Should America have stronger Gun Control laws

0 Comment

SHOULD AMERICA HAVE STRONGER GUN CONTROL LAWS Institute PART I: THESIS The development of the human mind has made every individual aware of their rights and people have started considering issues seriously that were not believed to be subjects of importance. Gun Control is one such issue of debate which has sparked arguments from different groups in the United States. The matter of gun control has been subjected to different legislative rulings in the country and the decisions have received mixed responses. People consider their security to be of top most priority and believe that they should be given maximum support from the state for provision of measures for the maintenance of their safety and protection. The increases in the crime rate and incidents of violence have made individuals very concerned and this has led to their demands for the consideration of the relaxation of gun laws. They consider that gun control measures restrict their ways of defense and hence deprive them from leading a quality life as they are in constant fear of being subjected to acts of violence and crime. The first ruling which was passed against the allowing of guns for personal use was given by the Supreme Court of the United States in the year 1939. The Court passed a decision that gun control measures are of immense importance for the security of the individuals (Associated Press 2007). This decision was passed in a time when the rate of crime and violence was very low and in that time period strict gun control laws were the most appropriate decision to uphold the peaceful environment and living of the individuals so as to avoid the falling of weapons in wrong hands. This law prevented the easy availability of weapons and hence criminal groups could not flourish due to the ban on these weapons. The decision could have been the best one in those times owing to the fact that criminal offenses were not persisting at a very high rate in the society. With the changing times and the trends in the society, this decision requires serious revision considering the happenings in the society in today’s world. The crime rate has greatly increased and many innocent lives are lost owing to this surge in the criminal acts. Many people are killed every day in acts of violence. These losses should not be ignored and this calls for proper measures for the security of human lives. It should be considered that so many losses can be avoided if certain laws are amended and revised. The relaxation of the gun control laws would assist individuals in fighting for their own security and it would be useful for them to overcome acts of aggression and violence at the hands of criminals. Though the decision of 1939 is mostly followed in the United States, it serves to breach the rights of the individuals as they cannot fight for their own security. The decision with regard to the gun control should hence be revised. This is because it will make every individual strong and he will not be helpless while facing criminals. References Associated Press. (2007, November 12). SUPREME COURT MAY TAKE ON GUN CONTROL CASE. Fox News. Retrieved from:,2933,310717,00.html PART II: ANTI-THESIS Gun Control has been a matter of concern for the governing bodies of the different states as well as the people residing in these states. It has been a subject of debate in the United States of America and different legislations and rulings have been passed with regard to gun control measures. There are opponents as well as proponents of gun control. The opponents of gun control laws argue for flexibility as they believe provision of guns would render them more safety. On the other hand, proponents consider gun control measures essential for the security of the states as they consider stronger laws would avoid the falling of the weapons in wrong hands. The proponents of gun control have many arguments to favor their position. According to the National Vital Statistics many people lose their lives owing to firearm injuries. In the year 2001 alone, 11,001 people lost their lives due to gun shots by criminals. 16,455 people resorted to suicide by using guns in the same year. This highlights the rate of deaths that occur due to the guns and it has been analyzed that deaths due to injuries pertaining to guns are marked as the second leading cause of death in the United States immediately following the road accidents. It has been analyzed by experts that following the year 1993 there was a subsequent decrease in the number of people dying due to gun shots and they explained that stronger gun control laws accounted as an important reason for this reduction. The opponents thus argue that stronger gun control laws can prove to be beneficial for saving human lives (Gold 2004). The proponents of gun control laws highlight the importance of strict regulations by providing the examples of devastating happenings that have resulted due to poor gun control. Two important lives were lost in the United States in the year 1968 when two exemplary figures of the country were shot. In the month of April in 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by gunshot on the terrace of his motel in Tennessee. In the same year after two months of King’s death, Robert F. Kennedy was also the victim of a gunshot and he succumbed to the injuries and died on the following day. He was in the middle of his presidential race when this event took place. The opponents argue that weak laws pertaining to gun control were the causes of these untoward incidents and important figures of the country are also at a very high risk owing to decreased gun control. The opponents argue that mass killings and other violent incidents could be controlled