Our goal here is to persuade me about why you support the efforts on gun control. Also why the other side arguments are wrong about gun control
Gun control is any rule, law or doctrine the limits the usage, sale, manufacture, importation and exportation of fire arms. It a part of the greater policy of arms control that seeks to control the movement and manufacture of arms which include not only guns but also explosives like bombs, grenades and other weapons of mass destruction. This is a policy that is to be implemented around the world but different countries have different views on the issues (Wellford, p67). In short, gun and arms control is a relative policy in different countries all over the world.
There are some countries that are completely strict on the issue for instance the United Kingdom, they completely do not allow possession and sale of guns especially to non law enforcers, the United States are liberal about the issue as people have possess guns for their own security purpose however they are is a protocol to be followed when acquiring a gun. This means that any gun that is in possession of a citizen in America is known. Some other countries that are war tone have a difficult time implementing this policy given the fact that everybody owns a gun. These countries are like Afghanistan, Syria and Somalia in Africa (Branas, p55).
The reasons as why the gun control policy should be implemented goes way back to 1800, immediately after the American Civil War that led to the end of slavery under the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Immediately after the war the states that had earlier on insisted on slavery implemented the black codes. These codes prohibited the black Americans from the possession of guns (Branas, p89). These black codes were discriminatory and in 1867 there was the implementation of the fourteenth amendment that led to the abolishment of these black codes. Immediately after this abolishment most states decided to set high tax rates on guns and arms in order to reduce the race based killings that were popular at that time. Most of the slaves who were freed were allowed to go to towns and centres and in these centres people would get drunk and since then most owned guns they would shoot to kill or at least injure. This led to guns being too expensive and most people could not afford to buy them. This was the beginning of the general gun policy in the United States. This is because it was a way of restricting the possession and sale of guns at a non discriminatory base that cut equally across the board. This did indeed reduce the ownership of guns back in 1870.
There are many arguments for and against the gun policy implementation. Those who argue for it state that according to the National research council review, their findings state that the higher the level of ownership of household firearms, mostly guns, the higher the rates of crime (Killias, p78). This is because people who have guns can easily commit homicide and suicide because they have the weapons easily at their disposal. A study by Martin Killias, which he conducted on over twenty one countries all over the world, both developed and developing, states that there is a correlation between the ownership of guns and the prevalence of crimes in crimes in the society (Killias, p80).
This is true because if you put a gun in the hands of someone who would not ordinarily commit crime, they would commit these crimes. The only thing that can make a country to come falling down and to crumble is lack of peace. This is because peace is required in every aspect of the human life, commercial activities cannot be conducted in a non peaceful environment, and this also applies to social, political and religious activities. This means that any factor that is suspected to come in the way of having a peaceful environment should be controlled. The gun control policy does not state that nobody should own a personal gun, but it states that anybody who owns a personal gun is to have a legitimate reason and have a licence for it (Chapman, p112). This means that only the government and its agencies will be allowed to trade in these arms. The person should be trained so that to avoid bringing harm to oneself or to others in the public.
Gun control also states that it is indeed a crime for a person to be in the possession of a gun without proper licences for it. This is because some people may be in the possession of a gun for all the wrong reasons. The gun policy in today’s generation started due to over occurrences in the crime rates like the massacres where people just open fire to other un armed due to differences in beliefs and opinions.
Those who argue against the policy state that people need to be given the right to arm themselves for protection when danger strikes and that the once the policy is implemented the good citizens will comply and fail to get guns while the criminals will get them illegally and will comfortably harm the public because they will be unarmed. Gun control has not been fully implemented in America because of these disagreements and the issue has also been so much politicised and people forget that this is not about politics it is about lives (Mouzos, p34). If everyone is given the right to own a gun then people will need the least provocation and all will remove their guns and start firing and injure or even kill people.
