Different countries have different opinions about gun control whereby some countries have strict gun control laws while others are liberal. The debate surrounding gun control has two differing sides: the pro-gun control and anti-gun control. Each of these sides bases its arguments on different reasons.
Gun control debate touches on the social, political, and criminal aspects of society with the judicial systems playing an important role in the interpretation of such laws. This paper focuses on evaluating the two opinions in the gun control debate. Although acknowledging the validity of both sides of the debate, gun control is crucial in upholding the security of a community.
Arguments for Gun Control
Proponents of gun control base their arguments on the negative nature of guns because they are used for dangerous activities. This nature elicits the opinion that guns can be used for dangerous purposes, such as causing death and instigating violence. As such, they associate the ownership of guns to crime. In their opinion, implementing gun control laws would reduce the availability of guns to citizens and as such lower the rates of crime.
This concern is supported by statistics that show that the rate of mortality resulting from gun shots has been significant with the issues of homicides and suicide decreases. The lack of gun control allows for more complex crime planning and instigation since criminals can plan crime with the possibility that their target victims would fight back.
As such, the crimes committed are of a higher degree targeted at causing complete harm to the victims so that they are not able to fight back. This increases the chances for other dangerous crimes to be committed, such as knife crimes or gang dealings.
Although guns were traditionally used for recreational purposes and symbolized power, modern times have changed whereby guns are mainly used for self-defense. In this case, it is not likely to have people carry guns around hence the need for regulation. The culture of guns adversely affects the generation of young children who are liable to engagement in a crime or are target victims. It also affects the peace and harmony in society since one is not sure of who could be carrying a gun and how they can use it.
The lack of gun control also limits the criminal judicial system since the aspect of self-defense would just be quoted even where there was an actual crime committed. It is worth noting that statistics show that gun-related accidents have declined which is attributable to the increase in the gun control laws hence the need for more emphasis.
There is further need for gun control laws because of the role of the government in protecting the safety of its citizens — the lack of gun control limits this role. The current laws of gun sale, purchase, and use, especially under the National Firearms Act, limit the age to 21 years. This is because once children and minors, especially teenagers, are aware of guns in their homes, they are likely to make use of it for their purposes, which would lead to death.
The limiting of age is quite challenging because of the possibility of obtaining guns through illegal means, hence the need for more control on guns to deal with these issues. It is worth noting that the fight against terrorism has been on the increase, especially after the 9/11 incident. However, gun sales have increased after the 9/11 hence the need to focus on gun control laws to ensure protection against terrorism and related crimes. The use of gun control would ensure equality and reduce the chances of victimization.
Arguments against Gun Control
Proponents of gun control mainly base their opinions on the assumption that crime is linked to gun ownership. This, however, raises different opinions as to the actual cause of the decrease in gun-related accidents despite the lack of gun control laws. According to opponents of gun control laws, this decline is as a result of socio-economic factors such as a reduction in unemployment and other indicators that show an improvement in living standards.
The second amendment act of the constitution of America warrants the citizens the right to own guns for the sole purpose of self-defense. Thus implementing gun control laws would be a violation of the constitutional rights of gun ownership as well as the right to life where people have the right to self-defense to protect their own lives.
The main reason for gun ownership is a concern for safety. The increased shootings in schools and other social settings have created an environment of fear that warrants the use of a gun for self-defense. The main reason for safety concerns is linked to the lack of safety measures to ensure security and the low response of security during emergencies which if not acted upon can lead to the death of the victims before the arrival of the security personnel and the police.
Further, the sale, purchase, and use of guns are limited through the NFA and other security associations. The recognition of the use of guns in sporting activities that are represented in competitions warrants the use of guns. The limitations of gun control would thus hinder the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms to sports.
In another dimension, the use of gun controls is seen as a way of the government trying to control the citizens. This is because the use of gun control laws would make the citizens depend only on the state for their safety, which may not be reliable, adequate, prompt, and cost-effective. This would be a violation of the rights and freedoms of the citizens.
Although the proponents of gun control laws support their claims on the fight against terrorism, the question arises as to the extent to which the gun control laws would ensure security. This is due to the changing nature of war where the use of guns is not the main weapon but rather wit and strategy to make the enemy surrender.
Summary and Opinion
The main concerns about the choice of the best opinion are based on the realistic nature and the actual implementation as well as future implications of gun control. Although guns are attributed to crime and violence, gun control laws can be effective only if the security of the citizens is guaranteed.
I support gun control laws to this regard not only for the association of guns with a crime, but also the gun misuse culture especially among young people as well as the fact that the liberty of gun possession limits the judicial, criminal and security concerns. Although opponents of gun control laws focus on the rights to self-defense, it is only realistic that the actual possession of a gun does not scare the enemy away, but instead causes him to act more adversely since he is aware of the fact that the victim is armed.
Another concern for gun control is the fact that it is difficult to limit the age and use of guns. As such, even teenagers can access guns which they use to instigate crime or revenge without the concerns of the limited use. Additionally, the limited use does not guarantee the same since once a gun has been used for the wrong purpose, it is not possible to reverse the action, especially where is has caused death.
Gun control laws are also necessary for avoiding instances of racial discriminations and ensuring equality in safety. Although it is difficult to ensure that the citizens remit their guns, the use of gun control laws would be effective in ensuring security and in dealing with crimes. It is, however, important to consider the security assurance for the citizens as well as the context of implementation.