The topic of gun regulation is a delicate and contentious matter that has been the center of conversation for generations in the United States. As a result of recent terrible mass shootings, the topic has split opinions on the optimal remedy. For example, there are those who advocate placing limitations on firearms. At the same time, there are those who oppose gun restriction and regulation. In this sense, Gun control includes any limit on what sort of weapons may be supplied and acquired and who can own or trade them (Pérez-Peña, 2015). Furthermore, it can include where and how they can be kept or carried, how sellers must verify buyers, and how buyers and sellers must disclose transactions to the government. Therefore, gun restriction in America should be repealed since it is causing more harm than benefit due to mass shooting that has equaled massive loss of lives and has given the country a bad image.
Any democratic society cannot function well without a strong emphasis on public and personal safety. As such, America’s arms and gun control have not dissuaded criminals from obtaining firearms. For this reason, Luca et al. (2020) accentuate that mass shooting has not been prevented by enacting rules that limit criminals’ access to firearms. This can be attributed to the fact that perpetrators already intend to disobey the law; anytime they get the chance to use them in public, they do so regardless of the existing rules and regulations. Irrespective of whether criminals do not function according to the rules of demand and supply, the gun restriction will not be an essential method. Conversely, factors such as the offender’s mental state are solely accountable for their heinous deeds, such as mass shootings (Lankford & Silva). In order to prevent these criminals from performing or carrying out their operations in the public sphere, it is necessary to develop a method for restraining them.
The goal of gun control is to restrict the acquisition of certain firearms, primarily assault rifles. Gun control advocates argue that high-capacity magazines enable repeated firing of weapons without refilling. This raises the likelihood that they will rapidly injure additional individuals. As a result, this has not been successful in curbing mass shootings and homicides. In the United States, handguns are the most prevalent weapon category deployed in gun massacres. For example, in every five mass shooting incidents, four must involve a handgun. Therefore, gun control measures restricting firearm types only make mass shootings worse. In fact, due to hand guns’ low cost and readily concealable, they are the most prevalent weapons used by criminals. In addition, few are easily accessible since many of them are lawfully obtained; nevertheless, some are either stolen or unlawfully purchased. Hence, gun control is a vague notion that only intends to benefit a few while it harms a considerable number of people.
Placing more restrictions on gun control will fuel criminals to have the upper hand against victims. As such, an alternative argument opposing is imposing more gun control rules in order to prevent mass shootings (Lee et al., 2017). This is another misleading notion since, from the perspective of gangsters and outlaws. Without dread of reprisal from people who may be armed, criminals in control of these illegal firearms now have a lot easier time committing their crimes. This occurs because they recognize that the more regulations that are established to restrict weapons in the community the higher the likelihood that citizens will not protect themselves if they are targeted. The populace will be unable to protect themselves against those who want to do them widespread damage. Furthermore, states that have lowered restrictions on firearms are believed to have lower crime and mass shooting rates than ones that have restricted the right to self-defense.
Equally, it should be clear that regulating and restricting the public’s access to firearms for weight reduction solely impacts law-abiding persons. In this case, this regulation is not applicable to criminals and gangs. Conversely, whether or not there is a prohibition or limitation on firearms, offenders have recourse to and use these weapons anyway. Current gun laws and rules are incapable of restricting the sale of illegal guns to criminals.
Further, the gun control rule of conducting comprehensive background checks on individuals who want to own firearms invades people’s privacy. The argument is that during gun control background analysis, some private databases will be searched and used for reasons that were not originally envisaged when the information was acquired (Spitzer, 2021). As a result, gun control can be used to access or stalk someone without their consent. Hence, the issue of gun control should be abrogated in a bid to enhance public safety. Similarly, gun control laws do not mandate background checks for firearms sold by unauthorized vendors, such as those selling firearms online or at gun shows. This loophole allows persons with criminal records, restraining orders for domestic violence, and other prohibitive backgrounds to purchase firearms without issue.
