Debate on Gun Control - Essay Example

Pros and Cons of Gun Control

The topic of gun control remains divisive for Americans. Even though gun control has been there for long, the recent spate of attacks has added more weight to the discussion. America has been rocked with instances of gun-related violence, as seen in mass shooting events that have led to the deaths of innocent civilians. Children have not been spared from the destructive nature of gun violence. Some of the shooting events which have garnered global awareness occurred in American schools claiming several young lives. The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December of 2012 is a perfect example of the destructive nature of gun violence in America. The aftermath of the shootings left 26 people dead, with 20 of them aged between six and seven (Benton, p 6). An increase in the number of shootings has led Americans to engage in discussions meant to establish the right way forward to tackle gun violence. Controlling access to weapons such as guns has been depicted as the ideal solution. However, not everybody perceives gun control as the perfect solution to the problem. Differences in gun control views have led to a situation where people have to sit down and weigh the different effects of the policy. The research seeks to better understand the gun control debate by reviewing its pros and cons.

America stands to gain from implementing gun control policies. One such way the society will benefit is by lowering the number of deaths that occur due to gun-related events. Guns are considered to be a leading cause of death in the country. About 67.7% of homicides in America are committed using guns. The same situation holds regarding suicide cases in the nation. About 51.8% of the suicide in the country are perpetrated through guns. Thus, the above findings show the magnitude of deaths that can be linked to guns only to be quite high. In particular, 572, 537 deaths between 1999 and 2016 were linked to guns “ CDC.”. The situations thus show that access to guns by American citizens contributes to the high number of deaths that are perpetrated using firearms. Therefore, stringent measures must be put in place to control access to guns by the citizens. The presence of more guns in society contributes to increased deaths. Lowering the number of deaths arising from the misuse of guns, therefore, calls for control measures to be taken.

Gun control measures should be enacted to lower the chances of guns bring used by other people to commit crimes. One of the major requirements that people are required to have to be granted a gun possession license is sobriety for the applicants. Gun shops are required to verify the applicant's biography to ensure that they only give people considered credible and responsible for the license to hold guns. However, the relevance of responsibly does not seem to fit a society where people are interested in committing crimes. A major hindrance to responsible behavior with guns is seen in the chances of other people accessing guns. Different people may misuse the various opportunities they get with gun owners to commit crimes. Likewise, guns can be stolen from their actual owners and find their way to criminals. About 1.4 million guns in America are highlighted as having been stolen from homes between 2005 and 2010 (National Research Council, P 18). The guns were stolen in acts of burglary and theft. Thus, the extreme nature of such exercises proves that America is still not safe when it comes to talking about the responsible handling of guns. Despite the good nature with which some people may acquire guns, there is no assurance that the guns will not be used to perpetuate the murder. Safety concerns are still seen in people with evil minds accessing the guns and using them to commit murder. Therefore, gun control measures must be enacted to ensure that stringent measures are enacted to lower instances of gun ownership in the country.

Likewise, the enactment of gun control measures will benefit America in reducing the medical costs used in treating people inflicted with gun control challenges. The effects of gun-related violence are not only seen in the fatalities realized from the situations. There are several other forms of negative events that arise from gun violence. For instance, people suffering from gunshot wounds incur a lot of costs in seeking treatment for their conditions. For instance, America is highlighted to have spent about $ 2.7 billion, treating people hospitalized for gunshot wounds. The economic impact of the situation is highlighted in them being directly linked to Medicare and Medicaid. This is because 84% of those involved in the shootings were uninsured, meaning that taxpayers' money caters to the hospitalization costs (Spitzer et al., p 770). The World Health Organization links gun injuries with several costs. Some of the costs include private security, medical, psychological, insurance, productivity, and legal costs. The above situations thus portray the high costs that result from shooting activities in the nation. It is, therefore, necessary to lower the number of shooting events by enacting gun control activities.

Also, implementing gun control measures will be effective in lowering instances of violence that result from arguments. A research conducted by the American Journal of Public Health established that guns tend to be dangerous when carried along during instances of provocation. It was highlighted that several situations that cause anger tend to lead to violent reactions. The adverse effects of the confrontation are seen by people using the weapons they have against those they argue against. The study established that people tend to use the weapons nearest to them. Enacting gun control measures will, therefore, lower instances of people using guns during confrontations. According to the FBI, about 1962 gun deaths that occurred in America were linked to arguments “ Expanded Homicides.”The arguments revolved around issues of love challenges, alcohol-induced fights, drug abuse and deals, and many other issues that result in conflict.

