Gun Control: A Controversial and Complex Issue
Following the recent rise in the gun-related random acts of violence and fatalities caused by firearms in the United States, the gun control issue has become one of the most controversial subjects of social, political and cultural interest. Gun control refers to the laws governing the manufacture, modification, possession, sale and use of firearms, for example, rifles and handguns. With over one-third of American citizens possessing a firearm, the enforcement of various regulations and requirements of gun ownership have sparked a great debate. In 2012, for example, it is stated that 58 percent of Americans would favor the enactment of stronger gun control regulations related to the sale of weapons (Cooper 342). Also, over 50 percent of citizens were not satisfied with the manner in which gun control policies and laws were executed in the country. Around 24 percent in 2011 would consider stricter laws on gun control to be the most fundamental avenue to reduce and avert the reoccurrence of mass shooting incidences in the United States (Cooper 343). The interpretation of the constitutional right to own and bear arms has had a lasting impact on the structuring and understanding of the Second Amendment. Just like in the past, today, the issue coming out is the balance between the authority and obligation of the government to protect the nation and the people not only from foreign attacks or invasion, but also from violence among its citizens, and the law-abiding citizens’ ability to exercise self-defense with a firearm as stipulated in the Constitution. The issue is divisive and complicated in the sense that while Americans generally consent that some measures need to be undertaken in response to the rising gun-related violence, many—often passionately—disagree on what exactly has to be done and the way to it. However, the proposed solution is not to ban guns, but to consider enhanced education on proper use of guns and gun violence, instill cohesion among different ethnic communities, coupled with proper mental screening and support.
Gun Control and Misuse of Firearms
Some people believe that gun control would be the most effective policy to limit gun violence in the United States. An insider’s view in the article Anti-Gun Protest: Elders, Time to Listen and to Act, in The New York Times forms an opinion based on the recent gun shootings especially in schools. He holds that firearms are risky and unsafe due to the misuse of firearms (Stafford). Today, guns are owned by people with no idea on how and when to use it. People can cause accidents with their firearms when they have no idea on how to use their firearms or when involved in a fight. These people will then go on to discuss their constitutional and legal rights of owning a gun. They assume they will be able to pick up their firearm while under duress and defend themselves when there is a need to do so. As a result of firearms misuse, there are rising cases of gun-related domestic violence and shooting the wrong people (Stafford). In this regard, individuals’ safety has been polarized and undermined due to the right to own and bear arms.
Proponents of Gun Control for Public Safety
Proponents of gun control are concerned about the high levels of violence committed with guns in the United States and call for firm restrictions as a way to reduce violence. Gun control activists suppose that gun rights result in higher suicide crimes and other adverse outcomes and hence the strict enforcement of the gun control laws would reduce crime and consequently save human lives. Even though some individuals support gun rights, they also acknowledge that certain people must not be permitted to possess or even gain access to firearms (Cook and Goss 36). The rationale is that, a weapon in the wrong hands is a potentially deadly risk to innocent bystanders. Cook and Goss elucidate that the risk of having firearms in the wrong hands presents negative externalities that call for increased government regulation (p. 36). Although the current federal gun control laws prevent mentally ill individuals, children and criminals from owning guns, there are instances where gunmen and young people have acquired firearms and utilized them to commit mass murders. The shooting in Newtown at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, and the mass shooting in a movie theater in Colorado include some instances where private gun ownership has served to increase bloodshed rather than promoting self-defense (Cooper 339). The Connecticut shooting, was another malicious gun violence incidence which claimed the lives of about 20 children. Other victims of gun violence include those who were involved in the Columbine High School killings and Virginia Tech mass shootings, among other gun-related killings (Spitzer 72). To gun control proponents, such mass shooting realities indicate why stricter gun control laws are necessary.
Limitations of Gun Control and the Importance of Self-Defense
Nonetheless, weapon control cannot prevent firearm brutality. It is alleged that in countries such as Russia where citizens are not allowed to possess guns, gun-related violent crimes are more than in the United States (Spitzer 79). Therefore, gun control laws are proven futile in reducing crimes. The main reason for possessing a gun is for self-defense. As such, if gun ownership is made illegal, gangsters and other criminals will be the only ones owning guns, thus leaving the other population defenseless. It is important to note that while the gun control policy has been more of a legislative matter and a regulatory measure that aim at limiting access to guns, striving toward reducing the type and number of people eligible to possess firearms and regulate the type of guns owned, manufactured, or carried (Cooper 358), people who wish to commit violence with guns develop a tendency of ignoring such laws. In this regard, they will acquire guns through other illegal means despite stricter gun laws. In any case, guns do not kill people, but individuals do. In this regard, we need strong, commonsense gun laws, but through preventive solutions. What is evident is that the issue of gun control and gun violence is a complex matter that would require a proactive, multifaceted solution and/or approach (Cooper 379). However, the solution is not enforcing strict gun control laws as such approaches are more reactive than they are proactive.
