Reports from various sources indicate that majority still assume that gun control should either be supported or opposed in the United States. This is not true. In fact, there are several alternatives.
Whichever choice of alternative we go for, it will still oversimplify the options. Two different scales can be used to justify the reasons why guns should be controlled. Other scales can be used to justify whether or not the claims must be refuted. The first scale justifies the extent at which guns must be controlled. Under this scale, there are those who want moderate gun control and those opposed to the restriction on guns.
The latter scale justifies that guns should be restricted to the private US citizens and non-US citizens. The restrictions or control over the possession of guns may vary in both content and strength. For instance, the state can direct handgun owners and wherever these guns are kept.
The manner in which handguns are acquired, as well as the way, and where handguns must be accepted, can be restricted. Statistics reveal that there are negative outcomes from the freedom to possess, own, or store a gun. Irrespective of the justifiable claims on the constitutionality and efficacy of firearms possession, there are solid grounds to validate why guns must be controlled in the US.
Justifications on gun control in the United States
Effects of gun right in the past and present US
The control of gun use in US has resulted into a number of positive and negative effects. It has been reported that the crime rate and violent crime rates have reduced ever since the fiscal 1981. The report by local law enforcement and state agencies also indicated reduced number of firearm associated killings.
The decrease estimation was at a yearly average rate of eleven percent. In the fiscal 2000, deaths with guns rose by nearly thirteen victims. About six million three hundred thousand violent crimes cases occurred nationally (LaFollette 276). Offenses committed ranged from trouble-free battering, forced battering, burglary, and sexual violence. However, nearly one million six hundred thousand incidents were resulting from gun use.
A number of concerns have emerged due to governmental application to control gun accessibility to the public. In real sense, guns should be restricted fully. Non-restriction on firearms encouraged intentional effects of prejudicing means of self-defense. It has also made the acquisition of guns, facilitates schoolyard, street corner, and family circle disputes more dangerous.
Moreover, allowance of guns to the public results in cracking, terrorism, and more assault to the public (Hemenway 1431). Commerce and possession of guns surpass the rate of physical attack and shooting shoplifting. Consequently, constitutional control and restriction of guns will control criminal offences.
Gun control database have often been using youth crime statistics. A sharp annual increase in the number of gun murders between 1985 and 1993 was by persons of 14-24 years, while the Bureau of Justice Statistic fixed two hundred and ninety four percent increases in the number of killings by people aged between the ages of fourteen to seventeen years. Additionally, there were 65.0% decreases in gun deaths by this age set from the fiscal 1993-1999 (LaFollette 275).
Brutality allied to gun is statistically rare in schools. However, twelve point seven percent of learners aged 12-19 years carried weapons to the learning institution. In addition, from 1985-1993 deaths related to gun shots by individuals of age eighteen to twenty four years increased from 3,374 to 8,171. On the other hand, from the year 1993 to1999, research indicates forty-three percent decreases in death tolls.
The other effects of gun right are evidential in deaths, suicides, and accidents. From the year nineteen ninety-three, firearm fatalities have continuously decreased. The National Centre for Health Statistics categorically presents gun homicides in every state. These are deaths from mysterious conditions, catastrophes, suicides, murder, and lawful intrusion. Nearly, 28, 900 gun casualties were reported at the end of 20th Century.
Out of this, almost 325 were indefinite cases, 825 none deliberate bombardment, seventeen thousand were from suicides, and 11,127 due to legitimate involvement or slaughter. In between the year nineteen ninety three and nineteen ninety eight, an annual average decrease in rate of five percent in deaths resulted from gun. In the subsequent year, guns contributed to 1,775 adolescent deaths (LaFollette 275-6). Infant mortality decreased by approximately 46.0%, and 10.0% annually from 1993-1999.
Risks, dangers, and harms encountered through gun use
Ownership of guns is not an essential interest in self-defense. Regardless of one’s beliefs, interests, and desires, other elementary safeties are required for prosperity.
Likewise, definitive basic rights should protect people’s interest in freedom of association, religious convictions, and unregulated verbal communication. These are fundamentals constituting simple means to affluence. Possessing a firearm in ones proximity is not a constitutive building block for doing well in life. Hence, guns ought to be forbidden in the public domain (LaFollette 276).
An appropriate civilian must be capable of endowing with and looking after his family. Relatives come jointly by forming partial administration to meet few desires they cannot simply gratify on their own. Some people might purport that gun possession is a necessary component for the success of a good inhabitant.
This mental picture is extra divisive than the value of owning a gun seek to rationalize. It takes for granted that everyone has more power than what we may have. As well, it would not set up a basic right to be in possession of a gun even if this outset were justifiable. Armaments are not constitutive of nationality while they are ways to self-governing residency (Cook, Mollinoni, and Cole 64). Thus, it is uncertain that the alleged right to bear arms suit the first prerequisite of an essential right.
Guns are dangerous to human life, and we need to be cautious when we insinuate that they cause damage. People die out of gunshots from users who mishandle these riffles. Claim by the National Rifle Association that guns do not kill is controversial. This claim is irrelevant since murder is an act of a representative of who is in the custody of the firearm. Gun ownership must be controlled to reduce suicides and unplanned deaths (LaFollette 275).
Different from other automobiles, guns are essentially hazardous. They were premeditated to cause destruction. Guns should not be in the proximity of the public as they were made-up for the military purposes. This verifies the system in which guns are used deliberately. Therefore, the modification is to create proficiency in causing damage.