by providing for stronger laws of gun control (Valdez 2003). A research conducted by Hemenway and his colleagues which was published in the year 2001 revealed important findings with regard to the public opinions about gun control. It highlighted the fact that residents of the United States were more in favor of stronger gun control laws for their safety and they believed that they would be more protected if private guns were not issued and allowed. In the last 15 years of the twentieth century, there was relaxation in the gun control law and people used to carry weapons in certain locations which included churches. In this response the research revealed that 90 percent of the Americans argued that guns should be banned from public places and that they would feel more secure with this ban. Thus, the opponents argue that many killings have resulted due to injuries resulting from firearms. This calls for stronger and stricter measures of gun control and laws should be tightened to prevent such damages and loss of many precious lives. The opponents argue that 90 percent of the Americans support the perspective of bans on carrying of weapons in public places. Hence gun control laws should be strengthened for their safety and protection. References Top of Form Gold, S. D. (2004).Gun control. New York: Benchmark Books. Top of Form Hemenway, D., Azrael, D., amp. Miller, M. (January 01, 2001). National attitudes concerning gun carrying in the United States.Injury Prevention : Journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention,7,4, 282-5. Bottom of Form Top of Form Valdez, A. (2003).Gun control. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers. PART III: SYNTHESIS Gun Control laws have been subjected to many questions. The Gun Control measures have started to be questioned and opponents of these strong gun control laws believe that depriving them from obtaining guns is actually depriving them from fighting for their safety. The individuals believe that they possess the right for fighting for their safety and preventing them from obtaining weapons is actually preventing them from fighting to save their lives. Opponents of gun control believe that it is the constitutional right of every individual to acquire weapons. They argue that stronger gun control laws do not tend to decrease the crime rate nor do they prevent the killings that result due to firearms. According to the Second Amendment of the constitution of the United 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. This amendment is widely used by the opponents as they argue that it clearly states the fact that the people of the United States possess the rights of bearing weapons for their protection. They argue that proponents of gun control are actually violating the constitution of the country. The state of Washington appealed to the court for the ban on handguns but opponents argue that despite of strong measures, crime rate in Washington is on the top as compared to other states and in the year of 2006 there were 169 people killed through guns. Furthermore, it is argued by opponents that relaxation of the laws in the state would allow people to protect themselves (Associated Press 2007). Many representatives of the congress consider the possession of guns to be extremely essential from the point of safety. Opponents of gun control argue that possession of weapons grants safety and security to the individuals even in the absence of the security personnel. Hence a person can fight for his security by himself. Opponents of gun control present the fact that the presence of weapons with the individuals with clear records living in a society makes the society a better and secure place to live and hence provides for greater safety (Nagourney et al 2011). Opponents of gun control laws present with studies that highlight the negativities of gun control laws. A study conducted by Amuser presented with important findings. According to this study, the relaxation of the laws of gun control in the United States has led to a great decrease in the crime rate in the country. The study highlighted this with reference to other countries which include the Commonwealth countries and Australia. It presented the fact that these countries applied stringent and strict gun control measures but their crime rate did not decrease and there was a surge in the criminal acts. This clearly points to the fact that stronger gun control laws do not provide for a reduction in crime and therefore these laws should be relaxed. Mauser explained the fact that imposition of gun control posed increased burden on the governments as they would have to set up more bodies for the protection of the public and these bodies have not proved to be very successful and serve as an economic burden as well (Mauser 2003). Thus, it can be clearly stated that the United States of America does not require stronger gun control laws. The possession of weapons by an individual is his constitutional right so that he can fight for his own safety and he is not dependent at all times on the law enforcement agencies. This law would make it a safe and secure place for all individuals to live and to provide for the protection of their homes and families. References Associated Press. (2007, November 12). SUPREME COURT MAY TAKE ON GUN CONTROL CASE. Fox News. Retrieved from:,2933,310717,00.html Top of Form Mauser, G. A., amp. Fraser Institute (Vancouver, B.C.). (2003).The failed experiment: Gun control and public safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales. Vancouver, B.C.: Fraser Institute. Nagourney, Adam and Steinhauer, Jennifer.(2011, January 13).A Clamor for Gun Limits, but Few Expect Real Changes. The New York Times. Retrieved from: Bottom of Form Bottom of Form