Gun Rights: Pros and Cons of Gun Control - Research Paper Example

 Pros and Cons of Gun Control Abstract Progressively increasing gun violence, cases of senseless and tragic gun-related massacres have sparked the age-old debate on gun control against gun rights. The ensuing discussion in this paper clearly demonstrates that the advocates, as well as, opponents of gun control present strong assertions on their opposing perspectives of the debate. The two extremes of the spectrum depict mutual opposition, as has always been the case, with advocates citing increased gun violence, while opponents abide by their democratic and constitutional right to possess firearms, coupled with the self-protection argument. This study provides a detailed comparison of the two contrasting sides of the debate, by examining the numerous pros and cons that are often suggested for and against gun control, respectively. Pros and Cons of Gun Control Introduction Gun violence, gun rights and gun control all constitute a persistent debate that never seems to stay out of the limelight for long. Gun control, particularly, sparks heated contention as society divides itself sharply into proponents or supporters versus avid opponents. With cases of continued gun violence, proposal of related laws, emergence of court cases, and occasional high-profile shootout incidents, the whole debate starts all over again. Even though the disputation might occasionally appear repetitive and monotonous, both sides of the spectrum present valid points. It is imperative to note that since the conclusion of the Second World War, an estimated 30,000,000 individuals have died in varying armed conflicts. Of the deceased, 26,000,000 have succumbed to gunshots or gunshot wounds. The other aspect to take into account is the fact that small arms make up a meager eighth of the entire arms trade. This is because; lack of proper controls and global pervasion of clandestine markets, make it easy to access such arms. The relative affordability, ease of transportation and handling, as well as, the ease with which they can be concealed, are all attributes that make guns weapons of convenience in cases of armed conflict, urban violence and even organized crime. These are some of the arguments put forth by gun control advocates, while opponents counter with assertions such as, this regulation amounts to infringement of people’s rights and renders them defenseless to attackers. This paper provides insight into these and other pros and cons of gun control. Because both gun control supporters and opponents abide by their beliefs, the argument remains unresolved, but implementation of the outlined recommendations may contribute toward attainment of a consensual resolution. Comprehending Gun Control According to Lott (2000), gun control refers to concerted efforts and strategies taken legally, by relevant administrative bodies to limit production, shipping, trading, ownership and usage of guns or other firearms by civilians. Gun control, therefore, seeks to limit private citizens’ gun rights, which allow possession, carrying and use of firearms, principally meant for self-defense. For better comprehension of the gun regulation debate, it is first imperative to study some of the information and statistics that fuel the contest. For example, FBI crime statistics collected in 2010 revealed that there were about 11,078 homicides in America using guns. Further statistics indicate that, approximately 300,000 individuals are killed using guns worldwide on an annual basis. Of these 300,000 people, about a third dies in armed conflicts or wars, while the remaining two thirds die from cases of assault, rapes, suicides and robberies that implicate gun use. The number of gun-related deaths goes up when statistics encompass accidental firearm injuries. Overall, about 40 percent of homicides throughout the world can be ascribed to guns or firearms. The issue of gun control versus gun rights is particularly significant in America, where, according to a recent survey, there are approximately 88 firearms within a populace sample of 100 individuals. This is a highly alarming number, especially for a developed nation. In the UK, the corresponding number is 6 firearms for every 100 people. These figures get even lower in developing countries around the globe. Given these figures, it is not surprising to learn that approximately 67 percent of homicides in America are linked to gun use. Unlike other nations, where individuals must meet several stringent standards before being legally allowed to possess a gun, Americans can simply state that they have permits to purchase and own a gun. They are protected by the Constitution’s Second Amendment to, which protects civilians’ right to own firearms, in order to guarantee the defense of a sovereign state. Validity of the argument on guarding against a dictatorial government is questionable, given the fact that it is the 21st century and there are no longer countries engaged in efforts of colonizing others. Pros of Gun Control With the information in the preceding section, it is now easy to understand the backdrop of the gun control debate, not only in the US, but also worldwide. Prevalent cases of school shootings, terrorism, and street gang violence, among other contemporary circumstances that instigate gun violence constitute a principal point for advocacy of gun control. With increased gun regulations, there is high likelihood that there will be reduced cases of mass shootings and street violence. This is because, if firearms are outlawed, there would be a lower number of guns circulating. Based on a 2013 survey by Pew Research Center, about 54% of American citizens believe that stricter gun controls will reduce incidents of massacres using guns, which pose a high risk to children and youth, since shooters have targeted