The debate on gun control has remained a controversial issue since the introduction and ultimate promulgation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 by the Federal Government of USA. The rift between those who oppose gun control and those who advocate for is ever-widening. A critical dissection of the discourse indicates that a certain faction of the populace feels that ownership of firearms is a positive that ought to be protected at all costs. However, another cadre feels that only law enforcement agents and competent members of the public should be allowed to own guns and that more stringent legislations should be promulgated in a bid to regulate ownership of firearms. The following are arguments that have been propounded by diverse interest groups in supporting and controverting the contentious issue.
The Brandy Campaign is a lobby group organization that ascribes to the philosophy that, if the ownership of guns would be controlled, the American Society would be safer as the number of deaths and tragic injuries attributed to guns would significantly reduce. The group strongly opines that comprehensive and stringent gun control laws and policies would ensure that more Americans are safer in their homes, workplace, learning institutions and within their local communities. The organization’s ultimate desire is that by the year 2025, the number of firearm deaths should be halved from the current annual figure of 32,000 by ensuring firearms are left in the hands of competent, law-abiding citizens who have become of age.
The gist of argument advanced by Brandy Campaign is to the effect that by pushing for stringent gun control policies a number of positive outcomes would be achieved. The policies should stipulate the prohibition of unfit persons such as convicted felons from owning guns, a downright deterrence of individuals from owning multiple firearms, a requirement that prospective gun owners should be subjected to a background test which they have to pass before owning a firearm and that any firearm that has the potency to perpetrate military style violence should be banned completely.
Further, the lobby posits that buying of guns from showrooms should be banned as it negates all the fundamental prerequisites of ensuring only fit and competent individuals own firearms. Essentially, their argument is that if the federal and state governments can ensure that firearms especially those of a lethal nature don’t land in the wrong hands and if the citizenry can be subjected to proper training before being conferred a firearm licenses, safety of all Americans would be guaranteed and less accidental and unprecedented firearm deaths would occur.
On the flipside, the National Rifle Association formed in the year 1871 has a diverse outlook of the issue. The association believes that the second amendment of the USA constitution of 1791 which provides and accentuates the right to bear and to keep firearms as a measure of self-defense should be jealously preserved. Since the 1930s, the association has been on the forefront in raising awareness on any bills by congress that seeks to bolster or whittle down the right to bear and keep firearms. Their core argument has been that the right to own firearms should be liberalized rather than limited. As such, the association has been advocating for the reinforcement of the second amendment while providing information on how to safely and competently own and use a firearm.
Works Cited
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Retrieved from:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/about-brady
Mausa, Tauriq. Two Important Arguments from Both Sides of the Gun Debate. Big Think.
15 April. 2015. Web. 20 April. 2016.
National Rifle Association: NRA-ILA Politics and Legislative News: Retrieved from:
https://home.nra.org/
