Public debate on the Control of Firearms have lighted up after such horrific incidents as mass killing in the "Columbine" school in 1999 (15 victims), the mass skirmish at the school "Red Lake" in 2005 (ten victims) or the massacre at Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 2007 (33 victims). The defenders of gun control immediately called for tighter restrictions or a complete ban on weapons, while supporters are beginning to cite the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, or to claim that the weapons will be given only through their corpse. It goes without saying that this dispute should be taken with full responsibility and seriousness. The result of these debates is able to change the life of the whole country, to change the American reality and not for the better. Let`s analyze this issue in detail.
First of all, it is necessary to illuminate the constitutional prism of this problem. The right to own a firearm is enshrined in the US Constitution. The right to bear arms is a right protected under the US Constitution. The United States is ranked among the countries with the highest number of civilians that own weapons, and thus, it is also the highest ranked for violence as well. Also, the number of victims who die due to violence in this country is 15 times higher than other developed countries. It is even possible to book a gun for 60$ over the Internet. It should be noted that the prohibition of the possession of assault weapons to civilians worked in the US for 10 years from 1994 to 2004. Numerous attempts to re-impose a ban (the last one was in the summer of 2012, following the massacre in the Colorado movie theater) ended the fact that the bill was not gaining enough votes. However, in some states, there are regional restrictions. Among them are New York, Massachusetts, California and New Jersey. So, the right of citizens to possess weapons guarantees the second amendment to the US Constitution.
Supporters of free sale of weapons without its control have a lot of compelling arguments in the upcoming debate. Firstly, legalization of weapons will increase the citizens' ability to defend themselves. In the criminal world, those who are willing to use weapons against civilians, have these weapons in full and the necessary amount. Only honest citizens who are defenseless against the bandits, rapists, and murderers do not have weapons.
So, without gun control citizens will receive an additional guarantee of their security. All over the world a legal weapon only used in the commission of crimes in the rarest of cases and at the same time quite effectively helps to repel an attack on the house, increases a person's chances to remain unharmed. Weapons are the murder weapon, which can save a life. In America killings of ordinary citizens and armed attacks on them happens quite often. Noteworthy, that most all of these crimes are committed in the so-called Gun-Free Zones.
However, it should be also examined arguments of supporters of gun control. First of all, legalization of weapons will lead to higher levels of aggression in the relationship between people and increase the number of crimes and murders, including domestic homicides. Secondly, there is a possibility of an "accidental" death of any innocent people and, as a consequence, the overall decrease in the level of security. Many people buy weapons, not because they feel the danger of attack, but because there was a weapon in the other, and it seems to be "normal". It has become a mass phenomenon of armed population. However, it should be noted, that it is really hard to eliminate inequality, so we will have situation, when someone who seeks a protection from wealth person will be unarmed anyway. Furthermore, guns permission is ineffective. Who guarantees that the purchased arms will not be in a very wide range of people, who is far from permits and licenses (children, relatives). «They argue that it is as difficult to keep weapons from being acquired by “high-risk” individuals, even under federal laws and enforcement, as it was to stop the sale and use of liquor during Prohibition» (Krouse 7)
Although there are serious arguments against restrictions on the use of weapons (some of which I also quote in this chapter), I declare my commitment to gun control policy. Together with other authors, and many police officers I assert that: 1) the rapidly growing availability of automatic weapons is largely responsible for the increase in murders in the last decade; 2) handguns in fact does not provide greater protection of citizens: people are more likely use weapons to kill members of the family than for shooting intruders; 3) it is not necessary, that the killer will use a different type of weapon if firearm is not available. Firearms can promote impulsive, violent crimes. The more firearms there are in society, the greater the chance that the people in general and not necessarily as a result of self-defense will be killed. The debate about gun control is very important issue. Therefore, of course, it is needed to weigh all the pros and cons. Despite the fact that the decision will be taking by the leadership of the country, active mass discussion indicates a high level of civil and democratic society.
Work Cited
Krouse, William J. Gun Control Legislation. Congressional Research Service, 2014. Web.
