Gun Control Unnecessary Unsuccessful And Unneeded

Print   

02 Nov 2017

Disclaimer:
This essay has been written and submitted by students and is not an example of our work. Please click this link to view samples of our professional work witten by our professional essay writers. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of EssayCompany.

Lindsay Thompson

Mrs. Etheridge

AP Government and Politics

Gun Control: Unnecessary, Unsuccessful, and Unneeded

The issue of gun control is extremely important and relevant in today’s world, especially in the United States of America. Many Americans have different opinions and ideas about what the exact meaning of gun control is, and many question rather or not it is constitutional to implement gun control. By definition, gun control is the effort to regulate or control sales of guns. Gun control is basically laws and policies intended to restrict or limit possession, use, and sale of firearms by citizens. According to The Cato Journal, gun control is "[An] umbrella term covering everything from laws prohibiting the ownership of defined classes of firearms to mandating the inclusion of gun locks with every firearm sold" ("Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?", 1). Regardless of what the correct or most commonly used definition of the term is, the real question is if it is in accordance to the constitution. The answer to whether this practice is constitutional or not is simple: gun control is not constitutional, and it should not be implemented.

The root of the desire to implement gun control is in question. There are a few different questions that arise from the suggestion of gun control; government authority being the main one. "Controversy over gun control revolves around 2 questions of government authority: does the government have the right to impose regulations; and, assuming the existence of such a right, should the government regulate guns?" (Spitzer, 1). The government possesses rights to change things in order to impose regulations if they so desire. However, does that mean they should? Definitely not. The government should not regulate guns for several reasons. There are needs for firearms, and regulating use of them should be out of the question.

There are some things that should be considered, however. For instance, the current homicide rate is ridiculous. Approximately one in every two hundred and forty Americans will be murdered. ("Gun Control- Just Facts", 1). However, it has been found that this rate is not entirely due to guns. Several studies have examined the correlations between rates of gun ownership and gun-related, as well as overall, homicide and suicide rates around the world. A study on suicide rates came to the conclusion that increases gun restrictions, while reducing suicide by gun, resulted in no net decline in suicides. This is because of substitution of other methods. ("Gun Control", 1). Violence in the United States of America is a huge problem, and some may assume that guns are the cause of this. However, in reality, people come up with many more amounts of equally or more violent measures. Martin Killias, through a study covering twenty one countries in 1993, found that there were some correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates. But, his study also concluded that gun related suicide and homicide rates were only a small fraction of overall suicide and homicide rates.

The issue of gun control is mainly concerning personal firearms. As "Gun Control" states on page one, "most commonly the guns in question are personal firearms, typically handguns and long guns" ("Gun Control", 1). Considering that gun control primarily targets personal firearms, people feel threatened by the thought of not being able to protect themselves and their families. It is likely that gun control laws are not going to stop a criminal if they are determined to hurt people. If personal guns were to be restricted or limited, families would be in danger if a situation occurred where someone tried to attack them. Every family should be permitted to have as many firearms they need in order to stay safe and sound. Levels of firearm ownership are interesting when it comes to categories of people that own guns. Households are more likely to own firearms than individuals are. Forty two percent of all households have multiple guns in their home. Also, males are more likely to own firearms than females are. Forty seven percent of males own personal guns, while only thirteen percent of females do. These statistics are completely logical, as it makes sense for the head of a household to feel like they have more at stake with their family there. Also, males’ protective instincts cause them to feel the need to protect others around them, while females tend to rely on males. Gun owners stated the reasons why they own firearms. The number one answer, the answer that came up sixty seven percent of the time, was "protecting against crime". This clearly is the most important and common reason to own guns. The second most popular answer, coming up sixty six percent of the time, was "target shooting". This answer was only one percent behind the top answer, therefore protecting against crime and target shooting both seem to be important to the United States citizens. The third most popular answer was hunting. This answer came up fifty eight percent of the time. ("Gun Control- Just Facts", 1). Some families rely heavily on hunting for their chief source of food and nutrition. If restrictions were placed on gun owners, it is possible that some lower class families could be deprived of food.

This Chart proves that when more household have firearms, the homicide rate is less.

The following chart summarizes the use of personal guns, as discussed earlier.