schools and institutions of higher learning in the past. There is also a highly possibility that gun control will facilitate stringent checks on firearms ownership, thus preventing these lethal weapons from falling into the hands of malicious individuals. Even though cases of crimes like house thefts or shoplifting may not necessarily decline, gun use would be minimized hence lowering the degree of human suffering. The other advantage of gun control is that, it is likely to keep high-tech firearms from falling into the hands of violent criminals. Without regulatory measures, criminals could easily gain access to sophisticated weapons, while regular citizens still wield conventional guns hence remaining virtually exposed to heightened victimization. This is a notion that Kleck (2005) supports, by indicating that gun regulation laws and policies often make it possible to control the types of guns that people can purchase. For example, through proper gun control legislation, there would be restricted access to automatic guns, warfare weapons, semi-automatic arms and other lethal guns that go beyond the rational household security needs. Instead people would have access to guns that simply guarantee their leisurely and self-protection needs. Such laws would also provide people interested in possessing guns with proper guidelines regarding ownership and usage of firearms. The author further argues that in a model society, where citizens observe gun control legislation, limited ownership and availability of guns would efficiently cut down crime rates and enhance overall citizen safety (Kwon & Baack, 2005). The statistics of gun ownership tend to tilt the scales of the gun control debate toward the advocacy side. For instance, the American populace, which makes up only 5 percent of the global population, owns about 50 percent of the globally owned guns. If guns are indeed meant for self-defense, then it is undoubtedly irrational to own such a large proportion of guns. It is noteworthy to clarify that this percentage accounts for guns owned by private civilians and does not account for firearms held by security forces like the armed forces or police. The same imbalance is also evident in other environments, where a portion of the population is in possession of the greatest proportion of guns, prompting one to question the validity of gun ownership (Spitzer, 2003). Judging from recent crime statistics, it is apparent that guns are used more frequently in crimes, compared to other weapons. Correspondingly, their usage is often deadlier than other arms. It is gun use in robberies that usually leads to death; it is also their accidental or negligent discharge that results in unintended injury or death and the same deadly nature becomes apparent in cases of suicide. With increased gun control, therefore, such cases would decline sharply. It would be possible to save lives, and further pave way for rehabilitation of offenders into productive citizens (Monroe, 2008). The preceding idea that more guns lead to greater violence is an empirical evidence-based argument. This argument favors gun control, by showing that there is positive correlation which exists between incidences of homicide and gun availability. Firearm availability also correlates positively with accident rates and suicide cases. The experiential proof showing the positive correlation can best be understood with several arguments forming the basic foundation. One of these arguments is that, guns form the easiest approach to kill other people or commit suicide. This is because when killing others, a person can stand relatively far and shoot someone in a manner that may not necessarily implicate personal feelings. The other argument is that when a person gets angry at another, he or she is likely to lash out, and if there is a gun in proximity shooting would happen instantaneously. In regard to suicide cases, depression may drive a person to think irrationally. If a gun is close by, there is a high likelihood of killing oneself. This is because, even though an individual could take pills or slit his wrists, these methods might not necessarily be lethal. Guns, therefore, may be deemed the surest way of dying by suicidal individuals. The final most potent argument is that, when individuals handle guns even in situations considered legitimate, the chances of causing fatal injury to others or themselves increase. Gun control would counter all these elements, by limiting access to guns and consequently eliminating their potential lethality (Steinreich, 2004). In cases of mass shootings and gun violence, it often becomes apparent that the perpetrators were psychologically or mentally unstable and in most cases on drugs. In other incidents, disgruntled workers and children or underage gun users instigate the gun violence. Gun control would, therefore, go a long way towards ensuring that these individuals do not acquire firearms and inflict harm on those close to them. This is because the laws on gun control would strictly set age restrictions, solely allowing age appropriate individuals to purchase, possess and utilize guns. The same would happen in filtering out psychologically unfit people, as the regulatory laws and policies would extensively scrutinize a gun ownership applicant’s medical background. There would also be character and ethical fitness examination and validation to guarantee that a gun owner does not have malicious intentions. As a result, laws and regulations facilitating gun control can increase people’s safety, if implemented effectively. It is also imperative to consider the fact that crime victims with guns are more vulnerable than the unarmed ones, because criminals can kill them and cite self-defense. This gives the implication that if there are strict gun regulations, then there would be reduced cases of