Gun control argument

The Demerits of the Community’s Weapons Safety Policy

The article addresses the demerits of the community’s weapons safety policy. Apparently, the topic drew endless controversial debates, with both sides defending and adamant for their positions. In addition, the paper continues by uncovering controversial problems concerning gun rights and gun safety and begins to address the demerits of gun laws in each particular region. Merits are mentioned and discussed on the protection aspect for residents, the illicit trade in handguns on the black market, and the use of substitute weapons by law-enforcement criminals. It proceeds to discuss the positivity of gun rights to restraining the government excesses, equality and taming robbery incidences, enhanced awareness of the weapons and security agencies responsiveness to situations, reduced crime rates, and impact of moral uprightness to gun violence. Finally, research provides final remarks and makes a recommendation regarding gun control.

Introduction

There have been consistent arguments on the issue of gun control in many countries across the globe. This paper explains the availability or absence of guns in the cities, towns and other parts of the country owned by civilians for several reasons (Safavi et al. 146). The premises of firearm control are built on the facts of the safety of both the gun holders and other citizens not in possession of guns. Therefore, this paper notes that citizens should be allowed the rights to own firearms without any regulations because the weapons are vital to their security in self-defense and serving the common good interest of an evened society.

History and Insights on Gun Control

Gun control proponents have endless rhetoric and exaggerations skewed at denting the freedom to own firearms. The discussion has been ongoing for decades after the starting and advancement to the use of automated guns at 1892. Later, the federal government introduced laws and regulations to affect gun control on 1934 due to an increased wave of gangsterism and gun violence. However, this paper notes that there is nothing wrong with people possessing firearms for several pluses. In fact, security of people through self-defense is the critical element supporting this policy of right to firearms (Webster et al. 299). Moreover, implementing gun control regulations does not stop people from using other methods to committing suicides (Webster & Wintemute 24). They will still proceed and take their lives even through planning accidents, take poison, and others. Factually, gun restrictions do not significantly impact on the number of suicides or attempted suicides. The policy that seeks to regulate firearms has remained a controversial topic for decades across the globe because of strong contested views.

Merits of the Right to Gun Ownership

One of the fundamental arguments on gun control notes the creeping of insecurity in communities due to gun ownership by close to everyone and increased probability of using the firearms causing tension, injuries or deaths. However, gun ownership is a policy that supports home protection. Possessing a gun gives the attacked an opportunity to resist aggression by a burglar or home invader. The gun rights give the owner a level ground as the attacker thereby instilling fear to the potential perpetrator (Webster and Wintemute 27). Otherwise, the victim not in possession of firearm becomes vulnerable to attacks which might cost them their lives or sustained injuries. Gun ownership is the fundamental right in American culture securing individuals from any kinds of attacks or aggression that might cause injuries or deaths to the victim.

Increased Firearms Business in Black Market

Gun control argues the need to regulate the number and personality procuring guns for own protection. Nevertheless, gagging and controlling firearm ownership will only shift the business to behind the scenes. Therefore, it is evident that people will conduct the business of buying and selling firearms away from the authorities’ sight which makes it even more dangerous. Moreover, the citizens will proceed to perform much more illegal activities by smuggling the weaponry into the country and conduct their businesses.

Alternative Weaponry

The proponents of gun control support their position by crimes including murder, suicides, and homicides committed using the weaponry. In the American culture that upholds gun ownership, shocking revelations inform that firearms homicides occur six times more compared to Canada; and sixteen times compared to Germany (La & James 10). Thus arguing controlling access and availability of the weapon will eradicate such occurrence. However, banning firearms in a country does not reduce or eliminate crime or illegal acts by perpetrators (Webster et al. 293). Therefore, banning guns does not act to resolve unlawful incidents because they will still happen with alternative weaponry.

Restraining the Powers of a Government

The supporters of the gun control regulation argue that decision to allow gun ownership to everyone in the community will cause militia and outlawed groups to mushroom and cause security problems to other people. Oppositely, allowing civilians to own guns is a vital factor to check the excesses of the authorities. The government in this situation does not have the monopoly of power and armory and would, therefore, treat its citizens with caution (Webster et al. 297). Equally, the citizens can take advantage of owning this weaponry to resist any forms of injustices including dictatorship and oppression for the good of the whole country. Robbery incidences

As advised by the proposers, gun control will reduce cases of robbery because only responsible and qualified citizens will be allowed to own firearms and thus not cause security breaches. Notably, with gun weaponry, resources and assets of individuals will be protected by themselves without the involvement of the authorities (La & James 5). Consequently, this will ease the burden of service of the police who will dedicate their time and resources to other pressing and urgent needs of the community.