Similarly, about two-thirds of deaths that occurred from brawls in 1981 were linked to guns. Thus, the cases show that people cannot control themselves during conflicts and would always go for their guns. The repercussions of such acts are death from gunshots. Formulating gun control rules is thus beneficial as it will reduce accessibility to guns, thus preventing gun-related deaths during conflicts.

The idea that was formulating gun-control measures effectively reduce shooting instances that are detrimental to society has been refuted. For instance, enacting gun control measures will violate America’s constitution that gives individuals the right to own guns. America is highlighted as a nation with a strong constitution. It is the constitution that provides the different laws that govern the country. Also, the constitution's importance is highlighted in the need for it to be dully followed, and its principles not violated. Enacting gun control measures is thus highlighted as a violation of the constitutional rights of the citizens to own guns. The second amendment of the American constitution gives people the power to own guns. The article states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (Esposito and Finley, p 8).” The law entitles citizens the right to own arms provided that they do not engage in militia activities. The situation thus shows that framers of the constitution were aware that American citizens need to protect themselves hence the need to own weapons. It is for this reason that they made gun possession a right. Developing and implementing gun control measures would, therefore, result in a violation of the citizen's constitutional rights.

Furthermore, gun control acts have been highlighted as not deterring crime hence no need for the implementation. The realization has been highlighted by several findings that have shown that access to more guns prevented the crime. States with strict gun control regulations are highlighted as the most affected by shooting events. States that encourage gun possession, on the other hand, are depicted to register significant reductions in the number of gun-related violence (Gius, p 265). The findings thus portray the regulation of guns as contributing to more crimes. This is because limiting the number of guns accessible to people encourage crime as the perpetrators know the victims do not have any means to protect themselves. Criminals are depicted as disobeying the land laws, thus making it illogical to reason that enacting gun control will discourage them from owning guns. It, therefore, means that limiting gun access to civilians will see that only criminals have guns. The situation thus makes it difficult for people to defend themselves. In the end, gun control would not have lowered crime levels. On the contrary, the measures would have led to more crime as it encourages criminals to terrorize people as they are aware that few are individuals are armed. Enforcing gun control will, therefore, result in more crime instead of tackling it.

The idea that gun control measures will prevent criminals from accessing weapons is misled. Individuals are advocating for gun control points at the measures as necessary to prevent criminals from accessing weapons. Making gun ownership rules tougher is not the ideal solution to lower access by criminals. On the contrary, criminals are still likely to access guns granted to individuals who have attained them through legal means. The period between 1982 and 2012 saw America suffer from 62 serious cases of mass shootings. It is known that 49 of the guns used in the shootings were legally acquired (Aronsen, Follman and Pan, p 12). A 2013 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics established that 37.4% of American inmates who used or possessed firearms stated that they had acquired them from family members and friends. Thus, the situations show that gun-related crime will still occur should America decide to enforce the gun control policies. Criminals will still find innovative ways to access guns from people who have legal access to firearms. The fact that gun control measures will not prevent criminals from accessing guns, thus makes it ineffective.

Another negative effect of enacting gun control measures is seen in violation of people’s privacy. The American constitution is highlighted as offering its citizens a set of laws that provide citizens with different freedoms. The right to privacy is one of the key pillars of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the constitution. In particular, the constitution gives “American people’s constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance.” However, this freedom seems to be threatened should America adopt policies that allow gun control “Despite Harry Reid’s growing support, gun control legislation probably isn’t going anywhere in Congress.” Violation of the constitution will be seen in people in governments demanding personal information on the part of those who register for gun ownership. The policies encourage the American government to conduct background checks to find applicants' personal information. The act thus translates to situations where people are investigated without their knowledge. Americans have shown great concern that individuals may take advantage of the situation that involves looking at their database to collect information that may be used for ill motives.

Moreover, gun control measures have proven ineffective and cannot change any act of crime in America. The existing records of gun control measures have not shown any significant results when it comes to shooting incidences. One of the control measures is to lower the number of high-capacity gun magazines. The firearms are portrayed to be extremely dangerous when left at the hand of civilians. However, the argument seems to be misguided. Like high caliber-guns, small firearms have the same capability of causing the death of many people within seconds. Shooting events are not just orchestrated by high-capacity guns alone. People who have access to small guns also engage in shooting events, thereby making the control measures to limit the use of powerful guns ineffective.

