Is There a Right to Own a Gun?

Many supporters of Gun Control policies assume that if the policies get into effect, then the plans would impact on either increase or decrease in crime rates (Huemer, 297). The notions on whether the policies would violate rights independently of decreasing crime, however, gets ignored often. Allowing for gun ownership would influence crime growth much more than the restrictions concerning their ownership.

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

Save 25%

The rights that individuals have often place restrictions concerning the kinds of laws that the state enacts. These rights often depict the morality of the social groups formed by these individuals and often get logically promulgated by the law (Huemer, 298). The law acknowledges the rights of individuals to be free from violence. With the enactment of the Gun Control policies, individuals living in hard-hit rough areas would receive relief as gun ownership would become regulated. The state law prohibits the exercise of rights by individuals who might infringe on the rights of others. The practice of one's rights should not cause harm to others. For example, an individual should not harm others just because they own a gun while the others don't. The state laws should, therefore, efficiently invest in getting background information that would allow them to decide which individuals to allow access to guns. Allowing threatened individuals access to firearms as well would not reduce violence just because of them feeling protected by the guns. The allowance would bring about resistance from the threatened individuals and consequently escalate violence cases. With gun control policies, background information search would become a priority concerning the issuance of guns. Putting gun control policies into effect would, therefore, prohibit infringement of rights by gun owners, which would.

Derivative rights often present as those that depend on other independent rights to stand relevant to the set of laws. An entitlement is fundamental, however, when it has some influence that is impartial of other privileges (Huemer, 300). The rights to own a gun depends on the possibility of personal infringement of others' rights through violence. Persons with an unstable capability to handle firearms without harming others should, therefore not get access to guns. As a prima facie right, gun ownership should get back-up from the morals of people intending to own the guns to prevent the cause of harm to others sharing social groups with them. A moral society, with individuals thinking less about harming others, the policies of allowing guns would not be necessary. However, with the nature of the nation having people intending to harm others, the idea of enabling gun access to more individuals would not assist with controlling violence. Instead, the intent would escalate as more individuals would access guns to reiterate upon violence they experienced from others. Instead of allowing access to additional individuals to curb insecurity issues, the gun access could be limited from those with unclear intentions that may lead to them harming others with their guns. Allowance of gun ownership without assessment of morals accompanying the rights would jeopardize the security of people who don't own guns.

The fact that derivative rights depend on other independent rights implies that its degree of violation also relies on how vital the right derivative positions itself regarding the sovereign right that it subserves (Huemer, 301). In this case, the entitlement to own a firearm could subserve the eligibility to non-violence. The consequence of violating the latter within a given state would define the importance of the rights to own guns in that state. For countries where violence against citizens gets punished severely, the rights to own a firearm would prove definitive. In such states, allowing for easy access to guns would dilute the stance against violence. The allowance of additional owners of firearms would give law into the hands of these gun owners. The notion would be letting gun violence victims reiterate back for fairness. The state's law would hold back in such reiterations with an assumption that they depict self-defense. As a result, violence against citizens within that state would be treated with less respect as before the policy got passed. Alternatively, gun control policies put into effect in such states would emphasize the need to heighten the severity of the repercussions as few individuals would be in possession of guns and would be easy to track if the acquisitions properly took place.

Despite claims that guns found in households usually get used for protection against life-threatening attacks to the families, often, a good percentage of the family members from these families get involved in gun-related deaths. If the deaths are not homicide, then the deaths reported turn out as suicides. For each case that someone in a gun-owning home uses a gun to prevent a life-threatening confrontation effectively, nearly forty-three people in similar homes will die from a shooting (LaFollette, 263). The homicides, as well as suicides, violate the rights of victims since every person under the constitution of USA has a right to live. By getting them involved as victims of homicide, their lives turn out to be more at risk due to the presence of the gun in possession of one of their family members. Alternatively, a better way of securing the lives of such families involves regulation of firearms; few responsible people should get access to firearms thus reducing the insecurity concerns that would warrant the family attempting to get a gun instead. By eliminating the threat in the first place, the need would not arise for them to seek possession of firearms to feel safe.

The risk that someone can lose control and commit a crime with a licenced gun seems lower than that of someone losing control and committing a crime with an unlicensed firearm (Huemer, 305). The risk imposed on innocent citizens by the gun ownership policy may impact when people get an allowance to own guns and go ahead to access unlicensed firearms instead. With the assurance that is tracing an unlicensed gun, perpetrators would not hesitate to commit gun crimes. A good example presents when perpetrators decide to harm schools where children don't own guns to protect themselves from the threat. However, with gun control policies the few individuals who would get access to the firearms would be traceable, thus ensuring necessary use of the guns. In case the perpetrator was a licenced gun owner who went through thorough scrutiny and background checks before obtaining the firearm, they would not pose any difficulty in tracing. The ease in locating the licensed firearm owners would, not only limit them to use the guns when necessary but also keep them from careless handling of the guns. For instance, a vetted firearm holder, who qualifies to own a firearm would not let his firearm get used in a crime that does not involve them. Therefore, with the instilled responsibility, the owners should take full responsibility for cases including the use of their firearms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, as much as gun control policies may not impact directly on the crime rates of a given country, the weight behind allowing for gun possessions would somewhat increase crime rates rather than curb the issue of the crime itself. Making it hard for reckless individuals to own guns looks like a better way to curb gun violence since the violence scenarios would reduce, with only necessary ownership allowed. Gun control policies, therefore, serve a better opportunity at getting the citizens of a country at ease than letting more of them to own guns in a bid to protect themselves from reckless gun owners.

Works Cited

Huemer, Michael. "Is there a right to own a gun?" Social Theory and Practice 29.2 (2003): 297-324.

LaFollette, Hugh. Gun Control. Ethics 110 (2000): 263-81.