There are roughly eighty-eight firearms for each one-hundred persons in America that is almost 270,000,000 artilleries and the most noteworthy summation and individual scale worldwide. That is to say, approximately 22% of the United States’ nationals do own a single or multiple guns of which 35% are males, and 12% females, which are as per the 2011’s research carried out by the Small Arms Study. The firearms tenure background in the United States arises partially from the colonial association, state line annex, and almost all considerably, the Second Amendment. The amendment affirms that there should be non-infringement whatsoever on the inhabitants’ right to retain and carry shooters as a pertinently standardized citizen army is fundamental to the sanctuary of a Free Nation.
The division of the American citizens has become so apprehensive for their safety in a country where the majority of individuals walks around with firearms and can decide any time to harm others. The assessment of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is that roughly 114,994 inhabitants perish due to shootings in the U.S. and are comprehensive of the law enforcement incursion, physical public attacks, suicides, and mishaps (Deutsche Welle p.3). The gun violence has become the most prevalent form of the misdemeanor in the United States that happen regularly, and the attribution is on the easy accessibility of the firearms by the public. Even though various endeavors are in place to fight gun violence in the United States, still, such offenses are rampant, and the churches, schools, and even recreational centers are often under attack by shooters something that has presently led to the public panic and divided opinions among individuals. The paper, for that case, discusses why there should be gun control in the United States. Moreover, the part of the discussion dwells on the rationales as to why there should be no firearm management in America.
Why there should be Gun Control in the United States
- More Guns leads to prevalence in cases of Homicides and Suicides
If one compares the levels of firearm possession with the rates of homicide, there is a correlation that the majority of individuals are always willing to begin a fight when almost everybody bears a gun. Indeed, according to the many years of statistics investigated by the Harvard School of Public Health, the artilleries and shootings are always in correspondence in that when there is high gun circulation in the hands of the public, the cases of homicides also escalate. In other words, when the citizens have easier access to the weapons, there is a higher probability of them to kill than when they do not get in touch with to the firearms (Morris p.3). Grippingly, that has turned out to be factual not only for the 26 developed nations under the analysis of the Harvard School of Public Health but also on the level of the State-to-State witnessed by the incidences of shootings that take place every day in the United States. Of course, that does not connote that one entirely will not get shot in the states with fewer guns just as it is exclusively possible to live in the regions with easier gun accessibility and not undergo the least aggravation. That is a clear indication that there has to be gun control in the United States to at least reduce the instances of homicide occurrences.
Also, when it comes to suicide, there is an extensive acuity that carrying out such an act often involves a plan whereby an individual takes his or her time, indulge in deep thought, and set a time before getting on with the mission. However, research after research points out that suicide does not engross a lot of rational resolution, but is one activity individuals partake on the drive of the instant signifying that being short of accessibility to the fatality-shooting weapon at that decisive jiffy can save a life. Therefore, gun control would make it possible to control the rates of suicide cases in the United States given that firearms are the most common and preferred means of carrying out the act as its execution involves the simple mechanism. That may appear weird but looking at the substantiation as per the information in the Boston Globe which has it that the States with immense intensities of gun possession have almost two times the rate of suicide as the ones with fewer tenure levels (Morris p.6). Besides, even more, disturbing is the finding that those who engaged in self-death were seventeen times extra liable to stay with firearms in their homes than not.
- Guns demoralize Freedom
The individual autonomy is only meaningful if one is free to willingly bring destruction on their body so long as he or she is not hurting the non-compliant people; for instance, one should have the freedom to smoke if it does not affect the public but they usually have admonition. Nonetheless, the more significant point is not all about encouraging the public to bring self-destruction gradually but the gratitude that the universal humanity respects the independence and personhood to the extent that such respect prevails if one wishes to harm themselves. The same applies to all, for example, to freedom of movement or speech with no worry that simple transgression is enough rationale to prevent one’s travel or expression based on the justifiable apprehensions of mischief. For that case, under the pretext of public morality, there is the prevention of citizens from engaging in those activities that can eventually end up challenging the freedom of those around.
When the State has started acting on the paternalistic basis, then it is a call for an alarm as there is freedom only when people have the privilege of expression which the guns have changed entirely. Just by permitting the inhabitants to wield firearms is a complete undermine on the individual autonomy. Those longing for a weapon on every single citizen would promote an imposed culture given that shooters would coerce the public to stay away from specific actions that may bring them trouble as a person brandishing a gun is no match for a challenge and cannot allow one to communicate freely (Moosa p.6). The freedom of expression and dialogue can only be in existence with the understanding that the response cannot be violence but peace something which the guns would change. The public should imagine what can transpire if the demonstrating citizens with firearms meet the law enforcers; there would be a shootout and no communication given that they are in a position to engage the policemen thus clearly showing that there must be the gun control in America for such freedom to prevail.
