The development of arguments
surrounding gun control corresponds to the increased violence and problems
related to weapons and firearms use. This then prompted the expansion of gun
control initiatives and has shapes public opinion particularly in the promotion
of increased regulation to banning. Due
to this, it became controversial as it split the opinions of the citizenry
particularly in their stance to advance different objectives. Arguably, the
process of developing gun control remains to be detrimental due to its capacity
to challenge individual rights and liberty, undermine the value of guns and
firearms in the promotion of deterrence and self-defense and inability to recognize
the commitment of existing reasonable gun management and control initiatives
already in place.
Challenging
Individual Rights and Liberty
Central in the arguments against gun
control is its ability to restrict any citizen of the United States the right
to own guns which is protected under the constitution. Specifically, due
recognition is made to its connection to the 2nd Amendment wherein
it seeks to protect the individual liberties of people. This facet also applies
to gun ownership regardless of the original objective and intention. “The
second amendment from the Bill of Rights grants private citizens the right to
bear arms. Thus, people who stand firmly against gun control insist that no
legislation, technically, should have the right to take away a citizen’s guns
without first repealing the amendment in question” (Groberman 1). A good approach to consider in highlighting
this part comes from depriving the citizen of his basic right on the basis of
specific presumption that it would be used for violence or crime.
Promoting
Deterrence and Self-Defense
Promoting gun control also
challenges the ability of the citizenry to promote deterrence and self-defense.
People who own guns have the means to protect themselves to criminal activities
and also safeguard their lives. “Crimes are often prevented by the deterrent
effect of the possibility of victim gun possession” (Balanced Politics.org
1).Arguably, the same analogy applies to law enforcement people who carry
firearms. People do not necessarily try to hurt them because they have the
means to defend themselves. Arguably, this approach is a way to promote
deterrence because it hinders an individual from committing a specific deviant
act.
Equally, gun control also limits
strategies for people to promote self-defense. Arguably, guns and/or firearms
can be a good instrument in creating protection. Here, people find ways to
escape trouble because they have the necessary means to create apprehension
from people. Related to this, the citizenry would also have a means to respond
to threats by criminals. However, by creating gun control, the restrictions
bring forward limitations for safety and protection. In essence, the advancement of gun control
allows people to feel powerless in facing threats or create insecurity in the
environment because they don’t have the necessary means to assure or protect
their life.
Gun
Management Initiatives
Lastly, the development of gun
control initiatives also undermines the recent approaches taken by gun owners
and sellers to remain proactive and responsive to the needs of its members.
Specifically, groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) have
expressed its interest in the development of leadership and expansion of
familiarity with the use of gun and firearms. This means that the group has
been very vocal about collaborating with the community to help members become
responsible gun owners as well as identify the potential that guns can provide
(Showalter, 1). By promoting gun control, not only does it challenge the improvements
that groups such as the NRA but also disregards the concessions and agreements
with gun owners that are in place.
Understanding
the Opposing Side
The existing debate surrounding gun
control in the United States comes from the reported violence and aggression of
people who use guns. Supporters of gun control often attribute the government’s
lenient stance to selling weapons especially in some states. A good statistic to show is that “most
violent crimes are committed with guns; thus restricting gun ownership will
likely reduce the number of such crimes” (Balanced Politics.org, 1). Due to
this, it opens up possibilities for bad people to get gun ownership and expose
the citizens to threats related to terrorism, school shootings and other forms of
violence. Specifically, there have been numerous incidences of killings and
crimes related to irresponsible gun ownership. Thus, supporters of gun control
in the U.S. continue to argue that the negative effects of guns remain to be
more than its positive impact to people. It is through this reality that the
necessity of heavy restrictions to banning is essential.
Analysis
Based from the arguments and
counterarguments presented, the restriction on gun ownership is not the long
term solution in deterring criminal activity. Rather, it exposes the citizenry
to the possibility of threats and people who are willing to subject themselves
to deviant behavior. Also, the recent debate sparked the reality that the
issues are more than political in nature, where influences are particularly
shaped by competing factions. Rather, it is a historical and social component
that shaped the way people view gun ownership. Essentially, these elements need
to be considered in making assumptions on what to develop and accomplish as far
as gun regulations and responsibilities are concerned.
Equally, organizations such as the
NRA should remain committed in its effort to bring forward the value of gun
ownership. Similarly, they must also highlight the corresponding roles and
responsibility that is associated with its possession. Allowing people to
become trained can be valuable tool in shaping appreciations of guns or
firearms and also equip them with the right attitude and mindset in becoming
responsible and accountable for its use.
Conclusion
In conclusion, gun control remains
to be ineffective because it undermines the ability of the citizenry to protect
themselves. It exposes people to criminal elements and limits their capacity to
utilize a tool that would effectively promote their safety. Likewise, it
undermines the basic rights of people in the US as this initiative corresponds
to changes related to individual liberties and freedom, which include gun
ownership. Lastly, gun control challenges the efforts by groups such as the NRA
to promote responsibility and accountability among current and prospect gun
owners. All these reasons remain to be critical because it gives emphasis not
only in the nature of how guns promote deterrence but also its overall value in
American society in general.
Works Cited
Balanced Politics.org. Should civilian possession of handguns and other non-hunting guns be
banned or severely restricted? Web Available from <http://www.balancedpolitics.org/gun_control.htm>
Groberman, Alex. ‘Arguments Against Gun Control’ Opposing Views. 2011 Web Available from
<http://www.opposingviews.com/i/arguments-against-gun-control#>
Hardy, David. ‘Why Gun Owners are Right to Fight Against Gun Control’Reason.com Web
Available from <http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/18/why-second-amendment-supporters-are-righ>
Showalter, Amy. ‘Five Reason the NRA won the recent gun control debate that have nothing to
do with politics’ Forbes.com 2013 Web Available from <http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyshowalter/2013/05/16/five-reasons-the-nra-won-the-recent-gun-control-debate-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-politics/>
No comments:
Post a Comment