Federal Gun Control

The security of a nation and its people is of the utmost importance to all citizens. It is, in truth, their right. The federal government is tasked with protecting its people. In the aftermath of shocking mass shootings and terror attacks, the issue of gun control has risen to the top of the agenda in nearly every area of the defense industry. There has been a great deal of debate over gun safety. A privilege protected by the second amendment, which states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” has been hotly contested since mass shootings at schools show that such firearms can wreak havoc in the hand of the wrong people. The policy makers and citizens seek ways to end such tragedies where the innocent people lose their lives. The major questions arising from this issue of gun control is who should own the guns? Should they be tracked? Which firearms are suitable for civilians or should a civilian be allowed to carry firearms at all? The paper shall seek to argue the importance of more gun control laws and why they should be enacted.

Gun control is a general phrase which encompasses numerous kinds of restrictions. It may entail what guidelines on what types of firearms can be purchased and traded, who can own them and where, when and how they can be kept or carried. Gun control additional may comprise of obligations that a seller has to scrutinize a buyer’s background or if the firearm sale ought to be reported to the state. Gun control also encompasses sorts of ammunition as well as the size of the parts that hold it (LaFollette 263). The three issues prominently tackled in the gun control debate are the background checks for purchasers, bylaws governing who can have the firearms in public and the types of guns available. Another key issue should be who should be given permission to have the military style rifles that have in the past been used in mass shootings particularly in schools.

The Current State of Federal Gun Control

Federal by-law bans certain groups of persons from possessing firearms. These include convicted felons, those with mental disorders as well as migrants with no legal status. The Brady handgun violence prevention act enacted by Congress in 1993, necessitates authorized gun dealers to do a background checks on probable buyers via the FBI database. This was intended to stop the sale of firearms to the prohibited persons (Kopel 4). The systems, however, have key holes in it. The first being that a majority of small scale firearm sellers take it as hobbies thus tends not to do background checks on people. These groups tend to sell firearms during gun shows. Another key challenge is that persons with mental disorders are never diagnosed so they can still possess the firearms legally.

Gun Violence and Gun Rights

Many studies have found out that upsurge in the gun violence in the society is not associated with a mere presence of the guns in the society; however, it is ownership of the guns by the wrongs persons who have ill intentions. Even though the federal government seeks to protect the individuals by restricting the possession of guns, its impacts are yet to be fully realized. Whereas it is true that many aspects add to high rates of gun violence in the US, a comparison of state bylaws versus shooting deaths rates shows a connection. The states that have stricter gun by-laws have the lowest rates of gun-related deaths, whereas those states with few restrictions on gun control have high rates. The standpoint of this essay is that laws on gun possession ought to be tightened. There are factors as stated above to look into that are the back ground, mental states of the person.

Universal Background Checks

Under the present law, people who are in the gun business ought to carry out criminal background checks before any sale. Following the Charleston shooting in June 2015, there was advocacy for expansion of background check system to encompass private sales too. Many thought that the congress ought to vote on a bill to broaden background checks. Dylann Roof, a racist who carried out this shooting in the church, had initially been apprehended and even confessed to being a drug user (Kopel 4). This alone, federal Gun Control Act of 1968 was enough to prevent him from possessing firearms since the act prohibits firearm ownership by illegal drug users. The federal bureau of investigation owned up to having failed to enter such data that had been availed by the local law enforcement. This occurrence shows major limitation to the background checks. This is what the paper is suggesting that the background check systems be expanded and monitored regularly for errors.

There are three other shootings that caught the nation’s attention which still alludes to the constraints of the background checks. Muhammad Youssef Ab-dulazeez attacked two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He was a jihadi who was radicalized after seeing his kindred in Jordan. Abdulazeez had bought the firearm legally when he was a US national. John Russell Houser killed many people in a movie theatre in Lafayette, Louisiana in July 2015(Kopel 5). Houser had a mental disorder, in 2008, a judge in Georgia gave an order to capture him so as be subjected to a mental evaluation for a few days. The mental hospital records, however, have never been released. Had Houser been involuntarily committed, he would not have been allowed to own a fire arm under the Gun control act. But he was not and therefore went successfully through the background check and bought the gun.