Arming Citizens won’t help
People always argue that when everyone has a gun, then there would be no mass shooting which is entirely wrong as only 1.6% of the interventions by the armed civilians on the gathering shootings had been successful ever since 1980. Even if the public can manage to restrain a shooter after a shootout has already taken place, which one can state is still important, the sad side of the story is that the concerned public who try to engage the criminal only end up risking their lives and adding to the casualty record. For instance, in the year 2005, Mark Wilson and Brendan McKown equally attempted in separate occasions to deal with an armed person, and in the event, McKown ended up into a coma, whereas the other died right away.
Guns are dangerous Weapons
There should be strict gun control in the United States given their perilous nature that can make people lose their lives within a shorter duration. One may need a firearm maybe if he or she was a law enforcement officer or a hunter in the rural areas, but if not, then there is no convincing reason to bear a gun. A lot of fatalities have resulted from the gun violence and as per the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research; approximately 31,000 persons annually in the U.S perish from the gunfire injuries. Not only are the demises resulting from the gunshot disturbing and creepy, but are also expensive as the physicians must try by all means to remove the bullets from the dead bodies before proceeding with other analysis. According to the JHCGPR, when the gone value of existence, psychosomatic and emotional distress, decreases in assets worth, and inclusive of other lawful and public penalties, then the estimation of the price of gun violence in America was roughly $100 billion yearly by 1998. That is a clear indication that the citizens have to forfeit elevated levy for the firearms aggression and in case stricter laws were in place, then such problems of high taxes would not arise (Conor p.1).
When it comes to the children’s faults, there has to be stricter gun control given that they always get into their parents’ weapons something that has resulted in misfortunes. The kids don’t still know how to use the guns and can even think of them as toys hence by lousy lack ending up harming their friends or those around them.
Why there should be no Gun Control in the United States
- Guns Provide Protection
If the State makes firearm ownership a criminal offense, then it means that only the criminals will be in a position to bear them whereas the other citizens would be at an inconvenience. Guns can intensify a felony circumstance gratuitously given the insane characteristic of assaults for example which can make one act like a trembling confusion, which is the nastiest state of mind to find one’s self in when bearing a potent weapon. For that case, it would be better for the federal government to control guns effectively rather than eradicating them from the public as one will become a criminal just by possessing a weapon an instance that will leave the non-criminals more vulnerable than if they have guns.
Banning all weapons can never bring a permanent resolution to the cases of mass shooting in the United States but will only escalate it as a world devoid of guns can become a den of antagonistic individuals who can carry out any activity they want knowing that their victims are defenseless. In such a society, even a single person can hold hostage dozen of individuals or rape a woman just before others without any intervention from the crowd due to lack of courage to deal with such an armed person. A good instance is the case of Kitty Genovese whereby the helpless onlookers had no option but to watch while a criminal murdered a young lady; perchance they would have helped had they been having even a single gun (Moosa p.12). As the majority has pointed out, yes, it is a fact that firearms intend to kill whereas the case is not for knives; however, that does not imply that there are no incidences of attacks by the dagger. Guns can make the playing grounds to be of one level, especially for the female gender that, for many decades; have always been the objects of sadistic misdeeds from the extra powerful antagonists. As a result, a world exclusive of firearms is one whereby the benefits of magnitude, aggression, and power are more or less often critical, and no one is nostalgic for such a society.
- Gun Control Won’t Stop Mass Shootings
There is, sincerely, no place in the United States in which the disastrous group gunfire cannot take place, and the horrific attack at the First Baptist Church located in just a little township, Sutherland Springs, Texas, on a Sunday is perfect proof. Undoubtedly, the government should act to assist in stopping such attacks from occurring in the future; however, the direction they are taking of controlling firearms, to the majority, seems to be a means of extending the power of the government in the lives of Americans and those resisting such attacks. Indeed, the legislators and analysts have already commenced calling for the elevated gun control decrees that would deny the regulation-abiding nationals of their rights to the Second Amendment in the pretext of shielding the innocent citizens. Nevertheless, following the rightful observations of Benjamin Franklin, those willing to sacrifice the essential Liberty for the acquisition of modest provisional supremacy do merit neither independence nor security (Haskins p.2).
Regardless of how the progressives have it, the statistics depict that having stricter gun laws do not in any way prohibit the vicious crimes from taking place. If for sure it did, then the regions with lenient gun regulations would have higher gross misdemeanors rates in comparison to the ones with more robust firearms regulations but comparable demographics. Conversely, that is not usually the case, for example, a team advocating for the gun control known as the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in a current firearm regulation report gave an F grade to the five of the six regions with the least levels of shootings. The shocking story is that New Hampshire, the sixth state, got a D rating showing that if these states had lousy gun laws, then why would they be having so few cases of homicides?