Defense from External Aggression

The right to own firearms can be justified through repulse of an attack from terrorist that is developing to a hostage situation (Simonetti et al. 1705). Even though it is the responsibility of the government security agencies to intervene and rescue its citizens in hostage, armed hostages can play a key role in ending the situation through repulsing.

Enhanced Awareness of the Weaponry

Gun control measures are aimed at eliminating the weapon form hands of teenagers and other people not deemed fit to handle it. Contrary, people will gain more knowledge on the lethality and danger of the weaponry if they become familiar with it (La & James 17). The teenagers through responsible parents will learn to understand how dangerous the firearms are and be educated on how to handle and use them to avoid accidents.

Reduced Crime Rates

Gun control proponents blame the increased wave of robbery and thuggery informing the decision to regulate firearms. However, crime rates are majorly controlled by the possession of illegal firearms. A country has a lot to benefit from allowing its citizens the right to own firearms because of several reasons linked to both their security and that of their resources or investments. Additionally, it is not possible to achieve an absolute gun control (Simonetti et al. 1704). Some criminal elements will still work around and procure guns for themselves posing a risk to others who are without the weapon.

Security Agencies Responsiveness to Attacks

Gun control regulations were formed to pave the way for security agencies to perform their duties without obstructions and hindrances from firearms owners. However, it defeats logic for citizens to be denied the right to own firearms for self-defense yet the security agencies are often slow to respond to situations (Simonetti et al. 1706). In most countries, the security personnel is often behind schedule to intervene and rescue people attacked by assailants because of many and variant reasons including the logistics challenges and the inability to know the attacker’s preparedness and weaponry. Therefore, it is sensible for governments to allow its citizens to own firearms which will make them the key to fighting back and containing such situations. Additionally, the right to own firearms can be justified through repulse of an attack from terrorist that is developing to a hostage situation (Simonetti et al. 1705). Even though it is the responsibility of the government security agencies to intervene and rescue its citizens in hostage, armed hostages can play a key role in ending the situation through repulsing.

Impact of Morals on Gun Violence

One of the arguments supporting gun control stems from the fact that gun violence cases are on the increase because close to everyone owns guns. Moreover, fairly huge number of the gun holders has not been screened on their background and mental capacity. Consequently, these people would misuse the weapons to cause terror attacks. Nevertheless, gun violence should mostly be blamed on ill morals. The government should redirect its efforts to ensuring that the relevant stakeholders start supporting what is right in the community and rewarding good practice and integrity. Besides, it is advisable that before the government implements and adopts other laws, it should improve the existent ones. For instance, if firearm owners registered their weapons, it would be simpler for the law enforcers to use the necessary information to keep track of gun purchases and make sure that all sales are legal.

Conclusion

Conclusively, gun rights policy is necessary to procure a safe environment in the community which is essential because gun control policy will endanger the lives of people when faced with aggression by thugs, burglary, terrorists rendering them defenseless. Therefore, government agencies should adopt the policy on gun rights entirely and subsequently make the punishment for the offenders harsher.

Works Cited

La Valle, James M. “Gun control” vs.“self-protection”: A case against the ideological divide.” Justice Policy Journal Vol. 10, no. 1, 2013, pp. 1-26.

Safavi, A., Rhee, P., Pandit, V., Kulvatunyou, N., Tang, A., Aziz, H., Green, D., O’Keeffe, T.,Vercruysse, G., Friese, RS. & Joseph, B. ”Children are safer in states with strict firearm laws: a National Inpatient Sample study.” The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, vol. 76, no.1, 2014, pp. 146–50.

Simonetti, J. A., Rowhani-Rahbar, A., Mills, B., Young, B., Rivara, F. P. ”State Firearm Legislation and Nonfatal Firearm Injuries”. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 105, no. 8, 2015, pp.1703–09.

Webster, D. W., & Wintemute, G. J. ”Effects of Policies Designed to Keep Firearms from High-Risk Individuals”. Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 36, no.1, 2015, pp. 21–37.

Webster, D., Crifasi, C. K., &Vernick, J.S. ”Effects of the Repeal of Missouri’s Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides”. Journal of Urban Health, Vol. 91, no. 2, 2014, pp. 293–302.