Defending the Right to Own Guns - Essay Sample

Introduction

The basis for the right to own guns is one of the most divisive debates in the current public discourse in the United States. In the recent times, recurring mass shootings in schools, hotels, malls, government buildings and leisure parks have sparked a lot of public outcries. The massacres have resulted in massive casualties leading to the loss of innocent lives and permanent maiming. In the light of increased shootings, anti-gun groups have called for reforms on the guns ownership regulation. The changes proposed include raising the minimum age limit for gun owners, expanding background checks before purchase as well as a total ban on civilian gun ownership. Gun selling companies have responded by announcing strict control measures to limit gun sales. American people should be able to keep their Second Amendment right to own as many firearms without government restriction.

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

Save 25%

The reason why the gun ownership debate keeps recurring in the American context is the vague nature of the Second Amendment. The Amendment states that "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (Legal Information Institute). This statement is subject to diverse interpretations on whether the constitution protects the right to gun ownership on an individual or a group basis. Thus emerges the schools of thought advocating for and against gun control.

America takes a lot of pride in being a capitalist society. Denying Americans the freedom to gun ownership places the country into the same category of communist nations like China where the state owns the property (Cooper, 102). Apart from spinning America into a backward communist society, gun restrictions infringe on constitutional property rights. According to Cooper (102), all fundamental legal rights in the U.S come with guidelines on regulating these rights so that disorderly individuals do not exploit them. Cooper (103) argues that gun ownership should, thus not cause an uproar as witnessed in the recent past, since the regulatory guidelines on property rights guarantees keeping gun owners in check. Putting restrictions on gun ownership also infringes on the freedom of the American people. Like the freedom of speech, expression, movement, assembly, and religion, gun ownership under the right to own property is bounded by limitations which as required by the law do not infringe on the right itself (Cooper, 102). As long as relevant authorities implement their duties such as carrying out background checks into people applying for gun licenses and ensuring that criteria like gun safety training are observed, then gun ownership will cease being such a controversial topic in the U.S. (Cooper, 103). This way, Americans will get to enjoy their right to property ownership, guns included, in full because ownership comes with necessary limitations. The right is not absolute.

Discourse into gun ownership has distracted Americans from important agenda such as development and social cohesion. Kocsis (155) notes that the American society has been negatively divided on beliefs about gun ownership as individuals settle in different camps of thoughts such as unlimited gun ownership freedom, total eradication of guns from the society, and improved property. Instead of restricting gun ownership, authorities in the U.S. should, in fact, be working towards protecting and reinforcing this historical aspect of American liberty as Kocsis (163) suggests. In his argument, Kocsis mentions the founding fathers of America such as Thomas Jefferson and John Locke who were guided by philosophies rooted in protecting property ownership. The two-viewed property ownership as a natural right and confiscating a person's property such as guns, Kocsis (164) asserts, infringes on an individual's social existence as well as their fundamental liberty. To resolve the gun ownership controversy, Kocsis (173) recommends that the U.S. follow in the footsteps of Canada, a country that has managed to achieve an amicable balance in gun ownership by acknowledging the benefits associated with gun ownership for example personal protection, and applying permissive regulation to protect gun freedom from overuse. To ensure that Americans enjoy their liberty and maintain their pride in their identity, stringent gun restriction should be eradicated and be replaced with preventative measures like proper vetting of gun ownership applicants.

Perez-Pena well demonstrates the right to unrestricted gun ownership in his article on questions surrounding gun ownership. Perez-Pena tries to demystify the controversy on gun ownership and mentions that the reason why gun ownership advocates are so passionate on the matter is that gun ownership is seen as an individual's right. Americans take their rights and entitlement seriously, and many believe that their right to own guns for safety, recreation or prestige purposes should not be interfered with (Perez-Pena). This viewpoint is fuelled and justified by the Second Amendment, which states that the right to gun ownership should, under no circumstances, be infringed. Perez-Pena notes that the Second Amendment dates back to the 18th century, which indicates that gun ownership is a central component of the American culture as Kocsis (167) states. Interfering with this culture means that the American people will lose their identities, and cultural aspects such as language, religion, and art will lose meaning since unrestricted gun control has for centuries been embedded into these elements (Kocsis, 167). Perez-Pena notes that apart from preserving the American culture and protecting individual rights, gun freedom is imperative for public safety, allowing citizens to defend themselves against attackers and scaring off criminals from attacking armed citizens. Perez-Pena also notes that during mass shootings, an armed citizen may end the ordeal by shooting down the attacker. This action may save many lives as opposed to waiting for the police to arrive and access the attack site. In this sense, unfettered gun ownership is essential on both social and safety levels.