In reaction to proponents of gun regulation, it is astounding to see people taking a stand and seeking to resolve a real, tragic, and grave issue. Unfortunately, gun control is an ineffective remedy in ensuring lives are protected. There are far superior and more viable options that will provide considerably better results for all and sundry in America. Gun-control supporters’ determination to pursue a prohibition on firearms that many people consider essential to their wellness is not prudent. Moreover, the majority of reasons presented by gun-control advocates are flawed. For instance, the idea that “Gun control saves lives” is the justification used by supporters of gun control (Spitzer, 2021). It is disconcerting that when an analysis is examined in relation to gun control and saving lives, the primary argument made by gun-control activists is inaccurate. Thus, gun regulation will not prevent more lives from being lost; it will fuel it instead.
Moreover, the second most prevalent argument used by proponents of gun control is people do not have the right to possess whatever firearm they want. Equally, this argument is untrue, for the Constitution of the United States of America provides that individuals have the right to own whatever weapon is required to protect themselves against an oppressive government (U.S. Constitution – Second Amendment, 2022). For example, the law underscores that if an individual wants to acquire a handgun lawfully, they must submit to comprehensive background checks and wait a specified number of days. Thus, people can access any firearm they aspire to have, provided they follow the proper procedures to obtain such arsenals and have attained the eligibility age.
Evidently, from the above arguments, it is apparent that gun control has done more harm than good. Therefore, a solution to the problem is viable, and it is necessary to view gun control insight from its core concern. Specifically, regulations have struggled to impose stringent controls on the sale of guns to criminals; there is a need to examine options that contribute to this issue. Notable is the fact that continuous mass shootings are primarily the result of the distribution of illicit firearms. Given that there is extra money to be gained on the black market, people must realize that someone will benefit from the sale of these illegal guns on the black market, which will then fall into the hands of criminals.
Consequently, offenders have easy exposure to these firearms so long as they have purchasing power. It should be emphasized that criminals want guns since they have many adversaries. Moreover, criminals feel that carrying a weapon for self-defense will protect them from unwanted harm and prevent them from being apprehended when they lack security. Therefore, attempting to restrict weapons to lower the frequency of shooting incidents in the community would not produce harmful outcomes but will leave the community vulnerable to criminals and armed criminals who own the majority of illicit firearms acquired on the market.
It would appear from the arguments that advocating for or against gun control will have nothing to do with lowering the rate of crime and the occurrence of mass shootings. This is because determined criminals will accomplish their deeds regardless. However, it is viable to have stringent measures for possessing guns in the U.S. that will ensure possessing firearm is difficult. For instance, there is a reduced crime by firearms in places with rigid gun laws. To accomplish this goal, the government requires efficient strategies to put an end to mass shootings, for example, captioning guns available to the public. Furthermore, to stop mass gun violence, Americans need to take additional preventative measures beyond reducing public access to firearms. Precisely, developing unanimity among law enforcement officers and having the same types of cultural and geographical gaps as everyone else will be ideal.
References
Lankford, A., & Silva, J. R. (2021). The timing of opportunities to prevent mass shootings: A study of mental health contacts, work, and school problems, and firearms acquisition. International review of psychiatry, 33(7), 638-652. Web.
Lee, L. K., Fleegler, E. W., Farrell, C., Avakame, E., Srinivasan, S., Hemenway, D., & Monuteaux, M. C. (2017). Firearm laws and firearm homicides. JAMA Internal Medicine, 177(1), 106. Web.
Luca, M., Malhotra, D., & Poliquin, C. (2020). The impact of mass shootings on gun policy. Journal of Public Economics, 181, 104083. Web.
Pérez-Peña, R (2015). Gun control explained. The New York Times. Web.
Spitzer R. J. (2021). The politics of gun control (8th ed.). Routledge.
U.S. Constitution – Second Amendment (2022). Constitution Annotated Congress: Analysis and Interpretation of U.S. constitution. Congress.gov. Web.