According to the statistician, Leah Libresco, in the Washington Post, the firm gun management rules did not thwart the mass assassinations and indicated that the UK and Australia have also experienced mass shootings irrespective of having put in place restrictions to gun possession recently. As per the statistician, the strict gun laws in Australia and the United Kingdom do not offer enough proof as regards how the United States’ guidelines should look like given that neither of them experiences a decline in mass killing or other correlated gun crimes ascribed by their outlaws. Maybe most significantly, the gun management edicts, whether successful or not, limit the necessary, incontrovertible rights of the American citizens given that, after all, the criminals will still be in a position to acquire weapons and continue with their behaviors (Haskins p.4; Haynes p.6).
- Guns don’t kill, People do
The advocates for the gun control always wrongly dispense the blame for the aggressive felony on the equipment utilized on the act and not on the perpetrators themselves. A good instance is the Britain in which upon the government’s enactment of a ban on firearms, yes, there was a decrease in the cases of gun-associated homicides. However, the premeditated rate of shooting itself escalated gradually for the past years, and presently, it is still higher than before putting the gun control regulations in place (The Financial Word p.8). So long as people are still evil, the rates of killing will never go down whether or not there is easier accessibility to guns. Nonetheless, whereas firearms don’t in any way influence the rate of shootings, they do at times keep people safe from the random attacks.
Gun Control is a restriction of the Fundamental Right
Thomas Jefferson on one occasion stated that the sovereignty of the Americans relies on the freedom of the press and its limitation can result in the loss of direction as a country. Imagine if there was the application of the firearm control reason to the media, one could expand Jefferson’s reasoning to the entire unambiguous rights that the Constitution writers believed essential. The value of independence comprises the risk of its exploitation, and the responsibility is upon the legislators to avert such abuse devoid of intimidating the freedom itself. There should be no sacrifice on the rule-abiding inhabitants by the government to surrender their liberty as other evil people can take advantage of that (The Financial Word p.2). The sovereignty of every self-influential person is the foundation of the American Constitution, so regardless of how much good it can be; any resolution that jeopardizes the freedom of an individual for the good of the majority is in reality against the great American Constitution.
Conclusion
If the Americans want to succeed in tackling the country’s escalating gun violence crisis, then both the public and legislators must sit down and debate without prejudice and see what necessary fundamental alterations the nation must make to bring back the lost security. Even if it means making changes to the Second Amendment just to save the lives of the people, then let it be, as it is what makes the public to disagree given that the foundation of the amendment was by the forefathers and permitted people to protect their boundaries by carrying firearms for safety. Besides, there should be only specific government authorized dealers of firearms and before the acquisition, the individuals should go for the medical checkup to confirm if one is mentally sane to possess a gun and also go for guidance and counseling on how to use such weapons. Finally, the underage and the mentally insane persons should not get access to the firearms, and if they do, then those responsible should face the law. However, if the gun violence cannot come to an end in America, then the government has no option but to protect the lives of the citizens and not the Second Amendment by coming up with stricter gun laws that would ultimately end the mass shootings (Beckett p. 3).
Works Cited
Beckett, Lois. "Better Gun Laws Could Save Thousands of Lives, Major Non-partisan US Study Finds." The Guardian, 2 Mar. 2018, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/01/gun-control-study-rand-corporation-assault-weapons-ban.
Conor J. "Reasons Why There Should Be Stricter Gun Control Laws by Conor J." Letters to the Next President 2.0, 2016, letters2president.org/letters/10821.
Deutsche Welle (www.dw.com). "8 Facts About Gun Control in the US | What You Need to Know | DW | 15.02.2018." DW.COM, 15 Feb. 2018, www.dw.com/en/8-facts-about-gun-control-in-the-us/a-40816418.
The Financial Word. "10 Arguments For and Against Gun Control." The Financial Word, 18 Sept. 2017, www.thefinancialword.com/10-arguments-for-and-against-gun-control/.
Haskins, Justin. "We Don't Need Gun Control to Stop Mass Shootings." Townhall, 6 Nov. 2017, townhall.com/columnists/justinhaskins/2017/11/06/we-dont-need-gun-control-to-stop-mass-shootings-n2405286.
Haynes, Victor. "Gun Control in the United States." OMICS International, 11 June 2016, www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gun-control-in-the-united-states-2332-0761-1000206.php?aid=74881.
Moosa, Tauriq. "Two Important Arguments from Both 'Sides' of the Gun Debate." Big Think, 18 Jan. 2013, bigthink.com/against-the-new-taboo/two-important-arguments-from-both-sides-of-the-gun-debate.
Morris M. "10 Arguments for Gun Control." List verse, 20 June 2014, listverse.com/2013/04/21/10-arguments-for-gun-control/.
