Opinions on Gun Control by Age Group - Term Paper Example

Mohammed Alsuwaidi Eng 122-005 Carrie Taylor 04/04/14 Opinions on Gun Control by Age Group i. Introduction The federal Firearms Act of 1968, unequivocally prohibits licensing and knowing transfer of ammunition or a gun to: minors, felons, fugitives, and defendants who are under indictment which is covered by the Federal Firearms Act. The Act also prohibits the ownership of a gun by any individual who has ever been committed to an institution of mental health and the adjudicated mental defectives. The issue of gun control has been around for some time now; this is because the safety of the public is at stake with the guns available to everyone out there. For example, in 2003 alone, the number of children who died from gunfire was 3,012 in the United States. This averages to a child dying every three hours. The rate of children under the age of 15dying from firearm related incidents is a dozen times higher than the number in 25 industrialized countries when combined. It is clear that the frequency of gun violence affecting the children is a problem to the American society. The gun control issue has become a focal point during public debates basically because the issue is worrying every other person. A very good example is the shooting that took place in Columbine High School. It brought a countrywide debate among the public with the issue being the prime topic of debate for a long time. The other incident is that of a city council man shot in Brooklyn New York. This has led to intensified debates on whether the law on gun control should be changed so that there are tougher restrictions on people owning guns especially in the area of New York. The most unfortunate bit of news however is that these public outcries only last as long as the emotional immediacy and quickly fades away when it subsides. These can only have effect if the public make a sustained effort at trying to make their opinions herd by the people in power. Even though the interest of the public in the issue of gun control policy has been inconsistent, it is that very interest that will get the attention of the law makers and force them into action as this issue is getting out of hand and if nothing is done about it, a lot of things will go wrong including more deaths of innocent children. It is however intriguing to note that the policy response to the opinion of the public has been notably weak. It would be safe to say that a majority of American citizens favor the gun control policy and it would not be a bad idea to take the opinion of the people before making any changes as the gun saga is hurting every average American. Polls have been conducted by media houses on whether the government should make it difficult for the civilians to purchase guns and on numerous occasions, they have voted for the guns to be placed out of reach of most people and the qualification for purchasing guns to be raise a bar or two higher. The sad news however is that despite the fact that there has been immense support for the tightening of gun control measures, the politicians have been doing very little to that effect and in fact the efforts of president Obama to tighten the gun control measures have been met with some resistance from the congressmen. One might be tempted to say that the differences I the way of thinking between the people and the politicians could be because on the national level, the statistics do not affect all the states with the same magnitude and some of the politicians would be against it because the areas they represent are not affected at all by this issue. There might be very little information to support this claim but it is a proposal worth checking out as it is baffling why a sane person would be against a move that would protect the people they represent, the people they work for. Even though there has been no policy action regarding gun control, the significance of the opinion regarding gun control cannot be underestimated as the voters will have the last say on who gets back their political seat depending on the position taken by the candidate during the debate on the issue. The importance of this matter will be felt by the politicians who are taking it as a joke and trying to avoid it all together. They will have to take sides when push comes to shove in the last minute. Most of the focus of the gun control debate has been placed on people sacrificing their some of the personal freedom they have and the difference between that and personal freedom just to be able to get safety back to the streets like they knew it before. However, those opposed to the gun control policy say that it would infringe on the rights of the people as they have the freedom to bear arms. There have been decisions in courts that have discovered that the power to regulate the ownership of fire arms rests with the government. However the basis of the argument of the public is primarily on the second amendment of the guns control act that is still not recognized by the courts. There are facts that in the above introduction that give an idea of how bad the situation has been on the guns control issue. It is about time the people made their opinion count against those of the policy makers who have been ignoring them ever since they started protesting and debating. There have been more than enough reasons for the guns control policy to be put in place and end the rate at which minors are killed in the exchanges between gangs and unnecessary accidents among people who are unfit to hold a firearm. ii. Importance of gun control Gun control laws are important because if Americans were allowed to carry unlicensed guns, crimes would be on the increase. For instance, most people who kill each other commit crime of passion in that they murder people they know. In addition, when children get access to guns, it is dangerous in that during their play time, and they might end up killing others thinking that they are just playing. The people advocating for gun rights and the others advocating for gun control have been debating on what is right and what is not as well as the way forward for the issue of guns. There are numerous reasons why gun control is the right thing for the American people. Those who advocate for the control of guns have nothing against the target shooter, those who hunt as a sport neither are they trying to stop those who are collecting guns as a hobby just like some people would collect stamps. This exemption would also apply for the personnel working in security like armed forces, police and those many others who need to carry guns as part of their jobs. In general terms most people would prefer not having guns just to avoid the issue of guns landing in the wrong hands. Time has proved that the people who lobby for the gun freedom are too powerful and connected in the corridors of power that the can bully the policy makers into making decisions. It is this reason why it would be impossible to have a complete ban on