The subject of gun control is one that has elicited mixed feelings especially on those individuals who argue for increased gun control. While there is no doubt that there is increased levels of criminal activities that range from the school shooting to someone getting murdered daily, this calls for the question of whether stricter gun controls could save more lives. The American constitution gives its citizens the right to own handguns; however, this paper maintains the premise that the primary cause of gun violence is not the presence of guns in the society, but the individuals who use them for their ill intentions. Clearly, the role of the policymakers is to protect the citizens by coming up with legislation that restricts the ownership of guns. However, others believe that coming up with such laws cannot reduce such violence but would escalate their likelihood. The purchase of firearms in the United States is a right protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S constitution and thus coming up with stricter laws and licensing cannot in any way efficiently save lives.
Blanket Gun Control is Illegal
In the contemporary American society, the subject of gun control is marred with a myriad of myths and debates over the meaning of the second amendment that gives every American citizen the right to the ownership of guns (Cornell and DeDino 454). Indeed, the discussion of the second amendment ends up pitting the supporters of the individual right to gun ownership against those that believe the American bill of rights only protects the right of the people to maintain a well-regulated militia. The supporters of the individual rights understand that coming up with restrictions on gun ownership is necessary and this should be met with very high standards of constitutional scrutiny. In retrospective, the opponents of gun ownership believe that the second amendment does not guarantee the right to the possession of guns and carry weapons and thus individual ownership is not a right protected by the second amendment of the US Constitution (Cornell and DeDino 454).
Evidently, it is clear that the opponents and the proponents of gun control stand to sway the public opinion by coming up with facts, reasoning, and figures. Based on this facts and figures, people draw battle lines from where they debate the necessity for the regulations on the possession of firearms. In a study conducted by American Journal of Public Health to study the relationship between gun ownership and homicides rates, the investigation revealed that an increase in gun ownership led to a direct increase in related homicide. Indeed, the presence of such data can lead to opponents of gun ownership to formulate their evaluations based on the prevailing data (Siegel, Ross and King 4). It is imperative to note, that gun ownership is not the only factor in determining the outcome of the homicide rate and other factors have a role to play. In another separate study that adopts the anti-gun control point of view, the article differs from the previous piece as it analyzes the evidence from an international perspective rather than interstate aspect in the United States (Kates and Mauser 653). Nonetheless, the lessons learned and the correlations drawn are relatable to the current gun control in the United States. In looking at this opposing academic studies that analyze statistics through similar means yet drawing opposing conclusions, there is the conclusion that even in the realm of academia, the opponent vs. proponent argument sole aim is to sway the public opinion.
In a utopian society, the argument that the mere restriction of guns can end crime rates in the United States can come to reason. However, this is not the case in reality as those individuals that have an intent in carrying out their actions to enable them to achieve their desired results can go beyond the boundaries of the law to ensure the success of their efforts. For example, in the United States of America, there exists regulations and bans on the illegal use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ecstasy. However, the banning of this substances has not led to a considerable decline in the number of arrests made and those victims of the overdose of this substances. Based on this, then by the logic presented by this example, it is imperative to claim that the simple banning of a substance in a given society, does not necessarily lead to a reduction in its use.
The Second Amendment and Gun Control
The second amendment to the US constitution provides a lee-way for gun politics to thrive. Indeed, the modern debates about the second amendment that states "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" focuses on the individual rights to keep arms or the right that can be exercised through militia organizations, for example, the National Guard (Lund and Winkler). Since its inception in the year 1971, there have existed many controversies surrounding the second amendment with the wording eliciting debate among the various circles. First, the proponents of the second amendment highlight “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” denotes the individual right protected by the US constitution. However, the second amendment only applied to the federal government, and this left the states to regulate the weapons as they saw fit. Second, the phrase “a well-regulated militia” remains controversial as both the opponents and proponents of gun control differs on the meaning of the term militia (Lund and Winkler).
However, the Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v Heller (2008) invalidated these controversies surrounding gun control in a 5-4 majority rule (Lund and Winkler). In the decision, the Supreme Court argued that the language and history of the second amendment indicated its protection of the right of individuals to have arms for their self-defense and not a right of the states to have a militia. Nevertheless, many people have dissented with the views adopted by the court, and they argue that if the second amendment gave an individual right to gun ownership for purposes of self-defense, then this could also be interpreted to mean that the government could also ban the ownership of guns in high-crime areas in the US. Yet, such an argument fails to understand that the 14th amendment of the US constitution prevents the state from infringing on the individual rights that are also protected by the second amendment (Lund and Winkler).
Arguably, the gun control debate will continue to escalate as much has changed since 1971. For example, during the inception of the second amendment, the civilians kept at home the same weapons that they needed if called to serve in the militia (Lund and Winkler). However, presently, the modern soldiers have weapons that differ from those thought appropriate for civilian use. Further, the civilians are no longer expected to use their guns for militia duty, although they keep such weapons to defend themselves from criminals as well as for hunting.
Recommendations
While restricting the use of guns cannot guarantee the end in gun violence, one of the best approaches is to zero in on the small numbers of high-risk individuals that use guns to harm themselves. The United States policymakers can achieve this by coming up with sensible gun laws that can reduce the ease of access to the dangerous weapons. Further, in a country having a tradition of access to guns, then it is upon the government to come up with means of establishing a culture of gun safety. According to "Prevention Institute", the United States can achieve this by first, reducing the access to guns by the youths and those individuals that are at risk of harming themselves and others. Second, the United States Congress can start holding the gun industry accountable for ensuring they come up with laws, which guarantee oversight in the marketing of guns and ammunition. Third, the selling of firearms and ammunition should be done by responsible gun dealers and owners who can insist on the mandatory training and licensing gun owners ("Prevention Institute").
Conclusion
Bearing in mind arguments posed by both sides, this paper maintains the premise that it is not the presence of guns in the society that determines the violence that they carry out; instead, the quality of the character of those individuals who possess the firearms is a determinant. Because of this, the banning and the restricting of gun ownership in the United States from the law abiding citizens cannot offer any significant benefits instead, this would shift the percentage of non-firearm related murders by the same violent individuals. Therefore, concentrating on the high-risk individuals that use guns to harm themselves and others can reduce the instances of gun-related violence.
Works Cited
Cornell, Saul, and Nathan DeDino. "A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins Of Gun Control." The American Journal of Legal History 73.2 (2004): 454. Web.
Kates, Don B., and Gary A. Mauser. "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder And Suicide? A Review of International Evidence." SSRN Electronic Journal 30.2 (2006): 650-694. Web.
Lund, Nelson, and Adam Winkler. "The 2Nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." National Constitution Center – The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. N.p., 2018. Web. 8 May 2018.
"Prevention Institute." Preventioninstitute.org. N.p., 2018. Web. 8 May 2018.
Siegel, Michael, Craig S. Ross, and Charles King. "The Relationship between Gun Ownership and Stranger and Nonstranger Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010." American Journal of Public Health 104.10 (2014): 1912-1919. Web.
