The gun control debate has been raging in the open parlance for quite sometimes, at least everybody in America feels the need to be safe, and the only controversy is how to be safe; by allowing more guns to civilians or by withdrawing or limiting the number of guns held by civilians? The Second Amendment to the American Constitution, which came into force in 15th December 1791, has provisions protecting civilians’ rights of keeping and bearing firearms (Klukowski 195). However, debates on gun controls have majorly questioned the role of the government in ensuring that it provides security services to the citizens of the United States. This debate has culminated into what is currently referred to as the gun politics in the US and has pitted two group into the argument. The first group in this debate is gun rights activists who uphold that America citizens have the rights to bear arms, as such, they are fervent advocates for laws and regulations that allow individuals to bear arms. On the other side of the divide is the pro-gun control group which argues that there is a need for the American government to impose stiffer regulations so as to limit the number of civilians who keep and bear firearms (Spitzer 32). They argue that it is the role of the American government to ensure the safety of its citizens by ensuring they have adequate security but not enabling them to bear arms under the disguise of personal security.
This debate has further led to the conceal and carry gun policy which tries to liberalize the keeping of firearm but requiring that such weapons be concealed when held in the public. Either way, both parties to the argument about gun control have reasons which they believe are just sufficient to defend their position and should be listened too keenly. The gun debate, however, does not mean that the implementation of the Second Amendment to the American Constitution is in jeopardy, the interpretations of the laws that regulate gun control are the main focus of the gun debate. It is estimated that there are about 270-310 million guns in civilians’ hands in the US and that thirty-seven to forty-two percent of US households have at least a gun.
The gun rights activists argue that more guns may prevent or reduce the number of deaths occurring as a result of gun violence. Although it is difficult to state statistically how many instances of mass shooting could have been prevented, the activists argue that there would have been a decrease in such instances if more citizens bore firearms and the conceal and carry policy relaxed (Kleck 54). Citing an example of a driver for the Uber taxi company who shot a rogue gun holder firing at an unarmed crowd, gun activists argue that if many more people held guns, then such incidences would reduce since rogue shooters always act on knowledge that their victims are not armed. John Lott, an economist who is pro-gun-rights, wrote a research paper citing a survey carried out in 1986; in the survey 56% of prisoners convicted of gun violence in 10 adult facilities in the US stated that they wouldn’t have shot at their victims if such victims were armed (Lott 16). In his book, “The Bias against Guns,” the economists also wrote that in states where conceal and carry policies adopted, the rate of gun violence and murder reduced. This, therefore, means that increasing gun ownership amongst the US citizens and also by relaxing conceal and carry policies, gun related deaths will reduce.
Pro-gun activists also argue that ownership of a gun for self-defense is backed by America’s Second Amendment to the Constitution. The second amendment states clearly that the citizens have rights to keep and bear arms (Klukowski 195). Four to five rulings by the Supreme Court in 2008, were in favor of the rights provided under the second amendment and to this effect, the ban on handguns in Washington D.C, which was in place for 32 good years was uplifted (Cornell 571). Lund Nelson, a professor of law at George Mason University said on behalf of Heritage Foundation that the Second Amendment to the American constitution was done while appreciating human rights to defense which comes naturally and that any laws should never disarm civilians even if they outlaw other weapons. This, therefore, means that to the pro-gun activists, the rights to bear arms is directly guaranteed and entranced in the 2nd Amendment and therefore being the supreme law of the land, the spirit of implementation of this supreme law would only mean granting the Citizenry the rights to own guns.
Pro-gun-rights activists also argue that most Americans are opposed to the idea of restricting gun ownership through laws and regulations. Citing a survey done by Quinnipiac University in September 2015 which involved asking the question on whether to have stricter laws and regulation on gun ownership; pro-gun activist groups state that most American are opposed to the imposition of strict regulations on gun ownership than ever before (Spitzer 6). They argue that there has been a shift in paradigm on the gun debate in the US with most people showing a shift of perception that guns could possibly be the answer contrary to their earlier perception that guns were the problem in gun violence. A research by Pew Research Center in the year 2014 indicated that for the first time in a period running past two decades, more citizens of the country were in support of relaxed regulations on control and carry and also advocated for more gun rights than gun control (Spitzer 6). Pro-gun activists also argue that with then gun debate becoming dominant in the national politics and showing a contest between Republicans and Democrats, there is a general feeling that Americans should be allowed to own guns. They cite 2013 Senate vote which sought to enforce more background checks on gun ownership; the proposal flopped on the floor of the house. This, therefore, means that the move is skewed towards more liberalized gun ownership regulation than restrictions on gun rights (Kleck 27).
