Reasons for Strict Gun Control
Security is a major concern, because when people feel safe, they can live and do their daily things without fear. The government has an obligation to protect its citizens through an adoption of strong constitution together with police that should enforce the law and arrest the criminals who endanger people’s lives. However, individuals also have a duty towards promotion of security through cooperating with the police as well as voluntarily participating in community programs for safety promotion. Besides, some citizens also seek to boost their personal safety by acquiring guns from the government, and more than a third of American households have a weapon.(Hemenway 1). High private gun ownership rate is, however, problematic since it promotes the misuse of weapons as well as disregarding the government’s role in people’s protection and this also may threat the state’s monopoly of arms. Thus, strict gun-ownership control laws are urgent nowadays.
It is the role of government to protect the citizens, and thus there is a need to regulate private gun possession. In fact, the government has a professional police force that provides security and protection of the citizens, and thus there is no necessity for citizens to possess guns under the claim of securing themselves (Krouse 6). The opponents of the weapon control argue that the Second Amendment to the Constitution provides the citizens with the right to own guns through the statement that “the right of the people to keep guns shall not be infringed” (Krouse 6). On the contrary, the proponents of weapon regulation rules admit that the rights provided by the Second Amendment are subject to limitations by “reasonable requirements” (Krouse 6). Concerning the above issue, considering the presence of competent police force one should not allow citizens to possess guns in such high rates since the police are there to take care of their security needs. Admittedly, even if the Second Amendment guarantees the right to gun ownership, this does not mean that people should have access to guns without vetting to establish the reason for seeking such possession. Besides, if one has to own a gun, they must also follow the rules. It is, therefore, necessary for the government to establish strong gun control rules to make sure that one has a valid reason to possess a firearm if they wish.
When issuing guns to citizens, it is necessary to set the rules to specify which types of arms the licensed holders can acquire and which they cannot. Krouse (pp 7) argues that it is therefore better to avoid licensing the private ownership of superior rifles that may pose “unusual risk the public.” For instance, it is not appropriate to allow citizens to own fully automatic weapons such as machine guns, as this would endanger public security by enabling the gun owners to commit crimes (Krouse 7). Kopel (1) admits that guns allow people to defend themselves before the “arrival of police officers.” When issuing guns, it is rational to specify what types of weapons a licensee can own because giving them access to sophisticated weapons makes the police powerless in the hands of the civilians. Moreover, since people do not encounter security threats all the time, it is not obligatory to allow them to appear as combatants; and consequently, one needs strong laws specifying the kind of guns available for private ownership.
Private gun ownership contributes to insecurity, so one should control the availability of guns to the public. There are many cases in American society whereby people misuse their guns by indiscriminately shooting at public or racial shootings that occur very often. For instance, in Charleston, a racist fellow Dylan Roof attacked innocent “church goers” while they have been to their church service (Kopel 2). Regarding this case, even though the opponents of gun control argues that people need guns to defend themselves, it is wise to consider the danger arising from the misuse of these rifles, and this necessitates the control of gun ownership to minimize such occurrences.
The presence of personal guns amplifies the impacts of quarrels in the society. People do disagree or engage in arguments, so guns possession makes people feel unsafe as the quarreling parties may lose their tempers and draw weapons. Hemenway ( 4) states that many homicides “occur during altercations” over minor issues such as money, love, and other domestic affairs. Even though the proponents of gun ownership insist that guns improve security at homes, the cases of murder disapprove the statement since when one has a rifle it is easy to suddenly kill the other party under the influence of anger. It is, therefore, appropriate to make laws that restrict gun ownership to prevent the occurrences of murders triggered by anger overheated arguments.
Increased private ownership of guns promotes the presence of violent criminal activities. Monuteaux (1) states that higher levels of ownership of guns have a close association with high prevalence of armed robbery. The reason for this argument could be that licensed firearm holders can use the weapons for criminal purposes while the thugs may also increase the use of guns to counter the self-defense by their victims. However, the opponents of gun control may argue that criminals do not need licenses to hold fire arms and thus regulating gun ownership will not control crime. However, it is reasonable to claim that unknown criminals may take advantage of the weapon licenses to possess guns because they can easily escape the police officers by use of the licenses in case the police do not have information that the individuals are criminals. Hence, it is necessary to regulate guns possession, so as to avoid enabling criminals to use the licenses to escape police dragnets on weapon search.
In conclusion, security is a crucial aspect as it determines the functioning of the society. The private ownership of guns of security purposes is a contentious issue due to the conflicting results of security versus insecurity. However, gun control rules are necessary to eliminate the problems associated with increased rifle ownership. The reasons why gun regulation is inevitable are the presence of police to protect people, the need to specify the type of arms available to the public, to minimize mass shootings, to avoid amplification of the impact of quarrels as well as reducing the use of guns in robberies. However, the opponents of gun control also provide some reasons that include the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the self-defense purposes, increased security at homes, and that criminals do not need gun licenses. On the whole, the reasons provided by the supporters of gun control outweigh those offered by the opponents and thus justifying the need for regulating guns.
Hemenway D., Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home; American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. Retrieved from www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf Accessed 10th April 2017.
Kopel, D., The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control. CATO Institute 2015. Retrieved from object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa784.pdf Accessed 10th April 2017.
Krouse, W., Gun Control Legislation. Congressional Research Service 2012. Retrieved from //fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf 10th April 2017
Monuteaux M. et al., Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S.; American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Retrieved from crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Firearm-Ownership-and-Violent-Crime.pdf Accessed 10th April 2017