In the US, the gun control debate is usually revisited when a tragedy related to guns occurs. Accordingly, the Connecticut massacre, once again, ignited this debate. In this tragedy, twenty children and six teachers were killed (Jam). Subsequently, many people, including President Obama, were drawn into this debate. In one of his latest speeches, President Obama reiterated that the entire happening shocked all Americans.
Therefore, all Americans should now do something about the incident and the whole gun control issue (Fox). According to pro-gun control advocates, guns alter ways in which people respond to violent situations (Myers).
On the other hand, pro-gun advocates argue that the decision to use a gun or not lies on the owner. People use their own judgment to commit atrocities using guns (Myers). For that reason, their actions should not be generalized. This essay provides an insight into the current gun control debate in the US.
Myers states that pro-gun advocates have derailed efforts to discuss the effects of guns on the society (Myers). Myers, however, denies suggesting that those who are pro-gun are wrong. Myers justifies his argument by claiming that the pro-gun movement presents its issues in a way that prevents a meaningful debate on the role of guns in the society.
People, therefore, look at what they can do with the guns, but overlook how guns transform their lives. According to Myers, guns enable the week to fight the strong, facilitate instant violence and completely change how humans view things. Many deaths could be avoided if people are restricted from owning guns.
For instance, the NFL linebacker, who killed himself and his wife in the Belcher tragedy, could be alive if he did not own a gun. Therefore, the notion that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is not true (Myers par. 6). The tragedy involving Jordan Davis is another example of how guns can complicate a simple event (Myers).
In this case, Michael Dunn disagreed with a group of teens over loud music coming from their car. Later on, Davis shot one of teens, Jordan Davis. The incident clearly shows that a person who owns a gun has more options than a person who owns none. For that reason, the question we should be asking ourselves is whether guns increase the affinity of owners to confrontations.
An article by Jam also supports Myers sentiments on gun control. Citing Senator Chris Murphy, Jam states that there are laws which permit people to enter bars, stadiums and other places with firearms. Bars and sports stadium are some of the places where emotions run high. Consequently, confrontations are frequent — these places, hence, experience regular gun battles.
According to white, American owns more than two hundred and twenty-three million guns. The right to own a gun is guaranteed in the second amendment (White). Therefore, in the US, the right to own a gun is a constitutional provision. Fetzer maintains that guns ensure that there is a citizen militia. This militia is expected to protect the country in times of need. Moreover, a gun is meant to provide its owner with a tool for self-defense.
The second amendment also allows an individual to own a gun as a private property (White). Consequently, preventing a person from owning a gun infringes on his rights. Fetzer goes on to state that the event at Connecticut was stage-managed. He argues that those killed were allowed to remain in the building until evening.
Surprising, they were removed secretly at night. In normal circumstances, ambulances should have rushed the victims to hospitals immediately after the shooting to find out whether they were dead or not. According to Fetzer, gun control advocates created a scene that would push for greater restrictions on gun ownership.
Personally, I am yet to form an opinion on the whole issue. God created man with a mind to differentiate good and bad. Consequently, human beings perform most of their tasks from their own freewill. However, some states in the US have enacted gun control laws (White). Gun control laws can, hence, exist without compromising people’s safety. For that reason, it might not be necessary for people to own guns.
To me, it is very difficult to take sides in the gun control debate. Maybe, I am as confused as President Obama. President Obama hopes that the US will work towards eliminating gun violence (White). Nevertheless, he believes that people have the right to own firearms. Given that, I uphold the current laws regarding the ownership of firearms since this debate does not make much sense to me.
Despite public outcry, meaningful gun control legislations remain doubtful (Fox). Senate majority leader, Harry Reid is expected to present several gun reform laws to the Senate for voting. This legislation includes laws prohibiting people from buying guns for those forbidden from owning them (Fox). This is the only hope for pro-gun control advocates. Meanwhile, the pro-gun advocates continue to enjoy the status quo.
Works Cited
Fetzer, James Henry. “Why gun control is bad for America?” www.presstv.ir. Press TV, 2013. Web.
Fox, Lauren. “Three Reasons Americans Shouldn’t Hold Their Breath on Gun Control: Despite public momentum, political chips still must fall into place on Capitol Hill.” usnews.com. US News, 2013. Web.
Jam, Michael. “Pro-Gun Control Senator Asks NASCAR to Change Name of the ‘NRA 500’.” cnsnews.com. CNS News, 2013.
Myers, Ryan. 2012. Gun Control Debate: How Owning a Gun Changes the Dynamics of Conflict. Web.
White, Deborah. n.d. Pros & Cons of Gun Ownership & Use Laws for Individuals.