Denying Americans the right to self-defense through gun control would be a barbaric move by an administration that has failed to offer its citizens adequate security. Based on literature by Gary Kleck and others, Vizzard (889) argues that gun owners prevent crime occurrence at a rate of almost 2.5 times annually. Using the routine activity theory, Vizzard (894) demonstrates how access to guns by potential criminals serves to promote crime. The same, however, postulates that lack of a capable guardian is also a driver of crime (Vizzard (894). In this case, guns serve as the capable guardians in the sense that individuals can use them to protect themselves against crime by shooting down or scaring away attackers. Instead of focusing too much on infringing on the right of ordinary Americans to own weapons, legislators should seek to eliminate access to firearms by deviant individuals such as mentally ill persons and repeat offenders (Vizzard, 894). These individuals are the typical perpetrators of occurrences such as mass shootings and violent robberies, and these crimes are the reason why the topic of gun control keeps recurring in the American context. Vizzard further argues that imposing gun control on the over 100 million gun possessors, and small-scale firearm dealers would spark a national resistance movement (895). When allowed to share in the responsibility for personal safety through unfettered gun ownership, Americans can focus on more significant matters like national development instead of participating in petty resistances and movements.

Despite the above discussion on the benefits of gun ownership, a significant section of the American population believes that gun ownership should be restricted as much as possible. Their arguments are mainly based on loss of life. Hemenway (503) lists unintentional deaths, suicide and homicide, and bullying as the primary reasons why gun control should be effected stringently. Using death certificate data, Hemingway demonstrates that guns kept and operated at home caused over 600 deaths in five years and further states that close to 20 people in the U.S. are shot daily but survive (503). These accidental shootings, Hemingway says, are a result of improper gun handling during activities such as cleaning, loading bullets and unloading them, as well as hunting and target practice. Shifting the focus on suicide, Hemingway (503) observes that close to 50 Americans committed suicide using guns in five years between 2003 and 2008, presenting the idea that gun owners generally portray more suicidal traits. In the same period, Hemingway observes that close to 35 Americans were murdered daily using guns with perpetrators aging to as young a five years (505). Hemingway further associates gun ownership to bullying and coercion especially in homes marred by domestic violence. Using a study on battered women in the state of California, Hemingway demonstrates that in the affected homes, close to two-thirds of men had used their guns to threaten or intimidate their spouses (506). If firearms are stringently regulated, it is possible to reduce this alarming death rate and promote peace within American households.

While the earlier mentioned argument by Vizzard that gun ownership can help to deter crime, a significant number of American are apprehensive when it comes to allowing guns in public places. Wolfson (935) uses data from a study on the opinions of Americans on guns and open spaces to demonstrate that two-thirds of Americans, including gun owners, feel that stringent measures should be applied when it comes to carrying weapons in public. This move is mostly because gun attacks usually happen in public places such as schools, bars, and recreational grounds. Stringent gun control is, therefore, necessary to prevent injuries and deaths through firearms, Wolfson asserts (936). Since the population that feels unsafe in public due to the imminent threat of a gun attack is significant, legislators may be compelled to formulate laws against gun possession especially in public places.

Conclusion

In summation, Americans should continue enjoying their constitutional right to own firearms. Gun ownership affirms the right to property ownership as well as individual liberty. More so, owning arms is a historical culture that defines the United States and enables the public to defend themselves from attacks. Authorities should focus on responsible handling and issuing of guns to prevent the adverse outcomes associated with gun ownership. Gun-related crimes like mass shootings and robbery often associate with prohibited individuals like the mentally ill. Illegalizing public firearm possession would stir a resistance movement and derail the country from the more important development agenda. However, guns have negatively increased the occurrence of homicides, suicides and gender based violence. In addition, vast majority of Americans oppose the private right to keep weapons on public safety grounds. Moving forward, regular gun holders should not have to pay for the negligence of duty by firearm licensors and distributors through limitations on how many guns a person should hold. Authorities should step up to their responsibility and ensure that arms do not get into the hands of wrong persons, and Americans continue enjoying their right to property.

Works Cited

Cooper, Terry L. "Are Unlimited Gun Rights Constitutionally Protected?" Public Integrity, vol 19, no. 2, 2017, pp. 101-103. Informa UK Limited, doi:10.1080/10999922.2016.1254489.

Hemenway, David. "Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home". American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, vol 5, no. 6, 2011, pp. 502-511. SAGE Publications, doi:10.1177/1559...