Gun Ownership

Name:

Institution:

Gun Ownership

Gun control refers to efforts aimed at controlling and regulating the modification, manufacture, sale, and use of small firearms. Gun ownership refers to the possession of small firearms, which include assault rifles, pistols, hunting rifles, short guns, and revolvers among others, for self-defense. Gun control policies vary with countries with some having stricter laws than others. Poland and UK, for example, have stringent laws that govern the ownership of guns. The U.S. allows gun ownership to some extent while Mexico authorizes inhabitants to possess guns in their homes for self-defense. Debates on gun ownership have often invited mixed discussions with some stakeholders lobbying for stricter controls while others view gun control as a denial of citizen’s liberty. Those proposing stricter legislations usually argue that crime rates increase with widespread possession of guns. Those arguing against say that fewer guns on the streets do not necessarily contribute to reduced crime rates. Personally, I believe citizens should be allowed to possess guns for purposes of self-defense because the state-provided security will not always be available to protect citizens especially during emergencies. This paper shall argue why it is necessary to allow individuals to possess guns, look at a negative perspective regarding gun ownership, and provide a conclusive stance on my position. The debate still continues whether gun control should be imposed or not as opponents and proponents present reasons why they take their positions. However, the underlying fact is that gun control has the capability of reducing crime rate and ensuring safety of people. Moreover, it is important to look at the issue from a moral point of view, that is, what consequences does it present to humans, rather than from a violation of low.

Arguments for Gun Possession

Possession of guns can have both positive and negative repercussions on individuals’ well-being. The positive aspects of possessing a gun though, outweigh the harm that may result. Possession of small arms is not only for the purposes of protecting an individual’s home, but also to defend oneself from governments that can become tyrannical. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution had this argument as the original purpose. It stated that it was necessary to have a well-regulated militia to provide and ensure security of its citizens and that the right to bear arms should remain non-infringed (Winkler, 2007). It is important to realize that any government can become tyrannical. Only uninformed individuals think that the American government cannot become tyrannical. This is enough reason why citizens should be allowed to possess guns; to remind governments that citizens can as well protect themselves in times of extremities. Many governments, in the past, have turned tyrannical and America is no exclusion.

Most stakeholders and individuals who oppose the possession of guns certainly believe that a reduction in the number of guns owned by individuals will reduce the number of deaths, injuries, and gun-related crimes. In contrast, though, the more the number of people possessing guns in their homes, the fewer the crime rates would be. If a criminal is intending to commit a crime and knows that the individual possesses a gun too, it is likely that the felonious person will think twice because he also cares about his life. No one wants to die; everybody wants to live. In addition, however crazy and individual may be, he or she, is more likely to go on a shooting rampage in an area where people have no guns than in an area where citizens possess firearms. Besides, gun controls and stepped up checks will not stop individuals with crime intent from carrying out their activities (John, 2014). Evil will always exist because individuals have varied perceptions and stresses about life, politics, as well as the government. What the government should do, instead, is to carry out background checks on individuals regarding their past, criminal records, mental health, and other risk factors for crime. This will help to ensure that individuals who own guns are mentally upright and unlikely to engage in insane criminal activities irrationally. In addition, police officers are not likely to take care of all criminals out in the streets, hence the need for individual protection. For example, when a criminal breaks into ones house, it is unlikely that calling emergency will save your life because of the response time from the authorities. It is easier to defend oneself in this situation because a matter of seconds, in life and death scenarios, can make a great difference between living and dying. Gun control is morally justified because it prevents consequences posed by unrestricted possession of guns such as making it access easy for murderers. The obvious danger of guns is that it makes if quite easy to injure, or even kill a person. In addition, in assaults and robberies, when the perpetrator is armed with gun, the victim is far more likely to die than when he is having another weapon, or is unarmed. Increased access to guns following lack of gun control increases possibility of other crimes such as murder in self-defense, suicides and justifiable homicide.

