The gratification that individuals can have in a society depends on their ability to protect their own lives from harm or surety that their lives are safe. This explains why Americans strive for financial security because it directly influences their capacity to protect their own lives (Roth 699). Having money makes it easier to access weapons such as guns that may go a long way in helping to protect the lives of individuals, their loved ones, and fellow citizens.
However, in a society where citizen’s right to life is curtailed by stringent laws, such as those that deter ownership of guns, it poses a great danger to their lives. This is because it leads to increased loss of life and property, especially in situations where relevant authorities are not in a position to quickly respond to emergencies.
As a result, governments should avoid such situations by allowing their citizens to seek protection for themselves in situations where authorities cannot appropriately respond. However, this should be guided by appropriate laws that seek to regulate, and not limit people’s right to self defense, in situations when their lives are threatened (Ludwig 363). The government should respect the citizen’s right to bear concealed arms because it boosts safety in their homes and their surroundings’ (Lott 200).
American independence in the late eighteenth century gratified wishes of the American people of having the right to life. The second amendment to the United States constitution in 1791 provided for a bill of rights, which protected the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms (Webster and Vernick 252). However, this right is a subject of debate by modern scholars.
The second amendment granted citizens the right to keep and bear arms because it was important for the citizens to participate in law enforcement. This helped to avoid unnecessary deaths and injuries that were avoidable if citizens carried guns. Moreover, this amendment ensured that no room was created for tyrannical governments, and citizens were safe from invasion, because they had the capacity to resist. This helped to maintain a free state where citizens could organize themselves into militias and deter such governments from seizing power.
Many constitutions of the world outlined a bill of rights that gave citizens an inalienable right to life. However, this right had its limitations that gave citizens a chance to fight for their lives. The right of citizens to keep and bear arms should be respected because guns assist them in self defense from death or injuries that may be sustained from an aggressor or intruders in their abode (Lott 179). It is wrong to insist that gun ownership increases homicidal tendencies among its owners (Kleck and Hogan 273). The right to carry concealed weapons also reduces crime rates because it increases the risk of attacking people especially if they are armed (Lott 226). Shifting the world is leading us to a society where security has become a personal issue, and individuals would go to a greater extent to protect themselves, and their loved ones from unwarranted death or injury.
Even though the proponents of stringent gun laws acknowledge the second amendment of the American constitution granting gun ownership rights to citizens, they call for stricter laws to regulate the use of these weapons. Statistics from the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that 31,672 people died from guns in 2010. Even though statistics show an increase in gun deaths over time, the debate about ownership of guns has shifted. The current debate is about how the government can ensure that citizens store and use their guns safely (Webster and Vernick 30).
In addition to the 31,672 killed by guns in 2010, another additional 73,505 were treated in hospital emergency rooms for nonfatal bullet wounds while 337,960 non violent crimes were committed with guns. Moreover, 61 percent of total deaths were suicides, and a majority were homicides by people who know each other (Webster and Vernick 32).
However, many of these cases occur as a result of self defense or in situations where the aggressor or an intruder possesses a gun, and randomly kills innocent individuals. If people are allowed to own guns, both incidences are greatly reduced. In addition, the debate about restricting gun ownership cannot be defeated on the basis of mental incapacitation because injuries, and fatalities related to firearm violence are rare in mentally ill individuals (Webster and Vernick 63).
However, gun ownership does not inevitably lead to increase in crime rates or death rates in America. The lack of harmony between gun ownership laws, and gun control laws make it difficult for the government to effectively control gun use. This leads to lack of comprehensive background checks on individuals before the issue of guns, increased gun trafficking to individuals and criminals due to poor firearm sale laws (Webster and Vernick 139).
The phenomenal changes in America have led to major concerns among citizens about their safety, and the capacity of the government to adequately cater for their security needs. Even though the second amendment to the American Constitution gives citizens an inalienable right to bear guns, the increase in firearm violence has led to many injuries, and in many occasions such violence has been fatal. Historically, gun ownership predated the American constitution but in contemporary America, it has been a subject of debate among scholars. Both proponents and opponents agree that it is a constitutional right, but also disagree on the level of restrictions that both levels of government should impose to ensure proper storage and use of guns. Therefore, gun ownership should be a requirement to boost safety, and because it is backed by the constitution.
Works Cited
Kleck, Gary and Hogan, Michael. National Case-Control Study of Homicide Offending and Gun
Ownership: Social Problems.Vol 46 No. 2 (May 1999).
Lott, R. John. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago:
Here, Lott argues for the proliferation of guns among American citizens because it reduces violent crime and other firearm related violence. From statistical studies, he purports that citizens can live in safety if gun acquisition is harmonized with existing gun laws.
Ludwig, Jens. Gun, Self-defense and Deterrence. Crime and justice Vol 27 (2000) pp 363-417.
Ludwig underscores that even though defensive gun use remains minimal, it is necessary to consider appropriate gun policies that allow gun acquisition and carry because it has been found to reduce crime rates, and firearm related injury.
Roth, Randolf. Counting Guns: What Social Science Historians Know and Could Learn about
Gun Ownership, Gun Culture, and Gun Violence in the United States: Journal of Social
Science History. Vol 26 No. 4 (2002).
Webster, W. Daniel, and Vernick, S. Jon. Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy
with Evidence and Analysis. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2013.