The disagreement over gun control is deeper than it appears to be. It’s not just about gun owners wanting to keep their guns and not be restricted on how they can use them. "At its heart, the gun debate is a question about the relationship between the citizen, the state’s power to regulate, and the maintenance of public order" (Spitzer, 1). Basically, limiting the use and sale of firearms is essentially an attempt to maintain public order. People also challenge the rights of the government to regulate such things. Although the government is supposedly trying to achieve order and peace, they are not going to receive these things through regulation and restriction of guns.

Certain areas that have tried to implement gun control laws have been quite unsuccessful. Take Chicago, Illinois for example. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Illinois is the only state in the country where one cannot legally carry a concealed weapon, and lawmakers recently introduced procedures to restrict legal gun ownership even more. However, While Chicago has the strictest gun control policies; they also have one of the highest crime rates. In 2012, there were over five hundred murders in Chicago, breaking several records. It is safe to say that gun control policies are completely unsuccessful because they disarm citizens, but criminals still possess guns.

Washington D.C. is another place that has implemented strict laws concerning gun control. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 prohibited residents from owning handguns. The laws in Washington have proven to be ineffective. "Critics, citing numerous statistics, have questioned the efficiency of these restrictions. The combination in Washington of strict gun-restriction laws and high levels of gun violence is sometimes used to criticize gun-restriction laws in general as ineffective." Washington D.C, similar to Chicago, has a high crime rate. As they continued to add more laws, it seems as if their crime rates continuously elevated. The chart below illustrates the murder rates in this area.

The compelling issue of gun control is not only occurring here in the United States of America. "Gun control laws and policy vary greatly around the world. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom or Germany, have very strict limits on gun possession, while others, such as the people here in the United States, have relatively modest limits" ("Gun Control", 1). Although the issue of gun control is pressingly existent in the United States at this point in time, it is also present in other areas all over the world; The United Kingdom and Germany being fantastic instances.

In the United Kingdom in 1996, one of Britain’s worst ever incidents relating to gun-related violence occurred. This massacre resulted in the deaths of sixteen children of the ages five and six. Their teacher was also killed. This tragic shooting in the Scottish town of Dunblane was horrid, and people began to do as much as they could to prevent such things from happening again. Shortly after, Britain introduced new legislation: the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. This act made it mandatory to have registration for owning shotguns, and it banned semi-automatic and pump-action weapons. Within a year and a half of the Dunblane massacre, lawmakers in the United Kingdom had passed a ban on the private ownership of all handguns in mainland Britain. This gave the country some of the toughest anti-gun legislation in the world. However, as in Chicago, the extreme regulations on gun ownership and possession in The UK were not as successful as planned. The new laws initially appeared to have very small amounts of impact, as the number of crimes involving guns in England rose heavily during the late 1990s to peak at 24,094 offenses in 2003. (Wilkinson, 1). The crime rates continue to skyrocket, proving that these harsh gun laws are unsuccessful.

Germany is also a good example of the failure of gun control laws. The German Weapons Act is a gun regulation law enacted in Germany in 1972. It includes and expands on previous gun regulation laws. It regulates the handling of knives, firearms and ammunition as well as acquisition, storage, commerce and maintenance of weapons. It also states that there are certain forbidden items such as nunchakus, switchblades and brass knuckles. The German Weapons Act is considered as one of the strictest gun laws in the world. In 2002, there was another act introduced. This act is called the Weapons Act of 2002. It increased the age requirements for licensed hunters and competition shooters. It also introduced the requirement of a psychological evaluation for persons under the age of 25 to fulfill the requirement of personal adequacy. During the time of Hitler’s rule, there was obviously an extremely ridiculous and devastating amount of unnecessary violence. During the holocaust, Hitler enacted gun control laws to the extreme. He took away every gun he laid eyes on. He wanted all the power. The holocaust was one of the most violent times in history. Hitler may have taken away people’s guns, but he used them himself, or found other tortuous methods of violence and murder. After the holocaust was over, the death rate slowly decreased, however, the gun control laws in the years to come basically counteracted this notion. As it has been proved time after time, gun control laws tend to make death rates and violence rates increase. This was the case in Germany also.