The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right
Americans should be allowed to bear arms. Americans have the right to own guns, and gun control laws would be violating the rights bestowed upon the American citizens within the Constitution. Minimal gun restriction allows adequate means for self-defense, and a wider distribution of firearms leads to safer communities. Strict gun control would breach the Second Amendment, which assures Americans the right to bear and keep firearms. In a sense, well-armed citizens are able to defend themselves from armed criminals and if civilian ownership of firearms is banned, the rate of crime would increase as law-abiding citizens would be susceptible to individuals who choose to disregard the law (Tunick 52). It may appear clear what the writers of the Constitution of the United States wanted to achieve when they developed and included the 2nd
The Supreme Court's Interpretation of the Second Amendment
Amendment that reads, “a well-controlled Militia, being necessary for the free State’s security, the right of individuals to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (as cited in Cooper 338). This constitutional right has always been upheld by United States Supreme Court in various cases that have come before it.
Through some clarification and interpretation of the issue of gun control, the Supreme Court has provided that the right of the American Citizens to keep and bear firearms is an individual right that applies to all Americans (Blocher 813), distinguished and separate from a military context. Furthermore, the Court has expressed that self-defense is the core and the ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment. While the right to own a firearm is not a right to bear and carry any riffle whatsoever in any manner and for whatever purpose, in the Supreme Court’s majority decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller, for example, it was emphasized that the federal legislation cannot control such rights (Blocher 814). Controlling those rights to a degree that arbitrarily violates and infringes upon the law-abiding citizens’ ability to keep and bear guns for the sake of self-defense is unconstitutional. Although Americans generally believe that some measures need to be undertaken in response to the increasing cases of gun violence, gun control would increase the susceptibility of Americans to crime and terror orchestrated by those who acquire firearms illegally.
The Importance of Self-Defense and Individual Rights
Finally, a weapon is necessary to protect oneself. Overwhelmingly a large number of citizens in the United States need guns for self-defense to enhance the protection of their families and homes, as well as the safety of a free state. Possessing a gun allows law-abiding citizens to be protective of their individual rights against government oppression and any defiance or violation of those rights by their fellow citizens (Tunick 53). Most importantly, citizens would utilize a weapon to prevent injury or death. In a sense, guns would symbolize martial virtue and physical prowess, honoring individual self-sufficiency and honorable concession of public safety. For instance, in the event of mass shooting where children and minors are involved, private gun owners can utilize their weapons to gun down the criminal and prevent further injury and death. Indeed, without the Congress and state government’s authority to take charge of its people, especially for the sake of the nation’s security, each would gain the power of abusing the neighbor by taking each other’s liberty, life, and property (Tunick 54). In this regard, individuals would not command more than their strengths to prevent the invasion. Through the Bill of Rights, citizens are protected from the arbitrary denial of their lives, liberties, and properties by the government. Therefore, it is generally believed that gun control would make it harder for law-abiding citizens and potential victims of invasion to defend themselves against violent predation.
The Complexity of the Gun Control Issue
Overall, the gun control issue is a complicated one because the government is torn between apprehending gun offenders and protecting the public from acts of gun-related violence, and allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns for the purpose of self-defense. Constitutionally, controlling individual rights to an extent that arbitrarily violates the ability of virtuous citizens to own firearms for the sake of their self-preservation is deemed illegal. The right to bear arms is an unalienable right and the government has no discretion to take it away. All citizens have the right to protect themselves, and their families and property. What is evident is that gun laws that restrict the use of guns do not help law abiding citizens. Such laws only take away the ability of each citizen to defend themselves, making ordinary citizens helpless against criminals. Gun control would only create the illusion that society is safe, though does not solve the root cause of crime. However, in the wake of the current mass shooting events, an immediate action is required to control guns from falling into the wrong hands. As the country currently focuses on the constitutional causes, connections, and cures of the political dysfunction in the United States, non-reactionary approaches permit more reasonable solutions to gun violence, other than resorting to stricter gun control laws. Perhaps, disarming all citizens may not help, but tolerance and sobriety among citizens and gun education is necessary.
Works Cited
Blocher, Joseph. “Gun Rights Talk.” Boston University Law Review 94.3 (2014): 813-833.
Cook, Philip J., and Kristin A. Goss. The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know?. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Cooper, Alexander C. "Fully Loaded: An Alternative View of the Gun Control Debate." Albany Government Law Review 8.1 (2015): 337-380.
Spitzer, Robert J. Politics of Gun Control. Routledge, 2015.
Stafford, John E. Anti-Gun Protest: Elders, Time to Listen and to Act. The New York Times, 15 March 2018, https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/opinion/guns-protest-parkland.html. Accessed 21 March 2018.
Tunick, Mark. "John Locke and the Right to Bear Arms." History of Political Thought 35.1 (2014): 50-69.
