Gun Accountability - Article Example

Section/# Gun Accountability It is difficult to even briefly survey the current media without coming to the clear understanding that gun control and the debate surrounding it has become a fixture of the American experience within the past few months. Although this issue has long existed below the surface, several instances of extreme brutality via the instrument of the gun have spurred lawmakers and the Democratic controlled Senate to attempt to revive the debate and attempt to gain some traction where none has previously been possible. Specifically, the events of the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting alongside the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre have galvanized public opinion on both sides of the issue. As such, this brief analysis will seek to consider the debate from the perspective of the pro-gun control movement. In such a way, it will be the express goal of this author to relate to the reader some of the most powerful arguments in favor of further gun control and the rationale behind these. As such, it is the author’s hope that the reader will gain a more nuanced and complete understanding of the main arguments for further gun control by an analysis of the following 4 arguments: the Second Amendment does not, nor did it ever, provide for individual gun rights, the high rate of gun related violence and death, as well as the societal needs for reasonable gun control laws, and whether or not further testing should be put in place for those individuals that have a propensity to instability. Finally, an examination of an even more vehement argument with regards to gun control will be entertained and discussed. The first, and perhaps most contentious of the issues that this analysis will seek to discuss, is the issue of whether or not the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution sought to convey individual gun rights to the citizen. Although the law has long been interpreted to mean just this, the fact of the matter is that when one reads the Second Amendment from a literalist perspective, it is quite clear that the Second Amendment is speaking to the needs of the states and individual regions of the newly formed United States to form a militia as a means of protecting the Republic. In such a way, the Second Amendment can and should be interpreted as little more than admission from the Federal government that it promises not to infringe upon the rights of the militias (National Guard and Army Reserves) to maintain a stock of weaponry for the purpose of defense and securing the borders of the new nation. This particular argument hinges upon interpretation of the Constitution; one of the most contested documents within the political spectrum. However, from a rhetorically honest standpoint, the text of the bill specifies specifically what it denotes; i.e. the right of the states and by extension the militias under their control to retain weapons. In short, such argument is valid; however, it cannot be used to effectively engage those members of the pro-gun persuasion due to the fact that they have almost invariably chosen to interpret the document by a wholly different standard. The second argument which will be utilized within this brief analysis is the fact the extraordinarily high rate of gun crime and the increasingly gruesome nature that it has taken within the past several years demands stricter gun laws. There have always been cases of extreme violence, even massacres, within American society; however, the fact of the matter is that almost all of these hideous crimes have a single factor in common; the widespread and pervasive use of semi-automatic weapons, readily obtained by individuals who can easily be described as unstable, as well as the implementation and usage of high capacity magazines. Whether or not guns should be allowed is not the central issue that is up for debate; rather, the issue at hand is the ease and availability that is unilaterally shared by almost all of the purveyors of these massacres. As such, a correct level of gun control could at least attempt to lessen the availability of certain aspects of these instruments of destruction (Zigmond 12). Naturally, the issue that is up for discussion hinges not upon whether these deaths may have occurred regardless; but rather upon the question of to what level the bloodletting would have happened if proper societal and governmental constraints were in place to restrict the availability of certain aspects of weapons, high capacity magazines, and the means by which they could be procured. Ultimately, the third and final argument which will herein be discussed hinges upon the level of societal need for reasonable gun control laws. When one examines the rate at which laws and governance has grown and evolved since the time of the founding fathers, it is easy to note that key differences in the means by which the citizen integrates with concepts of property taxes, public education, and emergency services (not to mention a whole host of others); the reader can quickly come to the realization that the means by which government interacts with the citizen is undeniably far distant from the means that originally existed. However, with respect to gun laws, hardly anything has changed. As such, the reader should consider the fact that at the time the Second Amendment was written, pistols were invariably non rifled and used a lead ball that had an accuracy of no more than 25 yards. Regardless of the differentials in opinion that have thus far been presented, and even regardless of this own student’s point of view, one thing is certain. The individual who makes or sells the firearm is no more accountable for the actions of the user than is the individual who makes a tire for a car that is used in a bank robbery. Ultimately, guns are merely tools; albeit tools that have a high potential to be used in crime. Yet, penalizing the creaters and sellers of these weapons does not place primary culpability on the right individuals. Instead, society must come to an understanding of the fact that although many horrific things are done with guns and other weapons, these horrific actions cannot be tied back to an inanimate object. Instead, they are tied to an individual that makes a choice to use such an instrument in a horrific way. Rather than focusing the attenition of the criminal justice system on performing a trial for gun makers or sellers, the most appropriate response to gun crime is to try those people who are responsible for these crimes and ensure that they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. By shifting the focus away from the individual, society has created a situation in which responsibility is misunderstood and the first focus of blame is oftentimes directed at the individual or individuals that might be responsible for providing such a weapon to the criminal in the first place. Whereas completely outlawing guns will likely cause a great deal of political upheaval as well as other societal pressures, the shareholders within the political system as well as those within society must consider whether or not the momentary pressures that restrictions might impose upon society will ultimately be worth the benefit that can be gained over time. As a means of speaking to the needs of the current era and helping to make society a safer place for all stakeholders, stricter gun laws should most certainly be put in place. Although this necessarily trespasses upon the 2nd Amendment, the student is not arguing that guns should be banned outright; rather, effective and strict gun laws that can help to maximize societal safety while at the same time respecting the Bill of Rights would be a win-win situation for both sides of the argument. As long as powerful semi-automatic weapons are allowed within the United States, the rates of crimes that are perpetrated by these weapons can only be expected to increase. As such, it is the affirmation of this particular author that the best course of action with regards to gun violence and seeking to create a more fair and equitable society would be to outlaw these types of instruments and ensure that that availability of these, even within the black market, would ultimately dry up. The greatest difficulty in accomplishing this has to do with the fact that as soon as something is made illegal, its premium for profit necessarily skyrockets. However, as a means of combating this, incentive programs for buy back must be offered. Only at such a time that people feel they are better off economically not owning such weapons can society finally break free from the cycle of violence that has thus far defined far too much of American history. Work Cited Zigmond, Jessica. "Were Not Doing Enough Advocates Want More From Gun Control Plan." Modern Healthcare 43.3 (2013): 8-13. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 4 Apr. 2013. Read More