The Right to Bear Arms - Essay Example on Gun Control Problem in the United States

Date:  2021-03-29 02:12:56
6 pages  (1477 words)
Back to categories
logo_disclaimer
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
University/College: 
George Washington University
Type of paper: 
Argumentative essay
logo_disclaimer
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

The gun control laws and whether the United States citizens should be allowed the right to bear arms has evoked a lot of debates. This has become the topic of the day, and we all must join in to have an agreement. The issue of whether to bear arms is critical and must be dealt with caution. The US government risks having a divided nation by every decision they are about to make. Evaluation of both the risks and benefits is necessary for a concrete decision. Journal articles and news on our televisions trigger issues on gun control. Statistics reveal that more than 30,000 lives are lost annually in the US through gun violence ("USA Gun Violence Statistics | Heedinggodscall.Org"). Such data has forced many people to advocate that bearing of arms in the US should be banned. I support the idea that the Americans should be allowed the right to bear arms. This essay, therefore, will explore the reasons as to why the Americans should have the right to bear arms which include: protection of self from the cruel nature of fellow citizens such as assassinations, rape, robberies, and assaults. Additionally, preserving the second amendment, guns are not a threat but the individuals themselves and the sense that gun control can be used to propel racism.

Firearms are used to offer defense and protection from the cruel nature of human beings (Jost). Perpetrators go through with any act of criminal whether it is committed using a knife, gun or poison by any possible means. These immoral acts exist whether guns are there or not. Restricting the American citizens from owning firearms will mean that only citizens who abide by the law to return their firearms. The lawless ones will not turn in theirs, but instead, they will gain more control on those who abide by the laws. Events of homicides, robberies, assassinations, and assaults are being broadcasted on a daily basis. This can reflect the evils of a firearm, but on deeper analysis, the owner is a sociopath whose intention is to kill. The abuse of American rights is represented by only a few number of people who have malicious intentions, and they ruin it for everyone (Gale 75). One may fail to understand that the crimes involving guns are committed by only 8% of the countrys population ("Gun Violence"). This is outnumbered by the many American citizens who abide by the law. Criminals will still go to the extreme and endanger the lives of the rest of the population through acts of violence and terrorism. If an individual is caught in a critical situation, having a gun within your reach will be more promising than having a cop on the phone. You might be in an unexpected situation, and as a responsible citizen, your gun will be a powerful initiative in matters of life and death (Jost).

According to the Constitution, Americans have the right to own firearms and laws restricting them will not save lives. The second amendment states that a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This bill of right was passed by the Founding Fathers (Adams). They felt that people might be oppressed by the Federal Government if they lack defensives means to protect themselves as individuals or as a nation. The Second Amendment itself is important as it is a means through which moral duty is preserved. And from history, denying the Americans their rights to own firearms will put their lives and liberty on hold. Bearing arms play a role in achieving freedom of speech, press, and religion. The Founders had the intention of preventing past misfortunes from repeating themselves by enabling citizens to protect themselves appropriately from invaders and also from oppression within the country ("Reassessing The Nation's Gun Laws"). Internal insecurities jeopardize the safety of the nation. In this situation, citizens have the power in their hands to preserve liberty. A government that oppresses its citizens is afraid of them. The Founders intentions can be embodied by the American citizens if they claim their liberty rights using a tool that made it possible.

Gun control laws tend to have racial discrimination. The poor and black population is viewed as dangerous as compared to the white population owning guns. It has been shown that a white down street is regarded as protecting the American values which a black man is walking down the street is viewed as a threat and an enemy to the public. A case example is the KKK that advocated on gun control laws. They wanted guns taken from the blacks as they feared revolt. Furthermore, colonies did not allow the blacks to own firearms. The loyalists and colonies went ahead and confiscated the weapons from the people they saw as untrustworthy (Mantel). To the worst is that in one of the law courts in 1876 the whites who were involved in massacring the blacks had no charges placed on them. This clearly states that laws on gun control will be discriminative (Gale 285).

Thoughts from other viewers refute the claims stated above. They call themselves liberals and have stood on the ground that Americans should not be allowed to bear arms. They claim that gun control should be emphasized and implemented. This comes in from the recent cases of gun shooting that have led to the loss of lives. An incident that recently occurred was in Charlestown where a black church was attacked leaving nine people dead. The Charlestown Mayor supports the idea that strict laws to regulate possession of guns should be enacted. He says that easy ability for people to possess guns contributes to the violent acts (McLeod).

Additionally, those proposing gun laws have gone further and stated that even newspapers that bear scores of ammunition should be banned. This is thought to be propelling individuals into trying their best to source them. Not only is that enough but also they also gave a statistic that showed that close to 80% of the criminals in prison who committed a handgun offense acquired it from friends, black-market or families (Mantel). This shows that with restrictions on possession of guns then a decrease in crime results.

Personally, I refute their claims by stating that a gun has no problem, but the individuals themselves are a threat. Individuals who have resulted to being cruel cause problems to the society. For a society where right minded individuals own guns, it has been evident that the levels of crime are lower (Adams). This is attributed to the fear by criminals as to who could be armed and who is not. Additionally, it is not gun control that will solve the problems of loss of lives but the education of the public on the safety of handling guns and information about guns that will help the society (Jost). To further reinforce on why gun control should not come in practice is because the laws will not hinder the criminals from acquiring guns. Gun control laws will instead take away the guns from the innocent and law abiding citizens and eventually criminals will ignore the rules (Worsnop).

In conclusion, a responsible citizen in possession of firearms benefits the society. Guns are not the threat. Instead, people felt more secure and protected when they have them. Also, gun control propels racism and does not preserve the liberal rights of the citizens. When firearms fall into wrong arms, the results can be tragic, but it is important to note that only a few individuals commit these crimes. Only criminals should be punished or imprisoned if pose a threat (Kopel). Restricting firearms is like punishing citizens who abide by the law. This is wrong since criminals and not the guns are a problem in the country.

Works Cited

Adams, Bob. "Gun Control Debate." CQ Researcher 12 Nov. 2004: 949-72. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

"Gun Control." Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 5.

"Gun Violence". National Institute of Justice. N.p., 2016. Web. 8 Dec. 2016.

Detroit: Gale, 2010. 175-180. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

Jost, Kenneth. "Gun Rights Debates." CQ Researcher 31 Oct. 2008: 889-912. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

Jost, Kenneth. "Gun Control Standoff." CQ Researcher 19 Dec. 1997: 1105-28. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

Kopel, David B. "Gun Control." Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. 3rd ed. Vol. 4. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 74-76. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

Mantel, Barbara. "Gun Control." CQ Researcher 8 Mar. 2013: 233-56. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

McLeod, Ethan. "Gun Control." CQ Researcher 6 Aug. 2015. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

"Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008." Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 11. Detroit: Gale, 2010. 240-303. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

"Reassessing the Nation's Gun Laws." CQ Researcher 22 Mar. 1991: 158-73. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

"USA Gun Violence Statistics | Heedinggodscall.Org". Heedinggodscall.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 8 Dec. 2016.

Worsnop, Richard L. "Gun Control." CQ Researcher 10 June 1994: 505-28. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

logo_essaylogo_essay

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal: