Gun Control Debate - Term Paper Example

[Teacher’s Outline Introduction Increase of violent crimes despite gun control Gun control makes victims more vulnerable The Second Amendment Gun possession and civilian intervention in stopping crimes Lenient gun laws increase chances of guns landing in the wrong hands Gun control and absolute despotism Conclusion Gun Control The level of violent crimes in the United States has continued to increase with FBI data released in 2012 indicating a rise of 0.7% (Smith 26). There have been several debates on issues concerning the possession of firearms as some studies have suggested that a correlation exists between these violent crimes and lenient gun control. Gun control has also been the subject of debate among human right activists and other scholars who believe that an individual should have the possibility to own a gun in order to protect him or herself. If one analyzes the data on crime, sociological behavior and gun possession, it is clear that owning a firearm is not directly related to violent gun related crimes. Therefore, gun control should only be carried out in specialized situations and mentally competent adults who have no history or tendency of committing crimes should be allowed to own a gun. Despite the numbers that have been presented which indicate the increase of violent crimes, there have been decreases in the number of other crimes by approximately 0.9%. In addition, facts from other countries such as the United Kingdom which have gun control have illustrated that there is very little correlation between these regulatory laws and the number of murder. In the United Kingdom, there were stricter gun laws that were implemented as a result of the Dunblane massacre that took place in 1996 (North 185-93). This led to a law making the possession of hand guns illegal. Despite this law, the murder rate still continued to rise from 1,2 per 100 thousand in the year of the massacre to 2,1 which was the peak in 2002 (North 185-93). After this rise, the rate then decreased back to approximately 1,23 which was documented in the year 2010. Hence, the above mentioned data indicates that the laws on guns did not directly have an effect on the murders committed. If there was a direct relation there would be a decrease in the level of violent crimes after the laws were implemented as the possession of hand guns in this phase between 1996 and 2002 greatly increased. In fact this data shows that murder still occurs despite the restrictions and raises the suggestion that there are other factors related to this crime. In addition, it also indicates the vulnerability of the other individuals who are unarmed as they are subjected to such violent crimes and they have no possibilities of protecting themselves. The essence and basis of the argument against gun control is that people need these guns for self defense. In addition, data on the nature of murders in countries where gun possession is illegal showed that there was a rise in the use of knives for murder. This shows that the people who actually commit these crimes will find a way or other means if the law makes the possession of some weapons illegal. If this data is compared with the United States which has a higher rate of intentional homicides people further question the need for gun control as they state that more people are able to survive violent attacks if guns are prohibited. However, removing guns is not protecting the assaulted individuals. Cook et al stated that “Guns are versatile tools, useful in providing meat for the table, eliminating varmints and pests, providing entertainment for those who have learned to enjoy the sporting uses, and protecting life and property against criminal predators” (3-49). This quote states the main uses of guns among individuals who legally own them. These include different recreational activities. It also indicates that guns themselves are not the problem as the majority of individuals who attain firearms do not do so with the intention of harming others. It also indicates the protective nature of guns which protect the citizens from criminals. Criminals will always find a way to be armed and this illustrates the role guns can play for self defense purposes. This is further acknowledged by Beccaria et al., who stated, “laws forbidding the possession of fire arms are only disarming those who are neither determined nor inclined to commit crimes, hence, they make the situation worse for the assaulted and more favorable for the assailant” (Miron 10). This statement means that those intended to commit such crimes will always find a way to purchase firearms or another weapon that will enable them to commit their acts. However, it is the law abiding citizens who try follow the appropriate protocols that are affected by these rules. Furthermore, the fact that the average citizen will be unarmed hence unable to protect him or herself makes the atmosphere accommodating to the assailant who can easily have control over his or her victim (Squires 22-30). With this in mind, gun control appears to be more provocative towards violent crimes whilst its initial intention is to reduce them. According the principles of America’s founding fathers, freedom and liberty are important aspects in an individual’s life. An anonymous author stated that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch, on the other hand, liberty is similar to a well armed lamb which is contesting the vote”, which is likely to be in favor of the two wolves as they are the majority and share a common interest in terms of their diet (Rocha et al. 17). Therefore, the situation of banning possession of firearms is against the initial principles upon which the country is build upon. The Second Amendment clearly protects the rights of individuals to possess firearms and altering these laws will and can lead to a continuous situation involving the annihilation of different civilian rights (Chemerinsky 479-481). Gun control alone disregards several civilian rights, as the Second Amendment was founded on principles of resilience to oppression, natural rights to self defense and the right for civilians to act in defending the nation. However, the interpretation of this right will always be debated especially the way society can define regulated militia (Garfield 13). Proponents against the regulation of guns state that this refers to full training, whilst opponents state that the majority of gun owners partake in some form of training during their recreational hours (Garfield 