positive and negative sides of gun control

 positive and negative sides of gun control

Abstract

Gun control has led to a controversial debate in the United States. This issue has existed for many years. For instance, it raised significant concerns during the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Since then, there has been an increasing public awareness to the extent to which gun ownership was prohibited by law. Until the 1960s, firearms were available over the counter stores and through mail catalogs, thus increased their ownership across the United States. This paper delves into investigating the arguments presented by the positive and negative sides of gun control. It further contrasts the strength and weaknesses in these arguments and proposes the best approach to solving the controversial issue of gun control laws.

Controversy paper

Introduction

Recently, gun control has led to a controversial debate in the United States. This issue has existed for many years. For instance, it raised major concerns during the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Since then, there has been an increasing public awareness to the extent to which gun ownership was prohibited by law. Until the 1960s, firearms were available over the counter stores and through mail catalogs, thus increased their ownership across the United States. Perhaps the recent events of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shootings have triggered the raging debate on whether or not to control gun ownership (Boylan, 2013). According to Gray (2015), the U.S has 120 guns per every 100 individuals, which represents approximately 393, 347,000 guns, which constitutes the highest total and per capita number globally. Critics against gun control firmly believe that the current gun control laws are irrational because gun ownership enables the bearers of firearms to protect themselves, families, and property. On the other hand, advocates for gun control affirm that the government should regulate guns to decrease cases of crime, accidents from personal safety as well as public shootings (Boylan, 2013). Even though the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution provides the right for citizens to own guns, there should be strict control of who owns and uses the arms to reduce cases of public shootings, personal safety accidents, and crimes.

Side 1

Primarily, the Constitution’s provision on the subject of gun ownership is weak, especially about who can use and have a gun. Today, there are prevalent cases of public shootings throughout the country, which is unacceptable given the fact that the shooters take away innocent lives using guns that got into the hands of the wrong people (Gray, 2015). The events at Sandy Hook Elementary school shootings are the best example in which 28 innocent people, including 20 children and eight adults, died as a result of a gun getting into the wrong hands (Gray, 2015). Although the authorities proposed gun control initiatives after such aftermath, these measures were irrelevant since they could not have reduced the death tolls or prevented the incidents from happening (Gray, 2015). Consequently, from this incident, the authority should consider imposing strict laws that would ban the “black market” for guns, which provide avenues for the trade of illegal arms.

Another concern that forms the basis of arguments for gun control is personal safety. The current gun control laws do not highlight the minimum age required for individuals to own or use firearms. According to DeGrazia (2014), the practice of involving children in shooting ranges only desensitizes children of the dangers of guns.  Seemingly, children are not mature enough to comprehend the severity of the potential consequences of using firearms. Significantly, Handgun Control Inc. (HCI), an activist organization against gun ownership, highlights that owning a gun in the home will increase the risks of accidents to occur. Correspondingly, the HCI claim is logical given the incident that occurred in Arizona, whereby a nine-year-old child who was learning how to shoot an automatic firearm lost control of the gun and accidentally killed her instructor (DeGrazia, 2014). In brief, this is a clear illustration of the reasons why the Federal government must take immediate action to construct and implement strict regulations for the ownership and use of guns.

Likewise, advocates for gun control laws claim that the laws would be effective in reducing societal costs associated with gun violence. Recent reports by the Giffords Law Center revealed that gun violence exacts a huge toll on Americans claiming over 100 000 lives annually (Follman et al., 2018). The center reveals that unfettered access to guns and weak gun control laws have made it easy for individuals to take their own lives as well as those of others. The rising death toll each year associated with gun violence generate hospital and emergency room charges of about USD 3 million (Follman et al., 2018). According to a study by the American Journal of Public Health estimated the hospitalization and the cost of Medicare and Medicaid of firearm-related injuries at about USD 2.7 billion over the last decade (Follman et al., 2018). The study further reported that about 84 percent of these injuries are usually uninsured, thus leaving taxpayers responsible for settling most of those bills through programs such as Medicaid. Additionally, the WHO (World Health Organization) affirms that costs associated with gun violence include incarceration and medical costs. Gun violence also results in costs related to legal services, private security, medical costs, lost earnings, psychological costs like suffering and pain, tourism, productivity in addition to life insurance (Follman et al., 2018). Accordingly, these costs culminate in a drag of socio-economic progress due to the strain in economic resources available to the members of the society.

Finally, advocates for the banning of guns claim that, since the government has the absolute duty in dealing with criminal activities, it must control the illegal ownership of firearms. It is significant to restrict the number of people in possession of guns to reduce crime rates. Considerably, statistics reveal that the higher the rate of gun ownership in a particular state, the higher the occurrence of crimes. Furthermore, with little regulations on gun control, robbers have an opportunity of illegally acquiring guns and committing crimes. Therefore, in spite of the fact that possession of firearms generates benefits such as citizens being able to protect their families and property, strict laws should be enforced to reduce cases of personal safety accidents, mass shootings, and crime rates.

Side 2

On the flip side, opponents against gun control laws argue that laws, including microstamping and background, are an invasion of privacy, as stated in the U. S constitution. They claim that background checks associated with gun ownership ideally require the government databases that store personal individual information about gun holders, including their mental health history, their names, their addresses, and their criminal records. In 2013, Senator Harry Reid proposed a bill that would allow the government to have databases of gun purchases indefinitely. Although the bill failed, the American Civil Liberties Union was concerned that the searches of the databases would have allowed for an extension of purposes that were not intended when the information was collected. Consequently, these laws would be a violation of the constitutional rights of Americans, which stipulates that “Americans have the right to bear arms, and can exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance.”

