ABSTRACT
Gun Control is a very serious and regularly debated issue in this modern area. Some feel very strongly that the resolution to gun violence is to restrict guns from the public and therefore lessening gun related crime and accidental injury. However, that is not how all Americans feel. They see gun control measures as a direct infringement on the Constitutional rights, it would leave Americans defenseless and would, in fact, increase crime rates not lessen them. The bulk of research tends to lean toward the reality that gun control will not have the desired effect that gun control supporters are hoping it would. Criminals are not going to surrender their gun of they are legally banned and Americans would be more likely to victims of gun violence. Gun ownership is a greater deterrent the strict gun control laws. Fortunately, there are areas where some kind of compromise might be attainable, which could be beneficial for both sides of the argument.
INTRODUCTION
One of the most heavily debated and heatedly argued topics in the United States today is the issue of gun control; or lack of, depending on one’s view. Guns have been the weapon of choice to defend home, property and persons for many, many years. The police have guns, the military have guns and members of the general public have guns. Most people, who own guns, are responsible with them and know how to handle them safely; they may never have a reason to use them at all. However, there are others who use guns to commit crimes and to harm others. This has spawned an idea that if guns were not accessible to the general public then it would make it less likely they would end up in the hand of someone criminal or unstable. This is where the two extreme sides of the argument of gun control to collide. One side believes that gun control would keep weapons from only being used by military and law enforcement; but not the general public. However, the other side of the argument opposes gun control of any kind is unethical and not conducive with the freedoms allowed to American citizens. After reviewing the available information it becomes clear that gun control is not beneficial for public safety, it will not reduce crime and it does infringe upon Constitutional rights; however they may be room for some compromise.
DISCUSSION
Both sides of the argument make compelling statements, but the two sides are generally so antithetical that they cannot see eye-to-eye on the issue. That being said it is necessary to look at both side of the issues individually.
In Support of Gun Control
Firstly, is the desire for greater safety. Those who support the strictest gun control laws believe that by removing weapons from the public it will make the public safer. We have recently seen instances where the promoters of gun control will make everyone safer from criminal activity and injury (Davidson, 2015). Secondly is the effect it would have on crime rates. Supporters of gun control are convinced that by removing the guns from the hands of average, law abiding citizens it will have an effect on the gun possession of criminals. If the number of guns is lessened then criminals will not have the easy means of relying on firearms to commit their illegal acts, therefore deterring the attempts. Lastly, they argue that the 2nd Amendment is outdated. Those who support gun control believe that the 2nd Amendment does not mean that every American who wants to own, load and fire a firearm should have the right to do so (ProCon Organization, 2016). They argue that while the 2nd Amendment once had greater relevance, today it is something that many want legally changed.
Opposition to Gun Control:
First and foremost is safety. The idea that Americans would be safer in a world filled with armed criminals without the right to defend themselves is ridiculous to the opposition to gun control. The statement does not even make sense. Americans who follow the existing gun laws of the United States and hold the appropriate licensing and certification should have their rights, literally, revoked because of the actions of criminals, who are also usually armed. More Americans would likely get hurt, not made more safe (ProCon Organization, 2016). Secondly is the issue of crime rates. While supporters of gun control argue that disarming the American people would lessen crimes in American cities and communities, this is simply an unrealistic assumption. The only people who are going to follow a gun control law are people who believe in following the law; unfortunately criminals do not care about the law and they are not likely to turn in their weapons because its “illegal” now. Disarming free Americans would only increase the crime statistics, because criminals will have a great advantage over the people and the people will have no equal means of defending themselves (Ambridge, 2015). Lastly, are the rights listed in the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was created to make certain that American people could not be disarmed and controlled by the government, which is exactly what strict or restricted weapon ownership would do. It would make Americans incapable of defending themselves from anyone, be it by the government or by home invaders. It also infringes on the rights of hunters who must have guns to hunt the animals that will feed their families (ProCon Organization, 2016). To violate the 2nd Amendment infringes upon the rights of the citizens, rights that the country was, in fact, founded upon. It is part of what makes America, America.
The reality is that gun control supporters do not have a great deal of proof to back up their claims with absolute certainty. It is based on assumptions and not fact. They believe that all crimes, injuries and murders would cease altogether by simply removing the weapons of the American people; that is simply not true. Criminals will always break a law that is what criminals do; they are no more likely to follow gun control laws than any other. This places the public in greater danger, not less. There would likely be far more victims of crimes, after all they did not have the means to defend themselves and their families. Gun ownership of Americans is likely a far better deterrent than any laws and policies passed. If a criminal does not know who could or could not have a gun, may make criminals think twice and second-guess their choices (ProCon Organizations, 2016). That being said there is the possibility of compromise on this issue. There should be more effective background checks done to avoid selling to those with a questionable history. Those who do own guns should have to prove that they know how to handle it safely before ownership is approved. There are some guns, like hunting rifles and handguns that are ideal for hunting and for self and home defense. However, there are other weapons, like assault rifles, with high firepower, are not the type of gun that can be used for hunting and seems rather extreme for self defense. These weapons may be an area of compromise. By perfecting the background checks and by placing more restrictions on the ownership of these weapons and their use in crimes could be reduced, without completely disregarding the American citizen’s 2nd Amendment right to own firearms and to defend themselves.
CONCLUSION
Again, gun control is one of the most argued topics legally, politically and socially. Many are of the extremes, those for or against gun control, with no desire or intention of compromise. Fortunately, however, more Americans realistically fall somewhere in the middle of the topic. They can see the need for firearms as a form of defense or necessity, as in the case of hunters, but also do not want to see dangerous weapons that have no other purpose is rapid fire weaponry that has no real practical use in day-to-day hunting or self defense. Fortunately compromise is possible and is generally the way that Americans in their diversity and freedom resolve their distances in the end.
References
Ambridge, B. (2015). A smoking gun: The battle over gun control and statistical significance.
JSTOR Daily. 1. Retrieved August 7. 2016, from http://daily.jstor.org/smoking-gun-battle-gun-control-statistical-significance/
Davidson, J. (2015). A criminologist's case against gun control. Time Magazine. 1. Retrieved
August 7, 2016, from http://time.com/4100408/a-criminologists-case-against-gun-control/
ProCon Organization. (2016). Should more gun control laws be enacted? ProCon Organization.
1. Retrieved August 7, 2016, from http://gun-control.procon.org/.
