The debate on gun control ought to be approached in appreciation of the stakes. It must be appreciated that the issue of gun ownership and possession cuts across the political, economic and social landscape. Indeed, in arguing for or against gun possession by the citizenry one needs to be cognizant of the undergirding principles as to the sacrosanctity of life. It is my position that the citizenry must not own and possess guns. I shall establish the position for non-ownership of guns and disabuse the audience from the false assertion that gun ownership and consequential possession is necessary. In addition, one needs to appreciate the role of social relations and harmony in line with the rule of law as envisioned by the founding fathers of the nation who drafted the federalist constitution that continues to make the United States of America a progressive nation that is has often been.
The issue of gun control has lately received the necessary attention after a laid back approach that has seen society abusing guns. This has occasioned the unnecessary and avoidable deaths of many a people who would have contributed towards the growth of the blossoming American economy. Perhaps, it is on that footing that I begin my argument against gun possession. Indeed, the possession of guns by the citizenry has been abused time and again occasioning the deaths of innocent lives. Cases of illegal and unnecessary killings of children and civilians have occurred over the last two decades. The case of the Columbine High School killings appears to have started off the list of misuse of guns. Over the years the United States of America has had to deviate and veer off from the daily activities of building the economy and participate in mourning in different levels. Some of the killings have occasioned national television appearances by the presidency. The presidency, in its attempts to seek a solution to the abuse of guns constituted a committee led by the Vice President to research and come up with proposals for the control of abuse of guns. While the committee could not take the radical path and recommend for the prohibition of gun ownership, they nonetheless issues recommendations for tighter and more effective gun control. This perhaps is informed by the realization that gun possession is doing the nation more harm than good and that the nation would perhaps be more secure with the citizenry in possession of fewer guns. The committee should have taken the more radical step and advised for the complete prohibition of ownership of guns by the civilians. The ownership of guns has occasioned a state of disunity even as America grapples with the challenge of a highly plural society. Cases abound where the citizenry have been divided into their racist cocoons due to the cases which if traced come down to misuse of guns by the people. One needs to examine the case of Trayvon Martin in which George Zimmerman was charged with the murder of Trayvon in “self-defense.” The argument of self-defense has been floated time again in several cases. However, the case of Trayvon exposes some of the cases of misuse of gun ownership and possession. In that case Zimmerman asserts that he shot in self-defense and that his victim (deceased Trayvon) had appeared as though he was of threat. In the analysis of this case, it has been brought out that Trayvon was unarmed and had no intention of attacking or in any way attacking Zimmerman. This case is now been used to show the racial discrimination that continues to abound in America. In fact, the comments by President Obama on the Trayvon case can be used illustratively. Obama said that Trayvon would have been him thirty five years ago. The relevance of this case and even the comments by the President is the fact that the misuse of gun goes into increasing cases of racism and racial profiling and discrimination. Therefore, it can be argued, that the gun ownership is a model that needs to be left to the disciplined forces and not to mere civilians who run the risk of misusing the same.
One may argue that gun ownership is intended for the protection of lives and property. In that vein, it would be argued that amendment two in the United States of America Constitution was intended to retain the right to self-defense by civilians. That amendment and the conceal and carry laws have given the citizenry the rights to ownership, possession and use of guns. Private citizens have relied on this fact to carry and use guns. In their defense villains have relied on the stand your ground provisions. Sadly, these laws have suffered colossal abuse. The problem starts with the implementation and roll out of the conceal and carry laws. Indeed, the law did not and does not envisage a situation where every person is given a license to own and possess guns. However, with a thriving drug and other illegal businesses market, guns have found their way into the hands of the citizenry. In many cases authorities have not been able to effectively sieve out those entitled to carry guns and those who have acquired possession illegally. Statistics from the crime department attest to the proliferation of illegal ownership of guns. I wish to postulate that current laws on gun ownership need to be done away with in order to avoid the litany of losses now being experienced. First, the gun possession for purposes of self-defense is unnecessary and has failed to address the mischief intended to address. On the other hand, it has been abused by criminals who have taken the other road and acquired guns. In addition, the legitimate owners of these guns do not possess sufficient and necessary information to determine ideal circumstances in which the use of the guns is justified. The law envisages the use of force in self-defense proportional to the force that an aggressor threatens to use or actually uses. The case of Zimmerman is an example of the many cases where gun owners did use force that was not only un-proportional to the force of the aggressor but equally shows the misuse of guns in cases where even the threat alone cannot be proven.
One needs to reexamine the provisions of the second amendment and apply a purposive interpretation of the law. The amendment retained in the citizenry the right of self-defense through the possession and ownership of weaponry. However, the same amendment vested the duty of protection of the citizenry to the federal and state governments. In that breadth, the self-defense is only anticipated in cases where either the federal or state government is not present and or cannot provide necessary defense. It is my assertion that a liberal and purposive interpretation of that amendment does not lead to the entitlement of the citizenry to possession of guns at all times. That entitlement is conditional upon specific circumstances. It is equally my position that the law needs to be progressive in nature. The matter of security and protection of the rights to life and property ought to be left to the authority. This argument is augmented by the Social Contract concept of government. Under the Social Contract, the citizens elect a government and sacrifice some of its powers to the government through the governor. It is my position that once such power is sacrificed, so are the matters of security and the implementation of the rule of the law. As a result, for purposes of order and equality, guns need to be left to the government and the citizens entitled to security to be availed by the government. The failure of the system need not be used to justify ownership of guns by citizens. On the contrary deliberate attempts should be pursued in order to ensure the system works as envisioned.
Furthermore, ownership and possession of guns need to be considered in terms of likely economic consequences. In that context, one needs to examine the related consequences brought about by the proliferation of gun ownership. Firstly, gun ownership increases the chances of illegal trade such as drug and human trafficking. Drugs and human traffickers are able to either weaken or eliminate opponents and systemic challenges and obstacles through deaths threats and in some cases actual killings of officers and community officials. In addressing the scourge of drug smuggling, the authorities should look at the question of gun ownership and gun violence. It is the irresponsible possession and use of guns that have led to the spread of such societal ills. Secondly, gun violence has occasioned the loss of laborers or potential laborers who would have probably improved the economy of the United States of America. Thirdly, the gun proliferation creates a state of anxiety and uncertainty which tends to obstruct and or delay the flow of goods and people thereby affecting trade in detrimental manners. It is, therefore, recommended that citizens be entirely disarmed of guns and related weaponry.
In closing, I wish to appeal to the conscious of the policy makers to look at the bigger picture. The beauty of policy is the fact that every approach and decision will come with its consequences. The required principle needs to be the utilitarian argument which advocates for the realization and adoption of the option that would maximize the good for the majority. In that regard, it is essential to look at both sides and analyze the related pros and cons and settle for that which addresses the concerns and interests of the majority. If and when that approach is taken, gun control would be implemented in its extreme through a prohibition of private ownership of guns.
Works Cited
Boivin, Remi. "On the Use of Crime Rates." Texas Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice (2013): 263-278.
Goldsmith, Andrew. "Police reform and the problem of trust." Theoretical Criminology 7.1 (2005): 443-470.
Herring, Jonathan. Criminal Law. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Kopel, David. "The Ideology of Ownership and Gun Control in the United States of America." Quarterly Journal of Ideology (2007): 23-32.
Stillman, Richard Joseph. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, 9th ed.: Concepts and Cases. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2009.