the guns in the hands of civilians. These advocates are the same people that have pushed the law makers into passing laws that would allow more powerful arms into the public. They are very good at doing this behind the scenes and most of the time they succeed at what they want. They are however quick to point out that it is not guns which kill people but the people who kill each other using the guns. This is however very wrong because the main reason for the creation of guns is to kill people as they are meant for war and as it is obvious that people go to war to kill each other. Most of the murder incidents that involve guns are of people who know each other like in crime of passion. This could be family, friends, acquaintances and people of that ilk. The presence of a firearm in a situation where people argue heatedly makes it very easy for a murder to happen or even one party to be maimed permanently by a gun shot. Another example that is very common as well is when a gun owner does not keep it safely and it is accessed by children who end up playing with it like they see in movies. They might fail to realize that the gun is actually loaded and end up killing one of their siblings in the process. On numerous occasions, people start light arguments which turn ugly and the presence of a gun only makes it worse as one of the parties might just lose their temper and end up shooting the other. Most people would say that they can control their temper but they actually do not know what they would do when in such a situation until they have messed up and have to live with the fact that they have killed a friend or a relative. With guns in the hands of the civilians, it is easily accessed by people who have mental problems or even drug addiction and that has not always ended well as they can go shooting people in every corner of the street. Numerous assassinations have occurred in the history of the United States, especially of the monumental leaders of the great nation. They could have been avoided easily if the law had been stricter on the gun control issue. Most burglars break into homes and their primary target usually is the gun in the home which they end up using in armed robberies. This could be avoided by stringent gun control measures. There is very little or no control over guns in the united states that they have the highest number of murders per capita coming from hand guns in the entire western hemisphere. The advocates for gun freedom argue that if a person is intent on murder, they will kill their victim by any means possible even if there is no gun at their disposal. While it could be true, it is also true that there are very low chances of a person walking up to another person and stabbing them or even beating them to death as compared to shooting from a distance. There is also a a higher chance of a person beaten mercilessly recovering if treated in time as compared to one shot as the shot could be to the head or even hit the heart causing instant death. This shows that guns have made murder easier as one does not have to go any closer to their target and one bullet is able to end the life of a person as opposed to the time and energy it ould take to beat the person to death. There are even chances of a person beaten and left to die surviving the ordeal if taken to the hospital in time. An example is when to people are involved in argument and there is no gun involved, the two can fight it out physically and they are likely to regain their composure before the fight gets ugly and even murderous. If the same people had guns, they would have no time to regain their composure as they would only regret their actions after pulling the trigger and possibly killing the other person. The shooting at Columbine, other shootings in schools, numerous drive by shootings that have been happening in poverty stricken parts of urban areas over the years and to make it worse, the catastrophic event that happened when a boy, 13 years of age endured so much cyber bullying that he took seriously the suggestion by one of his bullies to take his wown life and used his father’s loaded gun to end his life in Vermont. One might argue that it was the fault of the father because he left the gun in a place where a distraught child could reach it and he also failed in parenting as he did not supervise the child’s usage of the internet until it cost him his son. If the gun was not in the house then the child would not have used it to kill himself. The father later ran a campaign against cyber bullying that saw a bill banning cyber bullying passed in Vermont. All the illustrated above go a long way to show that the lives of civilians is in danger when they are left to own guns without the stringent gun control laws. All this could be solved if the law is changed and strict regulations given to the gun sellers on who qualifies to buy a gun and what type of gun as well. This should be done in a manner that does not infringe on the rights of the people while keeping the average American safe from trigger happy gun owners. If the government needed more opinions on if they should change the guns control policy then they have more than enough of because the number of deaths from gun shots keeps rising every year and it is not doing any favors to the people. Everyone will be relieved if they can walk the streets and even alleys at anytime of the day or night without the fear of being robbed at gun point or even shot by a stray bullet when gangs are fighting in the neighborhoods. iii. Effectiveness of gun control laws Gun control is ineffective in reducing crime. Research has countless times revealed through their historical, econometric and criminological studies that gun control does not reduce crime, yet the advocates of gun control fail to recognize these results. Studies have revealed that states which have implemented the most gun control laws have lowest number of deaths that are related to deaths. This shows that the number of measures could be the difference between life and deaths related to firearms. There are around twelve states that have the highest number of gun control measures and it is in those states that the number of people who died of gun incidences was the lowest as compared to the states which have the lowest gun control laws. This study by the CDC further indicates that the number deaths in the states with the highest number of gun control laws was lower by up to 42% as compared to the states that had the lowest number of gun control laws. The results of this study had a basis on the analysis of the homicides and suicides from the year 2007-2010. These records are kept by the (centers for disease control) CDC and were used to supplement the information from all the 50 states that participated by the study. There have been arguments that the strict bans on guns have failed to prevent crime in the country. This has been the stance taken by those advocating for gun freedom as they believed that the murder rates have remained high despite