Gun control policies should be enforced because they will make the world a safer place. The right to live in the most crucial right for an individual that is why its violation is prohibited by the constitution and involves severe punishment. There have been cases of shootings in schools carried out by students, and lives are lost for various reasons. In 1999, a student with an AK 47 opened fire on students in Florida simply because they had mocked him during a public meeting. The subject of gun control is critical in such a case. We can take different sides, either for gun control or against it. Guns are used by all ages for gaming, hunting, self-defense, and crime. Many questions have been considered with the issue of gun control from time to time, and this creates heated debate. Should gun ownership be abolished partly or completely? Should the right to bear arms be reserved? Crime rate statistics show that gun-related incidents are on the increase. Usually, the victim is shot if a gun was pointed at him/her. We consider that guns are always used to kill, but that is true only if used for that purpose. In 2009, the United States of America recorded 33,490 deaths through guns, where 2,303 cases were accidents related, 22,070 were murders cases, 312 were unaccounted for, and only 120 deaths were caused by self-defense (Lafollette 13). These statistics will be reduced if the government has a tough policy on the possession of firearms. Thus, gun control should be enforced if we want to live in a safe world.
Guns are used to kill if used during wars or for personal defense. Ownership of firearms needs to be justified from a moral view, and it should also be constitutional. Ownership of a firearm as a tool for self-defense gives rise to a moral question what if a person will be killed as result (Urban dreams 5). If one decides to use a firearm for protection and can justify that decision, he/she should do so without hurting or killing another person. However, if the constitution allows the ownership of guns by individuals, a moral question that needs an answer is how fundamental that right should be. Thus, gun control should be enforced with stiff penalty for anyone caught with it. Even when such right is fundamental, it should not be used to take a life (Lafollette 9). Nevertheless, the right for freedom does not allow us to do everything we want, as well as the right to free speech does not warrant a person to walk into an office and scream aloud. Such rights should not violate other persons’ right, regardless whether it is a motivated or accidental act. Nonetheless, one can protect him/herself from harm if he/she uses his/her firearm just to scare a robber who attacks him. However, should that incident result in shooting between the robber and the victim, the good intents of using that weapon for self-defense will not be realized (Kleck 44).
In a society without gun control policies, the use of arms becomes just as common as any other tool. It then means that protection will be on an individual note, with little importance of law enforcement officers. Some argue that having a gun in the house gives you some security. The world is at war with terror, and political leaders have failed in their responsibility to protect her citizens from danger. Therefore, the right to bear arms becomes a fundamental issue. A man who has a family, will fend for that family and protect his family in times of danger, thus he believes he needs to fortify himself to avoid being a victim. Every responsible man believes that only criminal minded people will buy a gun just to commit crime (Kleck 33).
This shows that not all fundamental rights are positive, no matter what the majority say about it. Crime rate is on the increase, and people die every day through gun related accidents. People who argue in favor of gun ownership say that guns help protect innocent lives, and lessen crime rate. However, one will put forward that in every incident of gun shooting, innocent lives are taken. Youths take laws into their hands as soon as they lay hands on a firearm. They argue that robbers attack unarmed people, and gun ownership is a need. However, if the constitution makes gun ownership legal, the rate of household accidents will be on the increase as seen from the statistics above.
The need to have a rigid policy on the ownership and use of guns remains a better choice. This does not rule out the possibility of unlawful possession of firearms. In fact, research shows that criminals buy gun through unlawful channels. This can even undermine the gun control policy because no matter how hard government try to control the sale of firearms, dealers of such goods will always find another way of trading (Kleck 17). Records show that most firearms collected from crime scenes or impounded by law officers were bought from illegal channels. First offenders should be jailed, and stiff measures are to be put in place to reduce illegal sale of firearms.
No matter how we argue for the right to bear arms, the world will be a safer place if the government impose penalty on anyone caught with firearm, except the law enforcement officers. Fundamental rights justify the need to bear arms even for self-defense. The danger of having guns in our society still outweighs the small benefits it may have. Guns cause killings and deaths, even if used only for self-defense. A strict gun control policy will reduce the percentage of gun related accidents.
Works Cited
Kleck, Gary. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1991. Print.
Lafollette, Hugh. Gun Control. 2000. PDF file. Web.
Urban dreams: Guns in our lives. n.d. PDF file. 2012. Web.