deaths in the cause of another crime. Gun violence could also take place following false claims of self-defense. Execution of gun control legislation can help minimize such acts of violence, by clearly defining acceptable criteria of statutes that govern self-defense. Gun control is also likely to aid in minimization of gun associated accidents. This is because; even though buying a gun in numerous regions across the world mandates a buyer to go through a safety training program, this course is not usually adequately intensive. The safety training does not also extend to people close to the buyer including family members and children. As a result, children and close affiliates may use the gun improperly leading to the serious injury or fatality of others or themselves. Therefore, implementing gun control legislation and effectually preventing commercial sales of firearms will reduce, to some degree, the percentage of accidents linked to inexperienced gun use (Spitzer, 2003). There are presently limited restrictions on commercial gun sales. This implies that people with a criminal past can easily purchase firearms and resort to their old ways of harming others. Implementation of gun control strategies would, consequently support intensive background checks of individuals. Such thorough checks, preceding application processes and waiting periods would make sure that all criminals are weeded out in the process of approving gun ownership. The process would also ensure that commercial gun merchants do not prioritize their own interests in financial proceeds from guns, while overlooking the safety of law abiding citizens. Based on survey findings by America’s Bureau of Justice, approximately 1.4 million firearms have been stolen in the course of burglary, robbery or other property invasion crimes. This is a large number of stolen guns, especially given the fact that the thefts occurred within a five year period, that is, between 2005 and 2010. Implementing gun control rules and regulations would aid in minimizing cases of stolen guns and unsolved criminal acts, since it would be relatively easy to trace firearms used in particular crimes. Perhaps most importantly, gun control can help in reducing armed crimes. This can, in turn, help in reducing acts that are life threatening and those that often arise from haphazard use of guns.     In addition to encouraging training on gun use, gun control legislation can define statutory provisions that establish and govern standards of gun training. This implies that there will be limited training for individuals forbidden by the law to use guns. Further, only trained and legitimate trainers will be allowed to assist people in gaining gun shooting skills. This is highly important, since the sale of firearms is not the only business related to guns, but shooting ranges constitute a profitable and potentially corruptible business as well. Establishing gun training standards, through gun control will, therefore, aid in minimizing the risks associated with wrong people getting training, unqualified trainers administering it, and individuals lacking proper gun use training (Sugarmann, 2001). Cons It is evident that every person needs to feel safe in their own homes and any other place. However, removing restrictions on the right to have a gun would have negative and lasting impacts in the world. For instance, the economy will be affected in a huge way. This is because, it would affect the organizations that produce guns as well as private dealers that purchase guns as their principal source of income. This would not only affect the economy, but it would also facilitate black market. If guns are sold through black market, there is a high chance that the rate of insecurity would increase as well as deaths from illegal guns. The Second Amendment in the American constitution, allows the people to carry guns (McDowall, 1995). However, if a gun an active ban is passed it will be a violation of the second amendment rights. Therefore, since ownership of a firearm is a right that was sanctioned in the 2nd amendment, then the right is not supposed to be restricted. The argument on banning guns does not consider the individuals’ background especially the ones that were involved in creating the law. 99% of the amendment is based on information that was provided by individuals who did not have any education and did not have legal knowledge. This means that, it is unreasonable to assert that the right to have a gun provided by the law is not subject to some of the restrictions set. The other major con is increased crime rate. This is because if the criminal world has knowledge that the American populace does not have guns, then more businesses and residents will be robbed since the criminals will have access to guns through illegal channels. This means that if an individual is prominent or wealthy, he is prone to criminal attacks since one does not have the right to have a gun as a form of protection. Therefore, this is a huge disadvantage of gun control policies (Lee, 2002). Another disadvantage of gun control is on the Hunt and skeet Shoot provision for hunters. It is extremely inequitable to deny hunters the right to hunt as well as, shooters right to practice. Guns are also utilized in recreation, both in target shooting and hunting. Therefore, gun control will hinder such recreation activities which are extremely imperative for people. Many people enjoy shooting for fun. It is extremely difficult to allow people to have guns and at the same time restrict their usage. This means that Gun control should not be applicable in recreation aspects. For instance, there are people who earn their income by recreating historical themes of military battles. These are revolutionary War re-enactors who should be allowed to have guns. This is impossible to enact if an