The Need for Gun Control - Essay Example

America is ranked as the leading country in gun murder cases across the globe. According to Barrett (2014), the US posted 10,728 deaths against the second placed Israel with fifty-eight reported executions. Such statistics indicate the seriousness of the gun issue in the US. In 2017, there was an attack in Las Vegas, where a bandit killed 58 individual and caused severe injuries to more than 527 in an open fire. The owners of such firearms are among 7.7 Americans, who own an average of 8 and 140 guns across the country (McCarthy, 2017). For instance, the gunman involved in the Las Vegas massacre allegedly owns more than forty-two guns and thousands of ammunition. He acquired such firearms with ease, thus indicating the lack of close attention from the federal government on the gun regulation and acquisition process in the country. Such incidences have attracted several criticisms from various sections of the public domain, where most of them have questioned the government commitment to the implementation of the gun control amendment. Gun control is essential in America, and it possesses several advantages upon its full application. Hence, the paper supports the actualization of this policy, and details on the benefits accruing the enactment of such a sensible act.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Reduction in Murder Cases Across the Nation

The enactment of gun control bill across the US will significantly reduce the number of deaths experienced across the country. As indicated earlier, the US posed the largest number of murder cases in the world through gun massacre. According to Barrett (2014), the nation posted 10,728 gun-related deaths. Additionally, the country also recorded deaths amounting to more than 464,033, between 1999 and 2013. These cases were facilitated by the easy access to guns in the country, thus leading to an increase in cases such as suicide, homicide, and accidental deaths. Moreover, according to the study conducted in the country in 2016, the use of guns accounted for 73% of the 16,459 deaths posted in 2016 (Rhodan, 2017). Such a scenario ranks the use of a firearm as one of the primary causes of death in the country, and is facilitated by the easy access of firearms across America. Gun massacre is ranked at position twelve in the US amongst the major causes of deaths in the nation. This makes it more dangerous, than other causes of death such as diseases like hypertension, Parkinson disease, drowning, and machine accidents. Therefore, this presents a sensitive sector, which can be used to reduce the number of deaths across the country.

Additionally, the regulation of access to firearms would reduce the rates of massacre across the country. For instance, it is believed that the introduction of strict control and institution of more stringent laws, would not change the violent culture in the country, but it would at least increase the safety of the American citizens (The Time, 2017). This means that, if the guns are issued on a controlled way, or if the government succeeds at retrieving the illegal firearms in the hands of criminals, it will increase the safety of its citizens through the promotion of responsibility amongst the licensed owners of such guns. Additionally, BBC (2017) highlighted that, if the government introduces detailed background checks on the individuals acquiring firearms, it will reduce the number of annual deaths by almost 83%. Self-defense was the main reason given by individuals on the need for weapons. However, this statement has been proven to be a lie, since, for the period between 2007 and 2011, only 0.79% of the reported 29 million crimes were as a result of self-protection (BBC, 2017). According to this report, the use of guns to self-protection has been classified as the least used technique for self-defense in the country. Therefore, if the federal government puts in place a consistent and efficient background check on individuals acquiring firearms, it will be able to retrieve or prevent access to guns to rogue and criminals in the country. Thus, this will, in turn, reduce the number of deaths from gang-related massacres, such as the ones witnessed during the Las Vegas Shootings.

Curbing Mass Shootings

Mass murder has been reported as one of the common uses of sophisticated guns in the US. Therefore, the implementation of gun control will significantly reduce the instances of mass shootings in the US. These killings have been facilitated by the easy access to superior weapons by criminals across America. For example, Mother Jones highlights that, for the period between 1982 and 2012, more than 50% of the mass killings and shootings have utilized superior and high-capacity magazines (Kristof, 2015). The study also outlines that, the nation had experienced more than 62 mass murder instances during this period. Therefore, once the federal government can reduce these cases, more than 50% of the firearms massacres will be eliminated. Thus, this presents a significant area, where the government may major in, to ensure that the high rates of death are reduced. The applicability of such a policy is exhibited by the Australian government, where after the Port Arthur massacre, which left more than thirty-five people dead, the parliament authorized an intense crackdown on the illegal owners of firearms. More than 650.000 semi-automatic and automatic guns were retrieved. These weapons were confiscated and later destroyed. In the subsequent year, the rates of deaths caused by the use of firearms and homicide reduced by 59%, while the other causes such as illness remained constant. This indicates how efficient the process is in reducing the death toll, and which the US government can use as a reference when actualizing the policy.

