Issue Brief
The issue of gun possession and its control is an emotive, passionate and divisive one that spurs heated and contentious debate among various audiences and interested or affected parties (Boylan et al. 3934). Following recent spate of mass shooting of civilians by privately owned guns in the US, the gun control debate has taken a new turn with the Obama administration seeking to toughen the law that permits average Americans to own guns. Historically, US citizens have had the right under the Second Amendment to the US Constitution to own guns for the purposes of self-defense and protection from criminal attack. Currently, federal legislation allows only particular groups of people to own firearms while people with criminal records, immigrants, mental illness patients, veterans and drug addicts are not permitted to own or use guns.
The main elements of the debate about gun control in the US include whether people should be allowed to carry their guns in open public, whether or not US citizens should be allowed to possess assault rifles and the nature and type of background checks that should be done on firearm purchasers (Perez-Pena 1). These, among other issues related to them, are the main controversies and arguments concerning gun control in the US. The main audience in this discourse is the members of the American public, security analysts and politicians. The main argument is also that the state and federal law systems are porous and have major loopholes that enable criminal gangs to own or possess dangerous firearms to the detriment of local US citizens and non-citizens who fear that their lives may be at stake if nothing is done to contain the situation. One such loophole cited by those who argue against continued allowance of people to possess guns is the fact that no background checks are carried out by small scale sellers of guns thus enabling sum of them to dish out firearms to groups of people who are or should be forbidden from possessing guns. The restrictiveness of gun control laws also differs from state to state with some states having very relaxed gun control laws thus putting the lives of people at risk.
The main groups of people or audience that are concerned with and have interest or stake in this issue of gun control are members of the public and the law enforcement officers or authorities. According to Perez-Pena (2), the public are of the opinion that the federal and state governments should do something to either completely abolish gun possession in the US or permit people to own guns but with very stringent terms and conditions in order to deter abuse or misuse of firearms or the proliferation of guns in the hands of terrorists and criminals. However, opinion is as divided among members of the public as is the case with the police. The divergence is based either on regional or political affiliations that different people subscribe to. According to Perez-Pena, for instance, whereas the Major Cities Chiefs Association has supported the need to strengthen background checks on gun purchase and reinstate the ban on assault rifles, the Major County Sherriff’s Association would rather we allow the background check on firearms but retain the assault weapons.
Further, the author states that the National Sheriffs Association is against any legislative measure that purports to divest the US citizens of their Second Amendment right to possess guns. As to the American public stance on gun control, the author argues that the American public have in the last two decades supported stricter gun control laws but this support has been dwindling following increased number of attacks and shootings on the public by gun owners. Politicians and the US President have also not been left behind in this gun control debate, with President Obama vowing to impose stricter rules on gun possession even in lieu of the approval by the Congress following the recent shooting of innocent civilians at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut (Rampton & Roscoe 1).
The major positions on this issue are on the one hand that stern gun control laws are needed to protect the average American while on the other hand, the argument is that it is the American peoples’ right to possess arms for the purposes of self-defense, sport and hunting. Despite the latest US Supreme Court decision in the District of Columbia et al. v Heller (2008) upholding the right of US citizens to arm themselves, the gun control debate still rages on concerning the scope and extent of limitations or restrictions that can be allowed on this right to possess firearms. Those in favor of gun possession and against stricter gun control laws argue that gun ownership ensures safety of the society and individual owners as it dissuades criminals from harming them. On the other hand, those in who support more restrictive gun control laws argue that gun possession has not per se helped reduce violence and attacks on US citizens nor have they helped reduce crime rates. Instead, they argue, with the current gun control legal framework, the US has witnessed more mass shootings, crime and violence than any other country in the world (Karimu 404).
Works Cited
Boylan, Michael, et al. "Debate: Gun cotrol in the United States." Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research Journal 471.12 (2013): 3934–3936. Print.
Karimu, Olusola, E. "The two sides of gun legislation and gun control debate in the United States of America." European Scientific Journal. 11.7 (2015):400-414. Print.
Perez-Pena, Richard. "Gun control explained." The New York Times.13 Oct. 2015. Web. 21 Jan. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/07/us/gun-control-explained.html?_r=0>.
Rampton, Roberta and Ayesha Rascoe. “Obama, wiping tears, makes new push to tighten gun rules." Reuters. Jan. 2016. Web. 21 Jan. 2016.< http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-guns- idUSKBN0UI1UQ20160106>