individual is not allowed to have guns (Ayres, 2009). In order to properly enhance gun control in schools, it is recommended that an armed guard should be placed at the schools. This is extremely inappropriate because placing an armed guard in any school may have detrimental psychological and concentration issues for the students. Students are prone to be nervous and scared if they constantly see an armed guard in the school. It is the governments mandate to make sure that guns are restricted from schools but this does not mean that they should use intimidating methods. Despite the fact that gun control should be improved it will take away a lot of job opportunities. Presently, there are approximately 140, 000 licensed gun dealers in America (Ayres, 2009). Pawn shops, gun stores and collectors’ shops are all places that sell guns. Therefore, by implementing strict gun control policies, it will also affect the thousands of occupations not only in America but also all over the world. Many gun manufacturing plants have employed a lot of people and by taking this away, it will not only affect the economy, but also the unemployment rate will increase tremendously. This is one of the biggest cons imposed by gun control. This is because it will affect the country’s GDP and individual income. Additionally, the idea of gun control is against the democracy principle which allows individuals the right of safeguarding their lives. By taking into consideration that guns are used by individuals in defending themselves when attacked, it might sound very plausible to enhance gun control. However, gun crime statistics depicts that uncontrolled gun ownership may lead to more violent criminal activities and eventually cause mayhem. The principal objective of gun control is prevention of anarchy but gun ownership. Therefore, the government should know that banning guns or prohibiting them will not make firearms disappear. So as to properly enhance security, the government should therefore, legitimize the right for the citizens to have guns (Branas et al., 2009). The society is not going to be any safer if gun ownership is restricting gun ownership. This is because “guns don't kill people, people kill people”. Additionally, it is imperative to note that majority of the cases that involve guns it is imperative to note that these weapons are usually attained illegally. The guns are usually not registered and they are either stolen or smuggled from registered owners. The second amendment provides that people have the right to own guns, but another law adjustment makes it extremely difficult to own a gun difficult. Therefore, many individuals feel that they are being denied their constitutional right. On the other hand if law-abiding individuals have guns, then they will be better equipped in handling situations whereby they are attacked by criminals, thus reducing the crime rate (Branas et al., 2009). The self defense squabble also depicts one of the major cons of gun control. Numerous anti-gun-control activists always argue that banning guns or severely regulating ownership will give criminals the upper hand since they will be able access guns illegally. This means that the law-abiding citizens will be left helpless. It is evident that some of the countries that have extremely strict measures on gun ownership have not effectively reduced gun ownership. For instance, the U.S already has more guns than its people can handle. This is because criminals will always have a way to get illegal guns. However, proper regulation of guns will at least prevent criminals from gaining access to people’s businesses and homes. This is because if both the law abiding people and criminals have guns, there will be issues of extreme bloodshed and this should be prevented. Nevertheless, there are numerous advantages of possession of firearms. For instance, the principal benefit of carrying a gun is that it enhances the capability of an individual’s self defense. According to (Squires, 2000), people that resist armed assailants are less likely to get injured if one complies with the attacker or resisted by using a firearm. Therefore, complete firearm depletion will leave people that have the right to protect themselves vulnerable and defenseless, especially if they wanted to protect themselves or their families as well as their property. It can be argued that just like prohibition has made criminals wealthier from bootlegging, restricting gun access will enhance black market deals thus making them arms richer. Therefore, it is clear that gun control will boost the risk of making criminals rich since they have the capability to access guns and sell them to people who would like to get them illegally. This will make them receive enough money that will enable them to start dealing with more guns. The supply will also be more compared to when people have the freedom to purchase the guns legally. This is because; people will be more willing to buy the guns since they are cheap and with no way to be identified. For instance, despite the tough gun laws in the U.S, Chicago is one of the states that have the highest gun crime rates. This shows that gun control has not worked as expected and that other ways to deal with the issue should be implemented (Jacobs, 2002). It is also evident that states which have legalized firearms acquisition have recorded a momentous reduction in gun crimes. Therefore instead of the government striving to suppress gun the purchase it is might be advisable to have other policies that might assist in reducing gun violence and enhancing gun use knowledge. Kleck (2003) asserts that the best way to deal with guns is by allowing people to practice their second amendment without fear of being implicated in criminal activities for armed possession. Individuals who have the knowhow of using a gun play a very