Introduction
The issue of gun control in the United States is a vastly debated and contentious topic among people. Surprisingly, those within the government still take opposing views. Undeniably, in United States politics, voting decisions are significantly influenced by this topic.
However, most democrats tend to be more aligned with people’s safety. On the other hand, the Republicans strive to champion people’s liberty and the right to own guns. Consequently, such deliberations have led to a central question of how people can balance between their liberty rights and the necessity to ensure that gun-based violence is eliminated in the country.
Comprehending the issue fully involves considering it from a historical viewpoint. The United States Congress passed the Second Amendment, giving Americans the right to purchase and own firearms. This aspect is revered by many US citizens, symbolizing people’s freedom.
However, the available data has caused many people to question whether this was the right decision. Such is due to the increased number of mass shootings and gun violence cases in the past decade. Thus, it opens the door for both sides of the argument to be discussed, leading to a balanced solution that supports the safety of the people while respecting fundamental human rights.
Background of the Study
The framers of the United States Constitution sought to create a nation where individuals were given the right to freedom and personal liberty as long as their rights did not impede other people’s rights. The Second Amendment is a crucial component of American culture, allowing people to own firearms and aligning with the founders’ vision for the nation. Nevertheless, the current statistics have raised concerns about the autonomy to own firearms, which can be placed above the people’s freedom to live with the increased number of mass gun violence incidents in the country. Gun violence in the United States has been rising steadily from 2010 to 2022, spiking in 2021 on the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (Menezes et al. 1656; Rees et al. 221). Additionally, although conclusive studies are yet to be conducted, it is clear that there are many cases of people who are nursing injuries due to gun violence in the country.
Rogerian Argument
Claim
The gun-based violence topic is an intensely controversial issue today that is becoming popular in mainstream media and politics. Regarding the statistics available, guns should not be legal, as some individuals argue. However, some people focus on proving the necessity of liberty and freedom through the Second Amendment. This discourse has led to a non-collaborative, often unproductive debate over the most appropriate approach.
Warrant
It has to be acknowledged that both sides of the argument have valid concerns. Those who state that guns need to be prohibited are troubled by the increased cases of gun violence in the country. They rely on international comparisons, which show that nations with stricter gun ownership policies have fewer gun violence cases. They state that comprehensive and evidence-based gun control policies should be established to address this grave public concern.
Counter Argument
However, people who support gun ownership state that strict gun regulation policies might make it hard for people to get one, thus infringing on the person’s right to liberty in accordance with the Second Amendment. They argue that the government should not limit the freedom of the majority of citizens based on a few law-breaking individuals. A reasonable person with a gun is the best way to stop a bad person with a gun. They explicitly show that the right to own firearms is part of American democracy and deeply rooted in its culture and norms.
Shared Objectives
Despite the debates, both groups have a shared objective of reducing gun violence and promoting responsible gun ownership. By recognizing that responsible gun ownership is a shared goal, they can work toward a consensus solution satisfactory to both sides. The consensus should be based on evidence-based solutions that look at gun violence, mass shooting cases, and individuals’ rights.
Recommendation
To ensure that the solution found fits both sides of the argument, universal, comprehensive background checks should be done to ensure that guns sold do not end up in risky hands. This can be achieved by increasing the waiting period during which checks can be conducted, and allowing people in need of them to cool off if they want to commit an act of terror. Restrictions on the capacity of magazines should also be implemented since they could help eliminate the potential for mass shootings. Mental health support resources also need to be provided to all people to eliminate traumas that could lead to the shootings.
Toulmin Argument
Claim
Gun violence is a significant safety issue in the United States that leads to thousands of deaths and injuries every year. Therefore, by ensuring there are stricter gun control policies, the problem could be addressed. People with a history of mental issues can be dangerous and must not be allowed to possess firearms (Swanson 177). The loophole for selling guns privately needs to be closed to guarantee that background checks are not overlooked. The waiting period should also be extended to allow for cooling off and for checks to be conducted.
Warrant
The United States has one of the highest rates of gun violence among developed countries. Data shows that a total of 48,830 people died in 2021 alone due to gun-related injuries in the US (Menezes et al. 1656). Additionally, in comparison to Japan, the UK, and Germany, the United States had a significantly higher rate of home-related homicide (Hemenway and Eliot 31; Menezes et al. 1656). The United States also constantly ranks high when it comes to the frequency and severity of mass shooting scenarios. These observations warrant the formulation of stricter gun control measures.
Counter Argument
However, some opponents argue that adopting stricter gun control measures is not the most effective method for preventing gun-based violence. As such, regulating the use of guns does not solve the issue of gun violence in the country (Kawano et al. 41). They state that determined criminals and mentally unstable people would still find methods for mass shootings even if guns were disallowed.
Warrant
Having responsible and evidence-based gun control policies is essential for ensuring mass shooting cases are mitigated.
Recommendation
Universal background checks must be done to warrant that the people who receive the guns are merited for having them. Waiting periods are especially beneficial as they limit the impulsive acts of violence among mentally unstable people. Through striking a balance between public safety and people’s rights, a compromise could be reached.
Reconciliation of Arguments
Striking a balance between the two sides of an argument is essential for the United States as a country. Therefore, it is crucial to adopt evidence-based and responsible measures when dealing with gun control-related issues to promote this reconciliation. The policies need to be reached on merit and not assumptions, ensuring that responsible gun owners remain in the position of their protection devices. Additionally, the shocking figures observed about gun violence could be reduced by guaranteeing extensive background checks before issuance, waiting periods are made longer for cooling off, and magazine capacities are reduced to limit the impacts of mass shootings.
A dialogue must be established to ensure that communication between policymakers with opposing views is made flawless and that the most inclusive decisions are made. These engagements could lead to various benefits, including better innovative solutions for gun control, refinement of existing gun policies, and a consensus directed towards the common good of all American people. Fostering constructive dialogue and cooperation could also lead to more balanced solutions, greater acceptance of the policies formulated, greater long-term effectiveness, and reduced polarization.
Conclusion
Having an open dialogue and making evidence-based decisions concerning the topic of gun violence in the United States shows that various policies could be implemented that fit both sides of the argument. This is possible because there is a shared belief between believers in the Second Amendment and individual rights to liberty when it comes to gun ownership, and people are alarmed by cases of gun violence in the United States.
The consensus lies in the two parties’ shared goal of genuinely ensuring public safety and the need to facilitate a responsible gun-ownership strategy. Conducting universal checks on the people to whom the gun will be issued, increasing the waiting period, and reducing the magazine capacity for the guns could help lower the alarming statistics associated with gun ownership in the country. Constructive communication between the two parties is also essential as it enables stakeholders to make informed decisions on the topic.
Works Cited
Hemenway, David, and Eliot Nelson. “The Scope of the Problem: Gun Violence in the USA.” Current Trauma Reports, vol. 6, 2020, pp. 29-35.
Menezes, John M., Kavita Batra, and Vladislav Pavlovich Zhitny. “A Nationwide Analysis of Gunshot Wounds of the Head and Neck: Morbidity, Mortality, and Cost.” Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, vol. 34, no. 6, 2023, pp. 1655-1660.
Rees, Chris A., et al. “Trends and Disparities in Firearm Fatalities in the United States, 1990-2021.” JAMA Network Open, vol. 5, no. 11, Nov. 2022, p.221.
Swanson, Jeffrey W. “Preventing Suicide Through Better Firearm Safety Policy in the United States.” Psychiatric Services, vol. 72, no. 2, 2021, pp. 174-179.