There should be tighter regulations on guns control; if possible ban them
'This, however, does not consider the fact that a gun is one of the most preferred weapons that is used to maim and kill innocent civilians. It is no less than a screwdriver and hammer which can be turned into a weapon if a situation demands it. In this aspect, it can be determined that these arguments are impractical and inconsistent with its application in a real-life situation.'
The United States of America have been entangled in a hot debate on the issue of Gun ownership and gun control policies. There has been excessive use of firearms by civilians who own them and have legal licenses to be owning them. The gun tottering individuals have reduced the country into an abyss of civil unrest due to psychic gun tottering individuals and other wantonly firing arms at civilians, schoolchildren, spouses and other innocent people in the society. Therefore, is in this perspective that there should be tighter gun control policies whose regulations would see the number of firearms in civilian’s hands reduced to necessity and security increased to discourage the desire to apply for guns.
There is an amendment which seeks to amend the aspect of gun ownership. There are theories which are directed to the aspect of gun control, but they are impractical in application and concept. According to Kocsis (154-79), the president of united states Donald Trump in the past has been quoted as having said that “a good person with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun." This, however, does not consider the fact that a gun is one of the weapons which are used to maim and kill civilians. It is no less than a screwdriver and hammer which can be turned into a weapon a situation demands it. In this aspect, it can be determined that these arguments are impractical and inconsistent with its application in real life situation.
Gun control is a term which in a broader concept is used to refer to what firearms could be sold or allowed to be in the hands of civilians. It is also in the manner of who sells the guns or the person who acquires it, how they can be transported or carried. It is catering for the scope of the obligation of the person selling it or acquiring it in the manner of notifying the government (Boylan et al. 3934-3936). The current state of gun control is what is raising fundamental issues on the safety of citizens both in the public space and in households. The federal law on firearms prevents people with tainted criminal records; people suspected to be drug peddlers and barons, illegal immigrants, people of unsound mind and those who have a restraining order. The provision of the regulation is in a such a manner that people who are applying to acquire guns should have their background information checked by the FBI database (Boylan et al. 3934-3936). The problems are that the system has a reputation for having loopholes which eventually lead to firearms being acquired by criminals and people with mental disorders.
However, any people acquire guns with the precept that they are for self-defense, which then puts the primary role of the law enforcement officers into question. When an attack has happened in a place where there are no witnesses, there is a high likelihood that the police investigation will be compromised (Kocsis 154-79). This is because it will be hard to determine the aggressor and the victim. Therefore, it is prudent to let the law enforcement officers do their work and guns in civilian hands repossessed. For example. The Tuscon incident was that a senior man nearly shot a man who had dispossessed a gun from an aggressor. This would have resulted in a fatality on a person who had good intention and an aspect of mistaken identity. The, therefore, the gun control laws, in the naivety would have resulted in a fatality and a prosecution of no cause.
Statistics in 2014, indicated that 98% of the guns in civilian ownership has never been fired, which poses the question if someone does not fire the gun he acquires, why have it in the first place? This, therefore, make it unnecessary for civilians to acquire guns and banning them would result in unnecessary defense and their use in a wanton manner (Esposito and Finley 74-103). There are cases when the restrainer became the victim of the shooting incidences, for example the one of the Mark Wilson and Brendan McKinnon who attempted to subdue a shooter. The problem was that the Wilson was fatally shot and McKinnon was shot into a comatose. This is an illustration that those guns in civilian arms can result in more damage in self-defense or defense of others and they are a liability to the security and safety of the people (Boylan et al. 3934-3936).
The crux of the matter is that those states in America which have the most stringent gun control policies have the highest statistics of gun related crimes and insecurity, for example, California, New York, Maryland and Illinois rare considered regions of Gun-Free Zones (Esposito and Finley 74-103). However, these regions render the people without guns at the mercies of those with guns. Even though these regions have strict gun policies, issues of migration put the helpless residents of those states at risk. Therefore, it would be prudent that the guns should be banned from the civilian hands in all the American country.