If we want a safe and crime free environment, it all starts with me as an individual. If i want to own a gun because my neighbour owns one and I fear he may use it on me then that is wanting a gun for all the wrong reasons. This is because as much as i believe that my neighbour having a gun is a threat to me so is my having a gun a threat to him and the other neighbour as well. We should all embrace peace within ourselves and where we live as well. A famous man once said that those who have something to hide will be the first to erect high walls, big gates and put fierce dogs to guard them, then, it goes without saying that those who want to own guns have intentions of one day using it on someone.
As Americans we should believe in the ability and capability of the police force. These are people who have been trained to do nothing else but protect and safeguard the citizens. These are men and women who have agreed to put their lives on the line to protect people and because of that they have undergone various training sessions and endured tough times. As a citizen of this great nation I should allow them to do their work. I should not take away their duties and responsibility and arm myself with a gun that in the event of a crime and I remove it may be used against me.
Many studies and claims are against the implementation of the gun control policy; this is because they believe that people should be allowed to own guns. First of all the National Research Council, had clearly stated that this is a sensitive issue that people do not gladly answer questions pertaining to ownership of arms and this makes collection of data difficult. This makes people not to easily believe their results after they have conducted their research. This may be true but when it comes to research every issue has some level of sensitivity and people will not out rightly talk about it (Baker, p55). Let us take the example of income in blue collar jobs that cannot be traced back to the government receipts, people do research on it yet not everyone is willing to declare to a researcher their true income. This goes to show that sensitivity does not prevent coming up with and concrete and concise findings, it may pose as a challenge but challenges make us better and more innovative.
According to scholars such as John Lott, who is an economists who wrote the famous book entitled more guns; less crimes, states that if more people are allowed to carry guns then robbers and thugs will not attack someone at random because they do not know whether they are armed or not. This is one way of looking at it; crimes may reduce in that area by a specific margin but it will increase in another area by a substantially greater margin. This is in the essence that human beings psychologically feel empowered when armed and this will lead to people not fearing and evading violence, they will in fact go looking for it so that they can be able to use it.
Another great scholar from the University of Chicago, Steven Levitt, argues that there is actually no policy involving guns that can be implemented to reduce the prevalence of crimes in the society. In real sense he purports whether the government decides to control te ownership and sales of arms or to leave it in the hands of the public so that anybody who wants a gun can own one, that does not matter because they have no real effect on the crime rate (Wang-Sheng, p12). This is indeed from the study of a small population in Chicago and cannot be compared with findings from researches that have been conducted in many countries that have proved otherwise. In research one thing that always stand to be true is that when you work with a small sample or population one is likely to get wrong findings because they will be strictly biased on the culture and beliefs of the people, these are irrelevant factors that should not be part of a research that is not focusing on those factors.
Let us take a realistic look at the effects of people easily having access to guns. The one occurrence that is still fresh in the minds of all Americans is the incident where a young school boy who was going through typical teenage and adolescent issues went with a gun to school and opened fire to other boys and their friends because in his head he believed that they were looking down on him. Upon being questioned, he did not wish to kill or to harm anybody he simply wanted to make a point, he wanted to be seen and felt and to stop being invincible to the girls. This is something that could have easily been avoided if and only if there were more strict policies on the possession of guns especially by the under age.
Let us take the situation whereby most students had guns in that school, then they would have completely ruined the school and killed a greater population in the school. This is what we do not want, instead we want schools to be places where all students are safe and there is no need for parents to worry themselves about it. Schools should be places where children go to get empowered with knowledge and great details on how to improve their lives and not places where they stand the chance of dying because a politician somewhere deems it fit to put a gun in the hands of any person who wants it. This also brings fear to the carrier of being a teacher; this is because all teachers would like to work in a safe environment.
Increase in possession of guns also increases carjacking and the stealing from shopping stalls and minimarkets. This is very prevalent in neighbourhoods where people can easily get guns (Mouzos, p90). This can lead to shutting down of shops and people suffering economically. This is because young men will easily acquire guns and decide to get easy money by robbing people in the process the breadwinners of many families will be killed and many will be left to suffer.