These are some of the shortcomings of the background check systems which allows gun ownership to those prohibited under the Gun Control Act. Many gun control proponents assert that about 40% of firearm sales take place without proper background checks. Another issue also is the law on acquisition which is different from the purchase. Acquisition means inheriting a gun from family members or close friends (Kopel 4). There is no law governing this, and the gun can land in the wrong arms. There is a need for the universal gun registration system to keep a record of every gun that comes in and goes out. Even though, criminals might still fight ways to obtain guns illegally, at least tightening the rules on the background check systems shall reduce the number of firearms available in the streets.

Even though there is an upsurge in gun violence in the society, this is not something the society to become accustomed too. Neither does it imply that guns should be availed to the society so that people can protect themselves. It entails passing all-inclusive gun control by-laws that forbid numerous forms of gun ownership, hugely restricting or stopping access as well as an ability to purchase a firearm. Implementation of programs that allow the government to seize guns illegally acquired (Kopel 6). For those who have legally acquired the guns, ownership should entail thorough background checks, all-embracing and compulsory training on the safety use as well as storage of firearms. There have been cases whereas there are accidents shootings where innocent citizens get shot in their backyards.

There is the case where 12 year old from New Mexico took his parents gun and used it to shoot and injure two of his class mates. The question is what would a 12-year-old be doing with a gun? He is not a law breaker, and neither had he ever gotten in trouble in school. Report shows that he was a bright but quiet boy. He managed to lay his hands on the gun because his family owned the gun and had probably seen them use it regularly maybe in hunting trips. This is a tragedy that could have been fatal; still, it could have been averted. If there were restrictions on the safe storage of the gun, maybe in safe or locked somewhere in an unreachable place, the boy would not have found it. There are other incidences some even unreported of improper use of a gun.

A Florida man shot and killed a person in the theater because he simply could not stop sending text messages. It might have been annoying, and it is understandable, however, can texting irritate someone to the extent of shooting another? Naturally, another person could easily grab the phone and maybe throw it away. However, this man had the gun and felt it necessary to use it. The point is that if he did not have a gun, he could not have killed the man. If individuals were not permitted to carry guns to the theatre, such incident might not have occurred. Other gun owners might use the gun to harass unarmed citizens. The citizens need to comprehend that heavily armed populace in a threat in itself. Restricting the laws on gun ownership and utilization can go a long way in protecting unarmed citizens and stopping misuse of firearms.

The general rule of the thumb shows that if firearms were hard to get, there would be fewer guns in circulations hence fewer shootings. Children, teenager, relatives as well as those with mental disorders would not have access to their guardian’s guns if there were very strict restrictions on gun ownership (Poliseno and Walter 7). Even though, there might still be few illegal guns in circulations, if laws make it hard to obtain the gun, very few people would access it and hence reduces the circulation. In fact, it is known that illegal guns initially had legal owners; that is the guns are stolen from the legal owners and ends up in the streets. Therefore, low availability of firearms implies that fewer guns end up on the streets.

Gun control laws additionally would lessen the societal expenses linked to gun violence. As medical records show in many hospitals, a majority of the emergency visits are as a result of gun-related injuries. The gun violence expenses entail not just medical costs but productivity, motional costs- pain and suffering, imprisonment, legal services, lost times and earning among other aspects. These costs can be minimized if stricter gun control laws are enacted.

Gun control leads to few suicides. Data shows that gun suicides account for about half of the total suicides in the US. The absence of gun means fewer suicides. A person is unlikely to kill himself or herself with a crude weapons even gun is unavailable, therefore life could be spared. Additionally, women are often victims of domestic abuse (LaFollette 265). A vast majority of women have been killed by their partners or spouses by use of a gun. In the absence of the firearms, their lives would have probably been spared; maybe they would just be physically assaulted. Again apart from gun suicides, there is the issue of the accidental gun firing, which can be fatal. Even if not fatal could destabilize one’s life.

Another issue is that in the event of a conflict or confrontation, the presence of a gun can make it even more violent. There are instances like romantic triangles, bar fights or other confrontations, guns can easily be used in these cases since it is close at hand (LaFollette 268). Additionally in the vents of attacks or mass shooting armed citizens are less likely to stop attacks. In fact, in such situation, they might make the situation even deadly by aggravating the attacker. Even though the opponents of gun control assert that firearms can help stop such attacks, research shows that they are likely to make mistakes in such situation. Maybe only well-trained persons such as military personnel or retired law enforcers can only subdue the attacker. This also points out to the aforementioned point of safety use of guns (LaFollette 270). Gun owners should be taught the proper use of a gun during attacks. High-capacity magazines ought to be completely prohibited because it often used for mass shootings. It would be safe to say that it is better to enact even harsher gun control laws.