Activists for gun rights have noted that the responsibility of protecting the citizens of America cannot be wholly left to the federal and state governments as there are never enough policemen to protect each and every American citizen. To save the situation, this group has argued that there is a need to enable individuals to give themselves personal security by allowing them to own guns. A Wall Street Journal survey could give more facts to this argument. According to the survey, it takes an average of 11 minutes for the police to respond to an emergency situation (Kleck 14); this means that at victims who are at the mercy of the police who are likely to be eleven minutes away to rescue them are likely to be more at the mercy of their attackers. However, if such victims had guns with them, then they would certainly be able to respond to any emergencies involving gun attacks on the spot. It is also important to note that different towns have different average response time within which police are likely to arrive at an emergency scene and rescue victims of gun attack.
Detroit, for example, recorded a worrying response time of 58 minutes (Kleck 16), in case of gun attacks, probably all the victims would be dead in the case of Detroit unless their attacker(s) want to hold them hostage and use them as leverage for something else. As stated by a sheriff from Arizona, the police do very little in the various normal circumstances that involve crime cases, more often than not, the police normally just come in to investigate incidences that have already happened, not to prevent them from happening. With situations like this, pro-gun activists have argued that it’s not the failure on the part of the government to provide adequate security; but it’s just rational that not every citizen can be assigned a police officer to protect them. Instead, the government can make the economically rational decision of allowing citizens of America to provide for themselves personal security by allowing them to hold guns.
With the state being responsible for licensing of gun ownership, pro-gun-rights activists have argued that gun holders are law abiding citizens since they follow the duly laid out processes and procedures to acquires such weapons (Lott 19). These activists, therefore, do not seem to see any justifiable reason why people should be restricted from owning guns if the government already has processes in place for registering and licensing gun ownership. They have argued that most of those who are licensed to hold guns know that with such ownership come a lot of responsibilities hence gun holders will only use their weapons when they know what they are doing is right, and they are ready to be taken responsible for their actions (Lott 19).
Those pro-gun-control however seem to differ with the gun right activists. They argue that data available provides evidence contrary to the argument that more guns would reduce incidences of deaths resulting from gun violence. Based on data analysis by Guardian in 2012 and also a study conducted by Small Arms Survey in the year 2007, its true that the Us doesn’t record the highest rates of crime when sampling of developed countries is done (backed by U.N survey data analyzed by Guardian), however, the US has the highest rate of homicide committed by guns, this is information emanating from an analysis of the findings of Small Arms Survey (a Swiss company) (Goss 46). This happens even as the United States is already ranked as the country with the highest rate of gun ownership in the world standing at 88.8 firearms for every sample of 100 people. The US is then followed closely by Yemen recording 54.5 guns for every 100 people sampled (Goss 46). This, therefore, means that with the US being the country with the highest number of guns per sample and also recording the highest gun related homicides in the world, then it makes no sense to argue that increasing gun ownership by relaxing regulations on gun use and ownership will reduce the rate of gun related deaths.
According to this group, there exist several disagreements amongst people in the society today, and such disagreements could really turn out to be fatal if people are allowed to bear arms. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Crime, for example, argue in support of gun control stating that in our daily encounters with people, disagreements are bound to occur between people and such disagreements could only be elevated to the level of a shoot-out if people are allowed to own guns (Spitzer 34). An incident that illustrates this is the shooting that occurred on the 13th of January 2014. The disagreement involved a policeman who was armed and the victim who wasn’t. The policeman shot the victim after they had disagreed about texting which the victim was allegedly doing while in a movie theater. Therefore, the anti-gun rights groups argue that guns are likely to elevate some petty disagreements and make them very big issues. They, therefore, feel that it would be better for people to live without guns since they will always know how to solve their difference than being given guns as they are likely to misuse the weapons.