Guns should be overhauled in a manner that lessens their jeopardy to the public (Cook, Mollinoni, and Cole 62). It will try to trim down the number of interchange fatalities that come about every year. Hence, it becomes reasonable to articulate that guns are intrinsically dangerous and controlling them is important to the state.
Controlling guns from the public tends to arm the reservists and averts more misconduct. Without control, firearms serve a diverse intention since they are means of frightening and imposing impairment to the society. Even though guns are naturally unsafe, they are extremely less hazardous than mass destruction weaponry.
This makes them apparently encompass unlawful exploitation. We must demonstrate presently how unsafe they are before we critically limit or legally end them. They have unsatisfactory advantage to the public but determinedly dangerous if uncontrolled (Hemenway 1432). This illustrates that guns are innately harmful. It is clear that intrinsic seriousness disqualify the initiative that they cannot be subject to supervision control. Consequently, unconditional discharge of a variety of firearm control is out of question.
Citizens lack concentration and are ignorant of the impact of risks of bad judgment. The likelihood and seriousness of damage as well as the implication of artifact and degree of benefit is important.
Determining the possibility of accomplishing gain is essential. It is agreeable that, rise in the chances of harm augments the motivation to abstain from performing (LaFollette 276). There is augmented reason to operate due to rise in probability and significance of the profit. As a result, to curb the risks presented by profitability, there is great need for the restriction and control of the firearms.
The National Rifle Association together with other gun campaigners agrees that ex-criminals should not own guns. The freed lawbreakers assume to have compensated their obligation to the community. It is judgmental that they can probably cause extra harm to the public. Ideally, they are members of the sect more liable to cause destruction and therefore should not hold firepower in their possession (Cook, Ludwig, and Hemenway 465).
Justifying the private ownership of guns has a variety of relevant feedbacks. It stipulates the positive and negative importance of restriction of gun ownership. A handgun may be essential to the natives, but there are costs on classified possession. Many people imagine they have good quality grounds to possess guns even if its ownership has not deep-seated importance. A solemn gun regulatory measure tends to destabilize gun holders’ attention.
This reduces the chances of increased crime rates, deaths, accidents, and other related incidents resulting from firearm misuse. Furthermore, some feel that it is a dreadful strategy to limit gun control in nations with strong civilization (LaFollette 276). Control of the confidential ownership of guns should possibly be under indisputable reasons. It is doubtful if there are any considerable benefits of gun rights that may offset any damage.
Evaluating the evidences
The wingchair opinions usually constitute most of the deliberations relating to the issues of gun restriction. These arguments show the reasons why the presence of guns in United States of America will increase the level of state violent crimes.
Further brutalities result from extra armaments
There are practical verifications to confirm that there are constructive relationships amid the accessibility of handguns and killing rates. Precisely, handguns’ convenience is directly related to mishap and suicide growth rate.
The empirical evidence shows that when a person possess a gun, it becomes easier to commit suicide or homicide. In fact, when an individual positions himself in a place considered rather protected, he or she can just drag the handgun trigger (Agresti and Reid par. 1).
Besides, people suffering from depression tend to conduct themselves in a manner they may not normally act. Despite having other control measures like taking pills, they always prefer going for close-to hand guns and commit homicide. Individuals who possess handguns augment the chances of intensifying terminal damages.
They may make guns be accessed to children. This will cause the probability of accidents to increase even further. Therefore, clarity is that if guns are not controlled in the US, there will be accidental deaths, suicides, and murder rates will increase.
Lack of control or restriction on guns in United States affects the market prices for this product. Failure to control guns increases the number of stolen guns. Other guns can also be purchased from whoever acquired them legally. Annually, the number of stolen guns is reported to be 500,000.
Generally, such huge numbers supplements the quantity of guns that are illegally accessible. In this case, both the secondary market and initial gun prices are affected. For instance, when the accessibility of handguns in the major markets is restricted, the secondary market will experience a decline in supply of guns (Cook, Mollinoni, and Cole 63).
This will cause an increase in the prices and costs of guns. An increase in the cost of ownership will decrease the capacity of a teenager to possess a gun. Young people can hardly manage to pay hefty gun prices. Youngsters commit various lethal crimes in the US. When the number of lethal guns is controlled in America, the reported cases of killing will decline.
The argument proposed by gun advocates cannot withstand the test of time. It is clear that the summation of accidental deaths, murder, and dangerous gun missions in the US escalates due to accessibility to firearms. Both the fundamental right and derivative right claims are invalid.
When guns are not restricted in the US, chances of stealing the guns increases. Accordingly, the number of guns available in the market increases. This will consequentially lower the gun prices in the marketplace making it easy for anybody to acquire guns. Consequently, lack of control on guns will increase the number of crimes committed. The United States should aptly control guns.
Agresti, James and Reid Smith. Gun Control Facts. 2013. Web.
Cook, Phillip, Ludwig, Jens, and Hemenway David. “The Gun Debate’s New Mythical Number: How Many Defensive Uses per Year?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16.3 (1997): 463-469. Print.
Cook, Phillip, Mollinoni, Stephanie, and Cole Thomas. “Regulating Gun Markets.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86.1 (1995): 59-92. Print.
Hemenway, David. “Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87.4 (1997): 1430-1445. Print.
LaFollette, Hugh. “Gun Control.” Ethics, 110 (2000): 263-81. Print.