Arguments against Gun Possession

Opponents of gun possession argue that presence of many guns in the streets is a recipe for disaster. This may be true to some extent, but only limited to the extent of gun possession. If many people possess guns it is likely that crime rates and gun-related violence would likely decline. However, when only a few people have guns, it is likely that they would terrorize, commit crime, and hurt individuals who do not own guns. This plainly means that these individuals will be likely to take advantage of those who do not own guns. For example, in 2007, a Seung-Hui Cho killed thirty-two people in the Virginia Tech Massacre, wounded twenty-five others, and killed himself after the incidence (Dean, 2012; Killias, 1993). This clearly shows that when fewer people have guns, because of gun control laws, criminals take advantage of the unarmed citizens. In another incidence, the Kent State Massacre, guardsmen shot and killed four unarmed students on May 4, 1970, and wounded nine others (Dean, 2012). This also shows what can transpire when only a few people possess guns. Therefore, possession of guns can also greatly contribute to gun-related violence, crime, and injuries, but only to the extent to which only a few people possess guns.

It is also difficult to control gun use when many people possess them. The argument is that the police can secure the citizens. As such, there is no need in allowing members of the public to carry arms around because people in the country are already well secured. The security people get from security agencies is good enough to stop any violence on people. Additionally, if a child unintentionally found his dad’s concealed gun, anything can happen. The child might unintentionally pull the trigger and injure somebody in the process. This can also cause panic and discomfort to the neighbors. It would be a great challenge for the government and federal agencies to monitor the activities of individuals who possess guns, thereby exposing individuals to a new form of security threat. For example, even –if measures would be out in place to carry out background checks on individuals before authorizing them to possess guns, there is a great likelihood of them gaining access to guns from their friends and relatives. This becomes difficult to ensure enough control and monitoring for the safety of individuals. Many suicides have also been linked to increased gun ownership, making it a great argument towards illegalizing gun possession (Miller et al., 2002; Killias, 1993).

Another consequence for unrestricted possession and use of guns is that most people who own guns are unstable (Miller et al., 2002; Killias, 1993). Recently, we have witnessed a number of incidences where a gunman walks to a school and starts shooting innocent children, students, teachers and other personnel at learning institutions. A good example is the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 among other recent cases such as the Connecticut tragedy. In most cases, the perpetrators use privately owned guns from their families or their own. They even shoot to death their family members before embarking on a shoot to kill rampage to a nearby school. The bottom line is a completely sane person would not wake up and start shooting loved ones and proceed to proceed to murder innocent children in a learning institution. Studies reveal that most of the perpetrators of such crimes have been found to be psychically unstable, for instance, the guy who committed Virginia tech massacre, Seung-Hui got diagnosed during childhood with severe anxiety disorder, and even placed under treatment (Coulter para.1). No doubt if gun control restrictions were in proper place, such cases would be avoided and people would be safe from bizarre behaviors of psychically unstable individuals.

My Opinion

Nothing can stand in the way of criminals if they want to commit gun-related crimes. Therefore, it is important to allow individuals to take the matters of personal security in their own hands, and not blame the government when police response delays at the time of critical need. In addition, the Second Amendment authorizes citizens to possess firearms for self-defense (Winkler, 2007). Therefore, denial of this liberty is as much a denial of other liberties, such as right to live, freedom of expression, equal opportunity, and freedom to participate in a lawful economic activity. Besides, the world would be much safer with individuals possessing guns because everyone fears to die. For this reason, everyone will want to be safe fearing for of his or her life because everyone possesses a gun and is able to inflict equal harm when provoked. Without guns, individuals would have no better means of self-defense.

References

Dean, S. (2012). The Times: The worst killers and student massacres in US history. Retrieved from: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3632107.ece

John, R. (2014). Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries. Retrieved from: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

Killias, M. (1993). International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 148(10): 1721–1725.