Those is support of gun control have argued that even though the proposal to strengthen background checks carried out for those aspiring to be gun holders failed in the Senate; an overwhelming majority of Americans are in support of certain gun control laws that are key to regulating use and ownership of guns in the country (Goss 54). They argue that for example, even though the push to increase the background checks done for those who want to be gun holders flopped in the Senate, there has been a consistent increase in support doing background checks on those who want to be gun holders. These checks have been steadily supported by 90 percent of the American population hence indicating that American strongly believe that certain policies regulating gun ownership and use are important (Goss 54). The National Rifle Association has even confirmed a higher percentage of the population of American in support of background checks on gun ownership. The pro-gun control group hence argue that the flopping of the proposal to expand background checks should not be used as the center of the argument that Americans are opposed to laws that intend to regulate gun ownership.
The pro-gun control groups also argue that the fact that certain laws and regulations do not sail successfully through the Senate does not mean that there is a general disagreement with all the provisions of the legislation. For example, a majority of members in the Senate were only opposed to the proposal to expand requirements for background checks, this only meant that there was a general feeling from the floor of the House that the existing laws were just sufficient to enable the responsible authorities to carry out background checks on those who want to be licensed as gun holders in America (Cornell 42).
Also, it is noticeable that not all guns which are registered and licensed will be used for protection. It is important to note that some of the firearms used to commit crimes end up in the hands of criminals. 1982 and 2012 marked the period when the US recorded about sixty-two cases which were all declared mass shooting (Cornell 42). However, that is not the big issue, amongst these cases, forty-nine of them were carried out using weapons which were licensed meaning they were legally owned. This being the case, it would only mean that the situation could even get worse and complex with more laws to allow more guns among the civilian population. If with the current gun ownership, there are already a high number of cases of legal weapons ending up in the hand of criminals, then allowing more weapons in the civilian population would only mean more weapons in the hands of criminals.
These two groups of the gun debate have both argued on very strong points to support their position on the gun debate. However, it is very important for those who are pro-gun-rights to realize and appreciate that more weapons do not mean more security, it could also mean more insecurity. Looking at the two sides, I would support the gun control side of the debate. The uncertainties that America finds itself in when it comes to choosing to allow more guns into the general population only mean that the consequences of allowing more weapons to the general population are unknown. It would also mean that at one particular time, the likelihood of trivial matters turning into violence is very high. The state should be allowed to carry out its responsibilities and hence should be allowed to strategize on how to ensure that there is adequate security for Americans.
If the government is left with the responsibility of providing security, it would mean that less firearms are in the hand of the civilian population, it is very easy to control the citizens even it times of unrests and resistance. The conceal and carry gun policy should also be made more strict so that it does not land more and more guns into the hands of individuals. After all, the conceal and carry policy does not change anything apart from trying to ensure that a gun or weapon it is hidden from others, the gun can still be used to kill. With more guns in the country, there is a likelihood that militia groups would take advantage of the situation and rise against the incumbent government. A government should be able to provide the necessary security for its citizens, giving more guns to the masses would not improve the security situations in the country. It could instead, lead to more insecurity and increase in the rate of crime.
References
Spitzer, Robert J. Politics of gun control. Routledge, 2015.
Lott, John R. More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws. University of Chicago Press, 2013.
Squires, Peter. Gun Culture Or Gun Control?: Firearms and Violence: Safety and Society. Routledge, 2012.
Kleck, Gary. "Mass shootings in schools: The worst possible case for gun control." American Behavioral Scientist (2009).
Klukowski, Kenneth A. "Citizen Gun Rights: Incorporating the Second Amendment Through the Privileges or Immunities Clause." New Mexico Law Review 39 (2009): 195.
Goss, Kristin A. Disarmed: The missing movement for gun control in America. Princeton University Press, 2010.
Cornell, Saul. A well-regulated militia: the founding fathers and the origins of gun control in America. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Cornell, Saul. "Early American Origins of the Modern Gun Control Debate: The Right to Bear Arms, Firearms Regulations, and the Lessons of History, The." Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 17 (2006): 571.