Secondly, advocates against gun laws claim that it would be unresponsive to have more gun control since relatively few individuals are killed by guns each year. While the proponents for gun control believe that gun violence claims more lives each year, those who oppose gun control laws assert that there are relatively fewer cases of death by guns each year. The critics against gun control laws use 2014 findings by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which indicated that between 1999 and 2013, Americans were approximately 22 times more likely to die of heart-related diseases, which represented nearly 10 million deaths (Weinberger et al., 2015). Similarly, the report that sought to examine the leading causes of deaths in the United States also revealed that Americans are 19 times more likely to die due to malignant tumors (about 9 million deaths). In comparison to the death toll caused by gun violence. It is evident that diseases are the leading causes of deaths across the United States and that Firearms only accounted for 1.3 percent of the deaths, translating to about 464, 033 deaths (Weinberger et al., 2015). As such, critics against gun control laws claim that the idea that gun violence accounts for more deaths in the United States is exaggerated.

Thirdly, critics against gun control laws claim that more gun control is not necessary, but instead, there should be education about guns and gun safety to prevent accidental deaths caused by gun violence. Recent surveys about gun safety education show a concern for the need to sensitize the public about guns and gin safety. The critics establish their arguments on behaviorist findings, which underscore that guns do not cause gun deaths, but individuals kill others. This has necessitated a need to have more gun education and mental illness screening in order to reduce massacres. In other advocates against gun control laws strongly believe that guns are only tools and can be used for good or to harm others. For instance, guns are used by criminals to commit terrorist acts, robberies, and murder. Nevertheless, there are also several legitimate uses for firearms such as hobbyist collecting, personal protection, hunting, and sports. Essentially, those in support of gun ownership believe that getting rid of firearms cannot be effective in stopping individuals from perpetrating violent acts. Therefore, they recommend the government to address the root causes that drive individuals to commit gun violence, such as examining the effectiveness of the mental health system.

Side 1 and 2 together

On the contrary, both the positive and negative viewpoints share differences in views when it comes to the effects of guns on the prevalence of gun violence across the United States. The positive approach focuses on the actual uses of firearms and the need for the government to make gun control laws stricter. On the contrary, the negative side claims that guns do not kill people, and hence the government must look into the root causes of gun violence, instead of blaming it on gun ownership. This counters the positive side notion that guns result in more deaths and thus should be controlled. The negative side strongly believes that gun violence is strongly linked to mental illness and that the government should examine the effectiveness of the system. However, critics against this proposition affirm that deceptive statements and associations of mental health illness to gun violence results in detrimental consequences. These statements play a vital role in contributing to the stigma towards mental health patients, which subsequently leads to fewer individuals who seek mental health treatment (Wintemute, 2015). Due to stigma, most individuals who have been diagnosed with mental illness are vulnerable to commit suicide, especially in cases where family members are not supportive of mental treatment procedures.

On the contrary, critics refuting the possible impact of mental health illness on gun violence also affirm that blaming the prevalence of gun violence on mental health disorders only leads to a devastating public health impact. In simple terms, this blame prevents the government from realizing significant progress on gun violence. This is because studies have indicated that 95 percent of gun violence incidents in both urban and rural communities are perpetrated by the general public who do not suffer from mental health conditions (Wintemute, 2015). As such, the focus should be directed towards exploring how factors such as social media, misogyny, racism, and structural inequality impact gun violence.

Opinion

Based on my analysis of comparing and contrasting the positive and negative perspective of gun control laws, I stand integrated with my opinion of both approaches. I feel that both sides make strong valid points in the correlation between gun violence and gun control laws in addition to the effects of these laws in preventing the prevalence of gun violence. From the proponents’ side, the Constitution’s provision on the subject of gun ownership is weak, especially about who can use and have a gun. This has led to the prevalence of gun violence across the country. Contrary to this argument, critics of gun control violence argue that diseases are the leading causes of deaths in the U.S, and the percentage of death caused by gun violence is insignificant to justify more control on guns. However, I believe that without gun control laws, the prevalence of gun violence is likely to proliferate in the coming years. The only argument that I agree with about the critics is how the government should look into investigating the root causes of gun violence, including making the mental health system effective. I believe that most deaths caused by gun violence are usually perpetrated by individuals who show a history of mental health illness.

Conclusion

American citizens have both negative and positive reasons for owning and using firearms. The Second Amendment of the Constitution gives the rights to American citizens to possess firearms. , both the positive and negative viewpoints share differences in views when it comes to the effects of guns on the prevalence of gun violence across the United States. The positive approach focuses on the actual uses of firearms and the need for the government to make gun control laws stricter. On the contrary, the negative side claims that guns do not kill people. This calls for the government must look into the root causes of gun violence instead of blaming it on gun ownership.

 References

Boylan, M., Kates, D. B., Lindsey, R. W., & Gugala, Z. (2013). Debate: Gun Control in the United States. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, 471(12), 3934-3936.

DeGrazia, D. (2014). The case for moderate gun control. Kennedy institute of ethics journal, 24(1), 1-25.

Follman, M., Lee, J., Lurie, J., & West, J. (2018). The true cost of gun violence in America.

Gray, A. J. (2015). An Analysis of State Gun Control Laws and Their Effect on Violent Crime (Doctoral dissertation).

Weinberger, S. E., Hoyt, D. B., Lawrence, H. C., Levin, S., Henley, D. E., Alden, E. R., … & Hubbard, W. C. (2015). Firearm-related injury and death in the United States: a call to action from 8 health professional organizations and the American Bar Association. Annals of internal medicine, 162(7), 513-516.