The thoughts and ideas of politicians seem to have large effects on gun control laws. "Politicians who confuse media opinion with public opinion are intimidates into acting more and more severe restrictions on gun owners" (Gottlieb, Kopel, 1). Most politicians are extremely bold and firm with their views concerning this issue. They are concerned that the amount of violence will have negative effects on the opinion of our country and government. Little do they know, the media has a tendency to blow things way out of proportion. Contrary to what some may believe, public opinion is not shaped solely by media opinion. Since politicians mistakenly believe that public opinion and media opinion are so intertwined, they confused the two. This makes no sense and should not be continually occurring. The media opinion tries to persuade the public opinion, but in the case of gun control, the people are not easily swayed from their personal opinions. When someone has their opinion set in stone when it comes to the pressing issue at hand, it is extremely difficult to get them to bend in their ways. People are aware that putting restrictions on gun owners will not have any positive outcomes, despite what the media may tell them.

The restriction of possession of guns is not only unnecessary and unsuccessful, it is also completely impractical. Limiting the number of firearms a person can have is a waste of time when it comes down to it. Limiting guns will not fix and problems concerning violence, considering one gun has the potential to do the same damage as can several. It is unlikely that a person will shoot more than one gun at a time. Limiting the quantity of guns will possibly slow one down, but it will certainly not stop anything. Criminals will find ways to have more firearms at hand. Criminals are the people that we should be concerned with looking out for, not citizens that can rightfully possess firearms.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the bill of rights included a guarantee of the personal right to own a gun ("Guns and Gun Control", 1). The second amendment undoubtedly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed upon. If someone is given the right to bear arms, there is no limit on the quantity of firearms they may own. Since the constitution says we have the right to bear arms, setting up limits concerning guns in unconstitutional in every way possible.

There have also been times in the past when the Supreme Court has struck down many instances of gun control. For example, the case of Presser v. Illinois. This case upholds citizens’ rights to bear arms and participate in state and personal militia activities. Secondly, the case of Columbia v. Heller is an example of this. In this case, it is emphasized that people have the right to bear arms outside of a connection o a militia. Lastly, the case of McDonald v. Chicago is a prime example. This case said that the second amendment applies to both state and local government as it does to the federal government. These three cases hold up and support the people’s right to bear arms (Vidal, 1).

An issue that seems to bring on ideas that gun control laws are a good thing is school shootings. There has been a rapid increase in school shootings in the United States in the past year. As time goes on, the world is becoming more and more technologically advanced, so crime continues to increase. In January of this year, 2013, eight school shootings took place. One of the most talked about and most devastating shootings that took place recently is the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Twenty six people- twenty students and six adults, were shot and killed in this shooting. Shooter, Adam Lanza, age twenty, grabbed the three guns he had with him from his house, after supposedly killing his own family members. The guns he took belonged to his parents. This is a prime example of the fact that no matter who is supposed to be handling a gun, people are determined to find ways to get their way. The fact that Lanza used guns that did not belong to him reinforces the fact that limiting people’s firearms is not useful.

As citizens that are opposed to gun control laws being enforced, there are several things that we can do to take action. First, we can write letters to congress. Voicing one’s opinion in this way can be very successful, and there is not anything to lose by expressing personal views. Several good things could result from sharing opinions with congress through letters. Also, one can take action to vote certain gun prohibitionists out of office. Getting rid of people that disagree with the view believed to be right is a relevant goal. Attempting to get ride of gun prohibitionists is a step in the right direction toward getting rid of gun control laws. Lastly, one could push the media to re-examine their attitudes. The media’s effect on the people could potentially make a vastly large difference. If it is a goal to eventually change their opinions and views, it is likely that these attempts will be successful.

In conclusion, the restriction and limitation of people’s use, sale, and possession of firearms is just simply wrong, no question about it. Gun control should not even be considered. The Constitution states that every citizen has the right to bear arms. The United States Constitution also states that any infringement upon this right in unconstitutional. If one were to go back and closely look at the constitution, these things would stand out. Implementing gun control laws is a prime example of infringing upon the right to bear arms, and therefore is unconstitutional, as well as completely unacceptable.



rev

Our Service Portfolio

jb

Want To Place An Order Quickly?

Then shoot us a message on Whatsapp, WeChat or Gmail. We are available 24/7 to assist you.

whatsapp

Do not panic, you are at the right place

jb

Visit Our essay writting help page to get all the details and guidence on availing our assiatance service.

Get 20% Discount, Now
£19 £14/ Per Page
14 days delivery time

Our writting assistance service is undoubtedly one of the most affordable writting assistance services and we have highly qualified professionls to help you with your work. So what are you waiting for, click below to order now.

Get An Instant Quote

ORDER TODAY!

Our experts are ready to assist you, call us to get a free quote or order now to get succeed in your academics writing.

Get a Free Quote Order Now