Similarly, the ineffectiveness of gun control measures can be seen in the existence of the cases despite stringent measures that are already in force. Commercial gun dealers have to follow a set of strict measures to offer licenses to applicants. Shooting events are still witnessed in society despite the existence of detailed gun ownership procedures. The findings thus show that gun control acts are not effective in addressing American shooting instances.

In conclusion, the research has shed a lot of insight into the debate on gun control. The topic of gun control has been highlighted as having caused massive division in society as people look at it from different angles. The divisive nature of the topic has been highlighted to arise from the different advantages and disadvantages it sets to bring to society should the policies be implemented. Several advantages have been highlighted as likely to be realized upon the enactment of the policies. Some of the advantages that will arise from the passage of gun control measures include a reduction in gun-related deaths, crime, costs, and conflict-based homicides perpetrated using guns. Likewise, different factors have been depicted as leading to disadvantages should gun control measures be implemented. Enacting the measures have been portrayed as violating America’s constitution on privacy and liberty to possess firearms. Also, the measures have been depicted as ineffective as they have failed to reduce crime rates in society. It is therefore ideal that America's policymakers arrive at a solution that will address both the advantages and disadvantages that will result from gun control laws.

Read More

For instance, America is highlighted to have spent about $ 2.7 billion, treating people hospitalized for gunshot wounds. The economic impact of the situation is highlighted in them being directly linked to Medicare and Medicaid. This is because 84% of those involved in the shootings were uninsured, meaning that taxpayers' money caters to the hospitalization costs (Spitzer et al., p 770). The World Health Organization links gun injuries with several costs. Some of the costs include private security, medical, psychological, insurance, productivity, and legal costs. The above situations thus portray the high costs that result from shooting activities in the nation. It is, therefore, necessary to lower the number of shooting events by enacting gun control activities.

Also, implementing gun control measures will be effective in lowering instances of violence that result from arguments. A research conducted by the American Journal of Public Health established that guns tend to be dangerous when carried along during instances of provocation. It was highlighted that several situations that cause anger tend to lead to violent reactions. The adverse effects of the confrontation are seen by people using the weapons they have against those they argue against. The study established that people tend to use the weapons nearest to them. Enacting gun control measures will, therefore, lower instances of people using guns during confrontations. According to the FBI, about 1962 gun deaths that occurred in America were linked to arguments “ Expanded Homicides.”The arguments revolved around issues of love challenges, alcohol-induced fights, drug abuse and deals, and many other issues that result in conflict.

Similarly, about two-thirds of deaths that occurred from brawls in 1981 were linked to guns. Thus, the cases show that people cannot control themselves during conflicts and would always go for their guns. The repercussions of such acts are death from gunshots. Formulating gun control rules is thus beneficial as it will reduce accessibility to guns, thus preventing gun-related deaths during conflicts.

The idea that was formulating gun-control measures effectively reduce shooting instances that are detrimental to society has been refuted. For instance, enacting gun control measures will violate America’s constitution that gives individuals the right to own guns. America is highlighted as a nation with a strong constitution. It is the constitution that provides the different laws that govern the country. Also, the constitution's importance is highlighted in the need for it to be dully followed, and its principles not violated. Enacting gun control measures is thus highlighted as a violation of the constitutional rights of the citizens to own guns. The second amendment of the American constitution gives people the power to own guns. The article states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (Esposito and Finley, p 8).” The law entitles citizens the right to own arms provided that they do not engage in militia activities. The situation thus shows that framers of the constitution were aware that American citizens need to protect themselves hence the need to own weapons. It is for this reason that they made gun possession a right. Developing and implementing gun control measures would, therefore, result in a violation of the citizen's constitutional rights.

Furthermore, gun control acts have been highlighted as not deterring crime hence no need for the implementation. The realization has been highlighted by several findings that have shown that access to more guns prevented the crime. States with strict gun control regulations are highlighted as the most affected by shooting events. States that encourage gun possession, on the other hand, are depicted to register significant reductions in the number of gun-related violence (Gius, p 265). The findings thus portray the regulation of guns as contributing to more crimes. Read More