crucial role in suppressing violence and crime. It is imperative to note that firearms, people can learn to unite against any criminal activities like murderers s well as other outlawed people from hurting society members. It is therefore, proper to say that firearm availability stops or prevents crimes. According to Killias (2001), guns have been proven to prevent crime because even criminals want to minimize potential risks when committing a crime. That is why; if a criminal has an idea that an individual is armed, they are unlikely to enter such premises. Additionally, Potential criminals are less likely to assault an individual that they believe to be carrying a gun. Additionally, an armed person is more likely to foil a crime in progress. Gun control will incase physical vulnerability of some weak individuals. This is because such people might be from those that have physical strength. Gun control will also enhance lack of evidence in the court. Recommendations The government should formulate reasonable gun control policies. This means that an individual has the right to have a gun but at the same time bound by less strict laws. Many individuals would like to have guns for their own protection. Therefore, the best way to deal with such an issue is to make sure that background checks for people purchasing guns is conducted. This way; criminals will not have a chance to access guns. This means that congress is supposed to pass a law that exempts hunting and sports as well as family transfer of firearms but at the same time conduct a thorough background check. This will ensure that dangerous people are not allowed to have guns. It is hard to identify a dangerous person to have a gun but with proper interaction with law enforcement bodies and the public, it will be easier to avoid giving or selling guns to criminals and other dangerous people. Gun trafficking laws should also be enacted to have serious punishment for anybody that is caught trafficking them. Instead of enhancing gun control, proper education steps can be formulated and put in place. This means that an individual can be taught how to use a gun legally without having to get an illegal gun. In many cases, people that are trained will maintained a high level of discipline while using the gun. This way; there will be no unnecessary accidents and people will stop buying illegal guns since they will be more informed about gun use. The government should also conduct a research on causes as well as prevention measures of gun violence. This way they will be able to determine if the best way to deal with gun violence is formulation of gun control policies or enhancing better rules for firearm ownership. Conclusion The contest on gun control seems to make no headway at the national level regardless of nationwide coverage and attention on recent incidences of violence, mass killings such as Columbine, Tucson, and Virginia Tech. it is therefore hard for many people to decide whether gun ownership should be allowed of tougher restrictions on gun access should be formulated. By banning gun access, the government can be enhancing access of illegal guns and increase gun crimes all over the nation and the entire world. It is therefore, imperative for the parties involved to come up with the right policies that will allow gun access but at the same time protect the citizens from such issues. If the guns are restricted, criminals will find other ways to get firearms. Therefore, the solution is t make sure that effectively laws that will assist people to curb illegal procurement of arms are implemented. Additionally, the responsibility of gun possession should be put in the citizens hands in order to determine for themselves whether they need to purchase a gun or not. Therefore, gun control is not the best way to curb firearm violence. Many people might not agree completely with the pros or cons discussed above, but with constant changes on the set laws, people will be able to better deal with the issue. Further, the government should be able to properly formulate better policies to deal with the present outburst of gun violence. References Ayres, I. (2009). A Well Regulated Militia. The Econ Journal Watch, 15(2), 33 – 34. Branas C, et al. (2009). Right to Carry Concealed Gun. The American Journal of Public Health, 7(1), 5-13. Jacobs, J. (2002). Can Gun Control Work? New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Killias, K. (2001). Guns, violent crime, and suicide in 21 countries. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 128-130. Kleck, G. (2003). Victim resistance and offender weapon effects in robbery. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 154-169. Kleck, G. (2005). Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. Piscataway, New Jersey: Aldine Transaction. Kwon, I., & Baack, D. (2005). The effectiveness of legislation controlling gun usage. American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 64(2), 533-547. Lee, G. (2002). Guns in the American Society. New York, NY: ABC-CLIO. Lott, J. (2000). More Guns less Crime. Chicago: Chicago University Press. McDowall, D. (1995). Gun Crime and the Second Amendment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(1). Monroe, J. (2008). Homicide and gun control: the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and homicide rates. New York: LFB Scholarly Pub. Spitzer, R. (2003). Gun Laws and Policies: A dialogue. Retrieved from http://www.abanet.org/publiced/focus/spring_03.pdf Squires, P. (2000). Gun culture or gun control? Firearms, violence and society. London: Routledge. Steinreich, D. (2004). The bias against guns: Why almost everything you've heard about gun control is wrong. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 7(3), 89-95. Sugarmann, J. (2001). Every Handgun is aimed at you. New York: New Press. Read More