showing more interests in purchasing guns for self defense. (Weisenthal) To conclude, gun control is not an effective strategy to reduce violence. Guns can save more lives than it kills. Matured or rationale people will never become antisocial elements with the possession of a gun. Same way, criminals will never become good citizens if they fail to get guns. They will make use of other weapons or collect guns from illegal sources to conduct their missions. Since government has limitations in giving hundred percentage security to the life of its citizens, gun control laws cannot be justified. The right of a person to protect his life should be given priority since nothing can substitute a human life. In short, gun control laws will help only the criminals rather than the innocent public. It is just like disarming the innocent people to help the criminals in conducting their plots. Works Cited 1. “Against Gun Control”. Web. 01 May 2011. 2. “Gun Misuse”. Web. 01 May 2011. 3. Kleck, Gary and Kates, Don B. “Armed: New Perspectives in Gun Control”. 2001. Publisher: Prometheus Books (November 2001) 4. Kates, Don B. “Gun Control: A Realistic Assessment”. Web. 01 May 2011. 5. “The Case Against Gun Control”. Web. 01 May 2011. 6. Wilson, James Q. “Gun Control isn't the Answer”. Los Angeles Times (April 20, 2007). Web. 01 May 2011. 7. Weisenthal, Joe. “Yep, Gun Sales Have Fallen Off A Cliff”. 2009. Web. 01 May 2011. Read More