Miller, M, Azrael, D., & Hemenway, D. (2002). Household Firearm Ownership and Suicide Rates in the United States, Epidemiology, 13(5), 517-524Winkler, A. (2007). Scrutinizing the Second Amendment. Michigan Law Review, 105 (4)

Gun Ownership

Name:

Institution:

Gun Ownership

Gun control refers to efforts aimed at controlling and regulating the modification, manufacture, sale, and use of small firearms. Gun ownership refers to the possession of small firearms, which include assault rifles, pistols, hunting rifles, short guns, and revolvers among others, for self-defense. Gun control policies vary with countries with some having stricter laws than others. Poland and UK, for example, have stringent laws that govern the ownership of guns. The U.S. allows gun ownership to some extent while Mexico authorizes inhabitants to possess guns in their homes for self-defense. Debates on gun ownership have often invited mixed discussions with some stakeholders lobbying for stricter controls while others view gun control as a denial of citizen’s liberty. Those proposing stricter legislations usually argue that crime rates increase with widespread possession of guns. Those arguing against say that fewer guns on the streets do not necessarily contribute to reduced crime rates. Personally, I believe citizens should be allowed to possess guns for purposes of self-defense because the state-provided security will not always be available to protect citizens especially during emergencies. This paper shall argue why it is necessary to allow individuals to possess guns, look at a negative perspective regarding gun ownership, and provide a conclusive stance on my position. The debate still continues whether gun control should be imposed or not as opponents and proponents present reasons why they take their positions. However, the underlying fact is that gun control has the capability of reducing crime rate and ensuring safety of people. Moreover, it is important to look at the issue from a moral point of view, that is, what consequences does it present to humans, rather than from a violation of low.

Arguments for Gun Possession

Possession of guns can have both positive and negative repercussions on individuals’ well-being. The positive aspects of possessing a gun though, outweigh the harm that may result. Possession of small arms is not only for the purposes of protecting an individual’s home, but also to defend oneself from governments that can become tyrannical. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution had this argument as the original purpose. It stated that it was necessary to have a well-regulated militia to provide and ensure security of its citizens and that the right to bear arms should remain non-infringed (Winkler, 2007). It is important to realize that any government can become tyrannical. Only uninformed individuals think that the American government cannot become tyrannical. This is enough reason why citizens should be allowed to possess guns; to remind governments that citizens can as well protect themselves in times of extremities. Many governments, in the past, have turned tyrannical and America is no exclusion.

Most stakeholders and individuals who oppose the possession of guns certainly believe that a reduction in the number of guns owned by individuals will reduce the number of deaths, injuries, and gun-related crimes. In contrast, though, the more the number of people possessing guns in their homes, the fewer the crime rates would be. If a criminal is intending to commit a crime and knows that the individual possesses a gun too, it is likely that the felonious person will think twice because he also cares about his life. No one wants to die; everybody wants to live. In addition, however crazy and individual may be, he or she, is more likely to go on a shooting rampage in an area where people have no guns than in an area where citizens possess firearms. Besides, gun controls and stepped up checks will not stop individuals with crime intent from carrying out their activities (John, 2014). Evil will always exist because individuals have varied perceptions and stresses about life, politics, as well as the government. What the government should do, instead, is to carry out background checks on individuals regarding their past, criminal records, mental health, and other risk factors for crime. This will help to ensure that individuals who own guns are mentally upright and unlikely to engage in insane criminal activities irrationally. In addition, police officers are not likely to take care of all criminals out in the streets, hence the need for individual protection. For example, when a criminal breaks into ones house, it is unlikely that calling emergency will save your life because of the response time from the authorities. It is easier to defend oneself in this situation because a matter of seconds, in life and death scenarios, can make a great difference between living and dying. Gun control is morally justified because it prevents consequences posed by unrestricted possession of guns such as making it access easy for murderers. The obvious danger of guns is that it makes if quite easy to injure, or even kill a person. In addition, in assaults and robberies, when the perpetrator is armed with gun, the victim is far more likely to die than when he is having another weapon, or is unarmed. Increased access to guns following lack of gun control increases possibility of other crimes such as murder in self-defense, suicides and justifiable homicide.