Counterarguments

The opponent of gun controls laws opposes this view and have their own arguments on why guns should be allowed. Their first argument is that the second amendment permits the citizens to own guns. Therefore more gun control bylaws would be infringing this personal right accorded by the constitution. Gun ownership is an old American tradition that has been passed down from generations; therefore banning gun ownership would be eliminating an old tradition as well as violating one’s rights. Gun control regulations additionally violate citizens’ rights to self-defense as well as disallowing a sense of safety. Determined criminals shall break the law whether they have a gun or not. Gun control regulations might be in place. However, the criminals will still find a way to obtain the gun illegally. They will use this guns to cause harm and carry out their criminal activities and even kill people with them (Valdez and John 15). The challenge according to the opponents is that unarmed citizens would be on the receiving end as they would have been able to defend themselves. Additional illegal guns are a huge business in the country and are unlikely to go away soon.

Gun control laws take power from the citizens. Constitutionally, one has the right to defend themselves including firearms. Whereas some limitations ought to be in place, if the government has too much authority regarding the kinds of things, it makes it easier for them to confiscate all firearms from citizens including even those used for sports and hunting. This causes the citizens to be open to government powers over them and hence leaving them vulnerable for a totally police state (Valdez and John 25). Harsher gun control bylaws are not a necessity. Instead, the emphasis ought to be on the education of guns. People ought to be taught the dangers, damage they can do as well as proper utilization. They also need to know how to properly store them. Education is better than enacting more gun control laws.

Firearms aids in deterring crime. The main aim is to aid in lowering the rate of crimes. Gun control bylaws cannot do that. If a criminal knows that a person has a gun, they are not likely to attack those persons. Additionally, people will have the courage to walk around town as well as feel safe in their home when they have something to defend themselves with (Valdez and John 30). Crimes rates shall greatly reduce as well as rapes since criminals know that they can easily be killed. Stricter gun control bylaws might generate animosity between the citizens and the government. The citizens feel that the government is trying to have too much authority over personal choices. More gun control regulations are certainly to cause even more tensions which might one day explode in a very unhealthy way.

Recommendations

There ought to be prohibition and criminalization of the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry

Loopholes concerning the purchase of firearms at gun shows should be sealed

The government ought to prohibit the purchase of weapons over the internet

The loopholes in the background check systems should be thoroughly examined and checked and the FBI ought to work with local law enforcement closely

Waiting time should be increased to allow thorough background checks

The number of guns a person can own should be limited as well as the size of the magazines

Tougher laws should be enacted concerning Concealed weapons in places like bars or entertainment spots where fights are likely to occur

There ought to be interfacing of all data bases supervising gun ownership to evaluate gun owning populace more precisely and efficiently

There ought to be restrictions on gun inheritance and acquisition from relatives or family friends

There ought to be penalization in case a teenager, or a child gets access to the gun

Conclusion

Firearms in the hands of law abiding persons may promote public safety. Guns in the wrong hands cause more to the public and might lead to loss of lives. Ideal firearms guidelines center on averting dangerous individuals and do not try to violate the constitutional rights of good citizens. Background checks on guns purchases could be enhanced by including more records on people who have been arbitrated to be mentally ill, and they are a danger. Even though determined criminals might still obtain illegal guns, restricting access, however, ensure fewer guns in circulation. Gun control laws should put a lot of emphasis on the safety of the citizens and not the government. In as much as accessibility to guns should be prohibited, in crime-prone areas or businesses, residents and owners should have the right to protect themselves. Gun control laws should be responsible and encompasses many aspects of citizens’ lives and the government as well. The balance should be a stroke to meet the needs of the two entities.

Works cited

Kopel, David B. “The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control.”

LaFollette, Hugh. ”Gun control.” Ethics 110.2 (2000): 263-281.

Poliseno, Charles K., and Walter Andrusyszyn. ”The Effectiveness of Gun Control Legislation: A Comparative Study.”

Valdez, Angela, and John E. Ferguson. Gun Control. New York: Chelsea House, 2012. Print.