Moreover, mass killings are facilitated by the access of superior military weaponry to the public. In the cases mentioned above of mass killings, the criminals utilized legalized lethal weapons, which possess high-capacity magazines, thus enabling them to persecute a considerable number of individuals at once. However, if the availability of these guns were prohibited, and the public only allowed access to lighter firearms such as hand and short guns, then several lives could have been saved. The implementation of such assault rifle accounts for more than half of death cases experienced between 1982 and 2012. Thus, the institutionalization of the gun control policy will limit the complexity of the firearms that the public can access, thus leaving the guns such as the AR-15 rifle to the armed forces. If such individuals utilize the less powered arms such as handguns, the government will help reduce the number of citizens perishing in one assault, as compared to instances when such criminals use superior weapons. Therefore, implementation of the gun control policy will reduce the death tolls in an attack, thus proving to be beneficial to the society.

Confusion of the 2nd Amendment

Most citizens in the US are opposed to the actualization of the policy due to a misunderstanding of the second amendment of the gun control policy. Some suggest that the federal government targets deny the public access to firearms. This has resulted in the rebellion in the implementation of this approach. However, in the real sense, the plan does not deny the public access or ownership of firearms but instead controls the complexity of the weaponry that the public can access. According to the amendment, the government aims at ensuring that there are a well-organized militia force, and there are no instances of infringement of the rights of its citizens to own firearms. Therefore, the amendment will ensure that the nation has well-organized and controlled military forces, which would be utilized to foster security levels in the country. However, the public has misinterpreted such a cause, and identified the federal governments motive as to deny them access to guns, and leaving out the part where it facilitates the creation of an organized militia force to foster security in the country. According to Ludwig & Cook (2003), most of the regulations stipulated in the 2nd amendment have been in existence even before the publication of these laws. For instance, the limitation and control on the possession and storage of gunpowder in residential areas, and also banning of loaded firearms at home. These regulations have been functional, and the new amendment only updated them to conform to the current societal trends. Therefore, the bill presents an appropriate manner of handling gun possession, and promotion of security in the country through active military and security forces.

Additionally, the amendment aims at promoting and initiating background checks on individuals before allowed access to guns. This approach will ensure that only qualified individuals have access to firearms, and the public also has access to relevant types of weapons. For instance, it is not logical for an ordinary citizen to possess a high-capacity magazine rifle to enhance self-protection. Such weapons should be accessed by the military forces, who have undergone training on how to handle such levels of armaments. Hence, individuals who are not qualified to obtain such weaponry will not get a chance with them (Gabor, 2016). Additionally, the new amendment enacts the analysis of an individuals background check before they acquire licensed firearms. This aspect of the policy aims at ensuring that only stable citizens are allowed access to guns. For instance, individuals who are mentally unstable or drunk should not have access to firearms. This will help reduce cases of careless murders in the society. Moreover, background checks will restrict criminals from accessing harmful weapons. Most of the mass murder cases are conducted by criminals or gangsters, who have been granted access to guns regardless of their capacity. Therefore, the implementation of the policy would eliminate such instances by denying them access to firearms. The application of the gun policy thus serves more good than bad to the society, and hence its actualization should be encouraged.

Counterargument

The opposers of the gun policy implementation argue that guns can be used to protect a violent world. They concentrate on the point that, if the ownership of firearms is be illegalized, the evil people in the society will possess guns at the expense of the good people who will adhere to the set regulations. This means that the bad people will overpower the few law-abiding citizens and cause significant harm to them. Therefore, a world where the citizens do not own guns will give rise to aggressive population, who will in the end disadvantage the innocent ones (Wilson, 2007). Additionally, they believe that there cannot exist a perfect way of evaluating the innocence of a person. In some cases, people who had been considered innocent by the community end up engaging in murderous acts, since they have access to these firearms. They indulge in activities such as armed robbery, attacks, and even homicides. Such scenarios have encouraged the opposers to develop a strong base on their move to deter and compete against the implementation of the gun control policy in America.

However, these individuals have misinterpreted the provisions and guidelines of the statute. For instance, their assumption that the government intends to control and illegalize firearm ownership is a lie. The federal administration only proposes adequate background checks before an individual is permitted to own guns. Those individuals with a clean criminal history will still have access to such weapons. Moreover, the government plans to give the public access to relevant firearms such as hand and short guns. These will reduce the damage caused in homicide scenarios, where the number of affected will be lower than instances when these in...