Arguments against Gun Possession

Opponents of gun possession argue that presence of many guns in the streets is a recipe for disaster. This may be true to some extent, but only limited to the extent of gun possession. If many people possess guns it is likely that crime rates and gun-related violence would likely decline. However, when only a few people have guns, it is likely that they would terrorize, commit crime, and hurt individuals who do not own guns. This plainly means that these individuals will be likely to take advantage of those who do not own guns. For example, in 2007, a Seung-Hui Cho killed thirty-two people in the Virginia Tech Massacre, wounded twenty-five others, and killed himself after the incidence (Dean, 2012; Killias, 1993). This clearly shows that when fewer people have guns, because of gun control laws, criminals take advantage of the unarmed citizens. In another incidence, the Kent State Massacre, guardsmen shot and killed four unarmed students on May 4, 1970, and wounded nine others (Dean, 2012). This also shows what can transpire when only a few people possess guns. Therefore, possession of guns can also greatly contribute to gun-related violence, crime, and injuries, but only to the extent to which only a few people possess guns.

It is also difficult to control gun use when many people possess them. The argument is that the police can secure the citizens. As such, there is no need in allowing members of the public to carry arms around because people in the country are already well secured. The security people get from security agencies is good enough to stop any violence on people. Additionally, if a child unintentionally found his dad’s concealed gun, anything can happen. The child might unintentionally pull the trigger and injure somebody in the process. This can also cause panic and discomfort to the neighbors. It would be a great challenge for the government and federal agencies to monitor the activities of individuals who possess guns, thereby exposing individuals to a new form of security threat. For example, even –if measures would be out in place to carry out background checks on individuals before authorizing them to possess guns, there is a great likelihood of them gaining access to guns from their friends and relatives. This becomes difficult to ensure enough control and monitoring for the safety of individuals. Many suicides have also been linked to increased gun ownership, making it a great argument towards illegalizing gun possession (Miller et al., 2002; Killias, 1993).

Another consequence for unrestricted possession and use of guns is that most people who own guns are unstable (Miller et al., 2002; Killias, 1993). Recently, we have witnessed a number of incidences where a gunman walks to a school and starts shooting innocent children, students, teachers and other personnel at learning institutions. A good example is the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 among other recent cases such as the Connecticut tragedy. In most cases, the perpetrators use privately owned guns from their families or their own. They even shoot to death their family members before embarking on a shoot to kill rampage to a nearby school. The bottom line is a completely sane person would not wake up and start shooting loved ones and proceed to proceed to murder innocent children in a learning institution. Studies reveal that most of the perpetrators of such crimes have been found to be psychically unstable, for instance, the guy who committed Virginia tech massacre, Seung-Hui got diagnosed during childhood with severe anxiety disorder, and even placed under treatment (Coulter para.1). No doubt if gun control restrictions were in proper place, such cases would be avoided and people would be safe from bizarre behaviors of psychically unstable individuals.

My Opinion

Nothing can stand in the way of criminals if they want to commit gun-related crimes. Therefore, it is important to allow individuals to take the matters of personal security in their own hands, and not blame the government when police response delays at the time of critical need. In addition, the Second Amendment authorizes citizens to possess firearms for self-defense (Winkler, 2007). Therefore, denial of this liberty is as much a denial of other liberties, such as right to live, freedom of expression, equal opportunity, and freedom to participate in a lawful economic activity. Besides, the world would be much safer with individuals possessing guns because everyone fears to die. For this reason, everyone will want to be safe fearing for of his or her life because everyone possesses a gun and is able to inflict equal harm when provoked. Without guns, individuals would have no better means of self-defense.

References

Dean, S. (2012). The Times: The worst killers and student massacres in US history. Retrieved from: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3632107.ece

John, R. (2014). Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries. Retrieved from: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

Killias, M. (1993). International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 148(10): 1721–1725.

Miller, M, Azrael, D., & Hemenway, D. (2002). Household Firearm Ownership and Suicide Rates in the United States, Epidemiology, 13(5), 517-524Winkler, A. (2007). Scrutinizing the Second Amendment. Michigan Law Review, 105 (4)