periods when strict gun laws have been implemented especially in the cities as well as in Washington D.C and in Chicago. The advocates of gun control claim that the laws of local authorities have not been effective especially in cases where the neighbor states have lax laws. The average death rate by a gun every year ranges from 3 in every 100, 000 in Hawaii to 18 in every 100,000 in Louisiana. In this scenario, Hawaii had sixteen laws on gun control, and joins New Jersey Massachusetts in the list of states that had the highest number of gun control laws as well as the lowest number of deaths that are related to guns. The states that had the lowest number of gun control laws and the highest number of deaths related to guns and firearms include Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Alaska. There was however states that had few gun control laws but registered low number of deaths like South Dakota. iv. The relationship of gun laws and mental illness There is need for stricter confinements for minors and particularly with minors with mental incapacities. In April 2013, there was drama at Medisex hospital Connecticut as a patient in the hospital who had been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia made a threat of killing his mother if she showed police officers where he had kept his eighteen guns. This patient, Mark Russo had not taken his medication and was in a bad state forcing the hospital to call in police officers just in case the situation got out of hand. He even mentioned the recent massacre that occurred in an elementary school. The police officers were able to impound the fire arms and locked them in their custody. They however later released Mr. Russo to go back to his trailer in which he lived alone in Middletown. He was later interviewed by the media but he denied having any mental problem but admitted that he has been taking his medication lately and that he would be receiving his guns later on as the law in Connecticut commands. This case is a perfect example of how the second amendment of the right to bear arms is affecting the ability of the law enforcement in carrying out their duties effectively. They are totally without power when it comes to keeping the guns out of reach of the people who have mental problems. It is however right to say that the law in Connecticut that allows the law enforcers to seize the guns and hold them for a year when the owner shows signs of mental stability is strict in a good way as it gives them the time to recover and get stable again thereby keeping them and the people around them out of harm’s way. Several other states do not follow this lead however; they just stick to the federal law which only recommends the banning of firearm ownership after a person is committed to a mental institution or even after a court battle. However, very few patients with mental illness reach the level of having to be taken into the institutions or even battled in court or a legal process. This means more guns in the hands of the people who are mentally unstable and a ticking time bomb waiting to explode in the face of the people. Because of this, there is an aura of ambiguity when police encounter the people with such conditions as they do not know how far the law permits them to go and if they should seize the guns or not. They are also confused when the incumbents want their guns back as the law is not clear on that. Several people with mental problems are non violent but there have been incidents of mass shootings in the recent past that have roused the attention of the public as the shooters are well recognized as mentally ill but nothing done to take away the firearms from them. They should have been barred from accessing firearms as it endangers the people around them. After the Newton killings, lawmakers across the country have been debating on what laws to implement on the people with mental problems having guns. They were looking to have very strict limits on the gun rights of mentally ill persons but they never materialized as they were shot down by the advocates of the mentally ill as they felt that they would be unfairly treated and stigmatized if such laws were passed. To make it worse, in Washington there was not a single debate held on the mentally ill gun owners when the gun control issue was brought up. There is some uncertainty where mental illness and guns meet because the law that relates these two is relatively ambiguous. It is almost impossible to examine this issue because of the strict regulations that govern the mental health while at the same time, the information on the owners of guns in the country is only accessible to a few people I charge and not easily accessible. v. Major factors, trends and prevention approaches with regard to youth violence in US Instances of youth brutality utilizing weapons were pointedly expanding. This exploration presumed that between 1985-1998 instances of youth brutality expanded by 154%. weapon control by age is very important since people in this age tend to be very violent and aggressive. This is attributed to early onset of forceful youth practices and poor child rearing as a percentage of the explanations behind expanded youth wrongdoings. Violence among the youth has been a problem in the United States for a long time now whether in the high end residential areas or the poverty stricken areas of the city. The rate of homicides among the youths is always on the rise across the country and the easy access to firearms is not helping either. The factors that lead to youth violence include the exposure to violence at an early age, aggressive nature of the child when growing up, deficiency in social problem solving skills, access to guns, poor parenting and the neighborhood where they grew up like places where the rate of poverty is high and the family is disrupted by a number of factors as well as being isolated socially. There are bodies working around the clock to rectify some of these risk factors and try to reduce the number of cases of violence across the country. This is a good start but they need to come up with systems for evaluating the effectiveness of these programs that they have initiated. vi. Conclusion It is significant to control guns among teenagers because they are known for aggressive behaviors and can quickly use them to cause harm if they are allowed to own guns. If young Americans are controlled on how to own guns, insistences of crime will decrease. Gun ownership should be reserved to the people who have attained an age where they can make good judgment calls and not when they are too young to make sober minded decisions. This means that before they are allowed to purchase guns, they should be able to learn from their seniors who have owned guns for years and have never made grave mistakes or have practiced restraint even at a time when their patience has been tested. vii. Work cited Agresti, James, and Reid, Smith. Gun Control Facts. Just Facts. 22 Jan. 2012. Web. 4 April 2014. Read More