Gun Control Government Policy: Why Not Ban Everything That Develops Prospective Threats?

Gun control has become one of the hottest topics that are debated across the world today. By definition, gun control encompasses a set of policies and laws formulated to regulate the possession, transfer, sale or the manufacturing of firearms by the citizens. There are many reasons why government formulates these policies and which supports the argument that guns should be controlled ranging from insecurity. In the United States, the issue has recently attracted conflicting opinions, especially from the public. Most people perceive it as an inappropriate and risky adventure as it may be a recipe for increased war and criminal activities. On the other hand, there are other individuals, for instance, the politicians who agree with the notion of arguing that allowing people to possess guns would be an effective way of dealing with crime. However, much it may be a tough subject this paper argues in support of gun control. Bearing arms may also help citizens dodge oppression and harassment, especially from the federal government. Somehow, bearing an arm is a promise of safety and peace to the citizens in their respective regions or communities (Craig 47-70).

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

Save 25%

First, the government has the sole responsibility for dealing with any criminal activities. Therefore, every citizen is protected from criminals by the state hence implying that it is fundamental to limit the number of individuals owning guns. Second, more gun control initiatives lead to fewer suicide cases. According to the statistics in the United States in 1999, the number of suicide cases was 270237 which by 2013 when amendments had been made regarding gun control had significantly reduced. According to expert's countries with high levels of gun ownership have the suicide rate twice as high than those who have a low ownership level thus supporting the sentiments of the importance of controlling firearms (Andres and Katherine Hempstead 95-103).

The proposers, on the other hand, argue that bearing of guns is risky to human life since most citizens will always live in fear and desolation. In the article "Our tears are not enough": The authorization of the dead in the rhetoric of gun control by Craig Rood, the former president Barack Obama uses the random gun shooting histories as an appeal to get rid of guns in the streets and communities. The warrant of the dead represents merely the claim that the dead expect the living to correct the injustice done to them when they were randomly and carelessly shot. He used the issue to make the citizens think critically and come up with a solution that can assist reduce or completely stop the crime (Craig 47-70). Before allowing an individual to be armed, there should a thorough survey which covers an individual history, for instance, their social stability and mind soundness. It is also vital for them to undergo psychiatric tests to ensure that people with mental issues are not assigned guns.

These assault weapons and magazine capacity regulations have been subjected to heightened criticism from the opponents of the gun control laws. Gun-rights movements took to the streets to air their grievances arguing that the legislation limited the second amendment rights of gun owners. According to these gun-rights activists, gun control laws were misguided as the lawmakers were set to punish honest citizens instead of punishing criminals. As such, there is need to revisit these laws from a different approach. Although the supporters of stringent laws have garnered more support given the recent episodes of gun violence, it is imperative to loosen these laws and forge more pragmatic policies and solutions. Some of these laws are overly arduous and mirror the lawmakers' aggression towards guns without plausible consideration of their impacts.

Furthermore, the most significant aspect of this discussion should be its relevance. The recent episodes of gun violence might have shifted the focus from other equally substantial issues. If anything, guns are not the leading cause of teen deaths in America. Moreover, a considerable number of teen deaths from firearms are through suicides rather than murders or accidents. The leading causes of deaths among children and teenagers are unintentional injuries and drug abuse, and chronic diseases. Along these lines, whereas gun control laws and strict measures might be beneficial in reducing violence and deaths, they are not sufficient. Gun control debates alone will not be the solution to the critical issues (Klieve 285). There is a dire need, therefore, to take a gander at other significant matters and come up with comprehensive policies to mitigate the adverse ramifications.

Most of the massacres witnessed in the world recently utilize the legal firearms. For instance, in the United States between 1982 and 2012 there has been roughly sixty-two mass shooting with forty-nine of them perpetrated by the utilization of legal weapons (Jacobs). The criminals used assault weapons thus demonstrating that restrictions on the use of such would have saved lives. While anyone who is determined to engage in crime can use other weapons apart from guns, they are unlikely to kill many people when the same criminals have guns. Lawmakers should relax their aggression towards guns and consider the impacts of their legislation. Gun-rights movements should also take into account the importance of responsibility and accountability in their quest for gun rights. This way, it will be possible to forge respect first and then gun control. Most importantly, over-indulgence in gun control discussions could lead to neglect of a series of significant issues of equal or greater magnitude. Gun control discussion is necessary and relevant but should not be at the expense of other noteworthy matters.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the backdrop above depicts the significance and extent of gun control discussions over the recent past. Recent episodes of high gun violence have fueled these debates and discussions. With parties on both ends of this contentious debate, a single solution is still far from the light. On the one hand, proponents of gun control laws are still championing for more regulations while their counterparts, on the other side, strive to defend their gun rights. Besides, these laws, their formulation, and enactment face numerous technical hurdles in the realms of definitions of assault rifles which in turn hinder their effectiveness. As things may settle at, one thing is sure; neither gun control laws nor freedom offers a sufficient solution on their own.

Works Cited

Andres, Antonio Rodriguez, and Katherine Hempstead. "Gun control and suicide: The impact of state firearm regulations in the United States, 1995-2004." Health Policy 101.1 (2011): 95-103.

Craig, R. (2018). "Our tears are not enough": The warrant of the dead in the rhetoric of gun control. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 47-70.

Jacobs, James B. Can gun control work? Oxford University Press, 2002.

Klieve, Helen, Michael Barnes, and Diego De Leo. "Controlling firearms use in Australia: has the 1996-gun law reform produced the decrease in rates of suicide with this method?" Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology 44.4 (2009): 285