13). Hence, if the above mentioned clause of the second amendment is taken into full consideration, home owners are entitled to also possess rifles as they may be required to protect the nation. There is currently extreme tension between opposing super powers such as Russia and the United States, hence if a war is to break out there is a high possibility that civilians will be required to participate. Therefore, this amendment also considers the safety of the nation which is put into question by limiting the amount of freedom people possess in owning guns. The fact that guns can be used to aid the authority is not new and one incidence which involved this event took place in the University of Austin and is known as the Whitman Tower rampage. In this scenario, the police officers at the scene stated that there were greatly out-armed and the civilians were of great help as they did not leave the scene but took guns from their cars and aided the police in the fire exchange with Whitman. This greatly influenced his frequency and accuracy and the police was able to enter the tower and kill him. Hence, if the civilians had not been armed in this situation, there would have been more casualties and the assailant might not have been captured. However, according to research, “civilian intervention has only been successful in 1.6% of total mass killing” (Goss 55-70). These figures have been used by individuals in favor of gun control stating that arming civilians will not be helpful and the numbers of successful intervention are too low and are outweighed by the risks in people possessing firearms (Goss 55-70). The questions raised by proponents of gun control are also valid and need consideration. An example is the murder spree that was conducted in Winnenden, Baden Wurttemberg Germany by Kretschemer, a 17 year old boy (Lester 19-27). The boy is reported to have stolen his father’s gun which was loaded and not kept in a case for use in burglary situations. He shot dead 12 civilians which were predominantly women and proceeded to hijack a car (Lester 19-27).When he was asked why he did it he responded “For fun, because it is fun, do you think we will find another school”, indicating the danger of guns getting into the wrong hands. He then moved to another location where he opened fire on random civilians, before shooting himself. In this situation there is reason to believe that allowing individuals to possess arms increases the probability of them landing in the wrong hands. In this situation, the gun belonged to the father who may have been a competent owner but landed in his son’s hands who displays some psychotic behavior. However, this point has numerous factors that must be considered. Firstly, the gun was not locked in a safe and it was loaded. This is illegal and violates the recommendations in the United States. Therefore, this situation should not be used to judge other individuals who possess firearms. If the appropriate measures had been taken, the situation could have easily been avoided. This situation is not about the possession of guns but the error and the violation of laws by the father of the shooter. Furthermore, this situation took place in Germany, where there are extremely strict laws on gun control which also indicates that these laws have very little effect in situations involving violent gun related crimes. Gun control can also be linked to absolute despotism as the civilians do not have full trust for the government. Therefore, possessing a gun is essential in ensuring that the citizens are not violated by government officials who may view them as vulnerable open targets which are incapable of defending themselves (Cook et al., 3-49). The distrust for the government is justified as numerous evidences such as the information published by Snowden has illustrated that the government often partakes in events involving the citizens as unwitting and unwilling participants. “The anti-control advocates argue that gun ownership serves to reduce crime rather than increase it, and that in any event they have a constitutional right to own guns” (Cook et al., 3-49). This is a valid point as disarming citizens makes them vulnerable targets and according to the second amendment which was explained above, each individual has the right to own a gun to protect himself and for other purposes. In summation, there are numerous benefits and disadvantages that are associated with gun control. However, the disadvantages are more prevalent as the process involves violation of civilian rights. Firstly, taking guns away from the citizens makes them more vulnerable to crime as they become easy targets and are unable to defend themselves. Criminals may also take advantage of this situation. The illegal gun trade will increase as people will be required to find other means to attain their firearms for various purposes. In addition, the effects of these regulations have proven to be insignificant in reducing gun related crimes. Civilians should be allowed to possess fire arms under the correct protocols as it is their right to protect themselves and their nation. If this right is violated it creates room for making other adjustments in the constitution which will have a negative impact on the governing protocols in the community. Works Cited Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Putting the Gun Control Debate in Social Perspective.” Fordham Law Review73.2 (2004): 479-481. Print. Cook, Philip J., Anthony A. Braga, and Mark H. Moore. "Gun Control." Crime and Public Policy (2011): 3-49. Print. Garfield, Alan E. "No Resolution in Sight in Debate on Gun-Control Laws." The News Journal (2013): A13. Print. Goss, Kristin A. Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print. Lester, David. "Suicide in Mass Murderers and Serial Killers." Suicidology Online 1 (2010): 19-27. Print Miron, Jeffrey A. "Strict Gun Control Will Seem Like War on Drugs." Bloomberg (2012): 10. Print. North, Michael J. "Gun Control in Great Britain after the Dunblane Shootings."Reducing Gun Violence in America. Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MA (2013): 185-193. Print. Rocha, Armando F., Fabio T. Rocha, and Eduardo Massad. "Gun Control: What Goes on in Your Brain." Law and Neurosciences e Journal 4.14 (2013): 17. Print. Smith, Andrew. "Americas Gun Control Dilemma: The Enlightenment Meets Frankensteins Monster." Quadrant 58.1/2 (2014): 26-31. Print. Squires, Peter. Gun Culture Or Gun Control?: Firearms and Violence: Safety and Society. London: Routledge, 2012. Print. Read More