Gun Control Politics
In the recent past, gun control has been an area drawing a heated debate in the United States. This has caused many to ask questions whether the individuals ought to be authorised to carry around with them a concealed weapon or even have a gun in their homes or not. Another arising question is the outcome that will be born in the event that the government bans guns and whether this would do more harm than good to the law-abiding citizens or not. Alternatively, another point of contention is whether guns should solely be held by those individuals who have passed background checks or even those who are licensed to handle such weapons.
In the United States, guns are indispensible part of the citizen’s way of life, though a sizeable number of them have the impression that guns are the root of any evil in society. Guns are presently being utilized in society for murders, gang activity besides hunting celebrations (Spritzer, 1998). However, those in ownership of a gun and hardly having the intention of fulfilling an evil act are the ones being believed to save the situation. Illustratively, the person who is likely to save a lady being raped is certainly a person with a gun. In addition, in the drill team, guns have been used for war as well as by the police forces. This, therefore, avails one with the suggestion that these weapons ought not to be used in ways which pose a danger to others, be it by them being harmed or evened killed. Those in possession, on the other hand, ought to utilize these guns solely for purposes of self-defence geared towards safeguarding not only themselves but also their valuables (Spritzer, 1998).
According to the Gun Owners Foundation, guns save more lives than they take and, at the same time, are known for averting more injuries than they are believed to mete out. The foundation goes further to argue that criminals have a tendency of keeping off armed nationals. Nevertheless, the possession of guns in households has heightened the risk of suicides and/or homicides (Spritzer, 1998). Although suicide is not as crime, it amounts to death and, thus, is equally bad. This statement, therefore, qualifies guns to be dangerous enough irrespective of their use.
Gun control measures, as exemplified by the Brandy Bill, hardly qualify to be the remedy and do not, at its least, ease the number of violent delinquencies (Spritzer, 1998). The aforementioned bill necessitates a 5-day waiting period as well as an inclusive check on the individual who wants to own a gun before he/she is permitted to do so. Though this is geared towards preventing criminals from possessing a gun, it rarely does so. With the number of guns being illegally traded or sold ranging between one and three million in the U.S., there is, therefore, a dire need for stricter and better gun control and not mere elimination.
Ordinarily, guns are very precarious and, thus, parents ought to take the initiative of insisting to their children that they should refrain from these weapons. This is necessary to counter the likelihood of guns accidents taking place. Undeniably, guns might be necessary; nonetheless, they pose a quantifiable threat to the entire nation. Besides, their positive values are not great enough to be at equilibrium with their negative values. Since they take lives, more stringent gun control laws are needed to prevent criminals from being in possession of the deadly weapons. This will help in the aversion of gun-related violence and, resultantly, see many lives saved.
Spritzer, R. J. (1998). The politics of gun control (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Chatham House.