The law prohibits people suspected of drug peddling and uses to be barred from acquiring guns. However, it is common knowledge that areas in which these vices are practiced usually have the highest number of gun related incidences. Therefore, the tentative question is, how do these people acquire guns? The blanket answer and conclusion to such an issue are that laws cannot prevent anyone from possessing a gun. The law cannot prevent the firearms from getting into the wrong hands. Therefore, it can be denoted that gun should be restricted from being in civilian hands, and only left to law enforcement officers (Esposito and Finley 74-103). This is because cases of gun hiring, theft and selling will always lead to criminals acquiring guns and carrying out vices.
Research carried out in California in the year 1991 to 1996 concluded that there was a high prevalence that women who owned guns in their households had the likelihood of dying by them. Statistical evidence shows that 56% of women commented that they felt safe by owning guns (Smith-Walter et al. 1053-1088). However, it can be concluded that the cases of women owning guns would increase the chances of her dying by the same gun. It found out that female gun owners had twice the chances of dying by the gun that women who did not have guns.
There is the argument that households which have guns are safer from intruders, but they overlook the situation where in most cases what happens in households is domestic violence. According to a 2014 study, it was realized that domestic violence claims around 2000 lives in a year. It is, therefore, deterministic that 70% of those casualties are women who form the bulk of the hazards (Smith-Walter et al. 1053-1088). Unfortunately, the weapon which is used to commit homicide of an intimate partner is usually a gun. In cases where domestic violence escalates to the level of having a gun, the place is usually rendered into a theater of mass murder. This is especially in situations where the other family members like children, siblings, friends or parents. Therefore, the presence of a gun in the disagreement usually increases the number of victims of the homicide. Statistics indicate that there is a high probability that guns in households are likely to be fired towards family members rather than intruders (Smith-Walter et al. 1053-1088). In these regards, guns should be banned from being acquired in households to avoid civilian casualties.
On another scale, incidences of mass shooters are usually done by people who have legally acquired guns. From 1982 to 2012 there have been 62 cases of mass shooting in the United States (Hamilton and Kposowa 84-98). Unfortunately, 49 of these incidences have been done by people who are legalized to carry out guns. 50% of these cases have used high assault weapons and high caliber magazines. In this case, guns should be banned from being acquired by civilians since they can result in high civilian’s casualties which are something which can be prevented by banning buying and selling of guns.
It is possible for people to be safe without possessing guns. This is in the case of mass shooting in Australia where at Port Author where a massacre occurred in 1996. Legislation by the Parliament initiated the program of gun repossession and gun clamping. More than 650 000 guns were collected from civilians and repossessed from the government (Hamilton and Kposowa 84-98). The results were that gun homicides in Australia dropped by 59% in a decade and incidences of mass shooting were down to zero in the 21st century.
In conclusion, the selling and buying of guns should be banned from civilians, and those with civilians should be repossessed by the government. The United states have a reputation for having more guns in the arms of civilians that in failed states in Africa such as Somalia. It also the same with the middle east countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, among others. The solution to the insecurity and safety of the Americans is not by arming civilians but rather disarming them. The solution is that the federal government should ban the selling and buying of guns by civilians.
Works cited
Boylan, Michael et al. "Debate: Gun Control in The United States". Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 471.12 (2013): 3934-3936. Web.
Esposito, Luigi, and Laura Finley. "Beyond Gun Control: Examining Neoliberalism, Pro-Gun Politics and Gun Violence in The United States". Theory in Action 7.2 (2014): 74-103. Web.
Hamilton, David, and Augustine Kposowa. "Firearms and Violent Death in The United States: Gun Ownership, Gun Control and Mortality Rates In 16 States, 2005-2009". British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science 7.2 (2015): 84-98. Web.
Kocsis, Michael. "Gun Ownership and Gun Culture in The United States of America". Essays in Philosophy 16.2 (2015): 154-79. Web.
Smith-Walter, Aaron et al. "Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in The United States". Politics & Policy 44.6 (2016): 1053-1088. Web.
Comments