Increase in possession of fire arms can also lead to deviant behaviours that may eventually threaten the authority of the government. Let us take a look at the war tone countries and first on the list is Syria in the Middle East. It was easy to control the people when all the government was dealing with was the unarmed public. But since members of the army who made arms easily available to the public the war has gone on for more than two years and is still going on with no visions of it coming to an end (Baker, p94). The result of this has been the decline of all public sectors, many people have been left seriously injured and hungry while many have died in the process. This is still the case for Somalia in Africa. It is not even known when they are planning on settling down and have their own government because they do not believe in the authority of the police nor the government because they are all armed.
The most common result of possession of guns is the formation of cults that will be properly and seriously armed. These cults will force people to join them and if not they will be killed. This leads to brutal governance because the law enforcers will be sure that any time people can pull out their guns and start shooting them. This will also make the law enforcement officers not to do their work properly out of fear of what is more likely to occur while in the line of duty.
Controlling gun possessions also prevents people from taking laws into their own hands. This is because people when wronged usually have the urge to revenge for themselves as at times they view the law system as too long and tedious and at times too expensive. If people are all armed with guns and one happens to shoot the other there will be no need to inform the law enforcers, out of anger people will simply revenge and this cycle will go on and on and may have no end (Wang-Sheng, p77). But if we make sure people do not possess guns easily this can be prevented and the law can be allowed to rule and guide the society. This is because the law is not only there to protect people but also to regulate the behaviours of the people. Obeying the laws of a land means respecting the constitution of that land, the ultimate goal of any constitution is to protect and safeguard the rights of the people.
The fact that not everybody who will be in possession of a firearm will be properly trained on how to use it is also another reason to limit the availability (Chapman, p118). This is because without any bad intentions one can cause harm to people around him and even to himself and instead of being protected when carrying a gun one will be in even more danger. This is because there are even cases where the weapon of the victim are used against them because they were attacked by thugs and criminals who were much stronger and skilful than them.
At the end of the day, it really does not matter on which side of the debate one falls the end argument is that everybody wants to have peace and to feel protected in their country. This is because nobody wants to hurt the other; everyone wants to go on with their lives without worrying about what might happen. The truth is that one cannot finish fire with fire because nothing will be left but ashes. We cannot fight the possibility of criminals being in possession of guns by offering the potential victims with guns as well. What kind of a message will we be sending to the next generation? That we prefer to react to issues rather than respond to them?
We should know that guns are meant for people who are mandated with that responsibility of protecting us and when proved as per the laws they are allowed to shoot. Since what everybody want is peace and security, then that is not found in a gun. It all starts with you and me. A person and their neighbour, we should all prevent crime by sensitizing people on the effects of crime and that it does not pay and if it does nobody likes the rewards. Let us embrace peace and mobilize everybody else to do the same because my society and what it is made of, is not the consequence of anybody else except me and what I do daily.
Works Cited
Wellford, Charles F.; Pepper, John V.; Petrie, Carol V. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. (2004). The National Academies Press. ISBN 9780309091244.
Branas, Charles; Therese Richmond, Dennis P. Culhane, Thomas R. Ten Have and Douglas J. Wiebe (November 2009)."Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault". Am J Public Health 99 (11): 2034–2040.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099. Retrieved 25 January 2013.
Martin Killias (1993). "Gun Ownership, Suicide and Homicide: An International Perspective" (PDF). Archived from the original on January 7, 2008. Retrieved 2008-01-16. Ozanne-Smith, J; , K Ashby, S Newstead, V Z Stathakis and A Clapperton. "Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform". Prevention 2004;10:280-286.
Chapman, S; , Alpers, P., Agho, K. and Jones, M. "Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings". Injury Prevention 2006; 12:365-372.
Mouzos, Jenny; & Reuter, P (2002). In Ludwig J & Cook PJ .Australia: a massive buyback of low-risk guns. Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence. The Brookings Institution, Washington.
Baker, Jeanine; & Mc Phedran, Samara "Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?". British Journal of Criminology (3): 455, (2006-10-18). .
Lee, Wang-Sheng; & Suardi, Sandy "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 17/08 (Melbourne Institute, (2008-8).
