An Open Letter to Gun Control Agencies - Argumentative Essay Example

This is an open letter to the agencies tasked with regulating the use of guns in the United States of America. First, I have to remind what is already in the public domain regarding a non-governmental organization in the country called the National Rifle Association that has advocated for or against firearms legislation since 1975. The National Rifle Association and other anti-gun control agencies have come up with several theories that make them advocate for individuals to be licensed to own guns. The first argument is that they claim that guns do not kill people, only human beings to kill. The second argument by gun control groups is that restriction of gun ownership and use goes against the letter and spirit of the second amendment of the constitution. Another argument, although it emanates from the assumption point of view, is that it is practically impossible to effect gun controls and in the cases where they have succeeded to control firearms then the net results have not been as effective as the intention was (Andress, Antonio, Rodriguez & Hempstead, 99).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

"Guns kill a lot of people, just like cars" is another defensive statement that comes from the anti-gun control agencies. The agencies argue that just because cars contribute to more deaths to human beings as compared to human beings then cars should be the first to be banned from roads before the ban on guns is considered. The anti-gun control agencies also came up with another theory that those who commit firearm related crimes are most likely suffering from mental problems. They argue that a normal person is likely to use his firearm in a responsible manner. Another argument developed by these agencies is the fact that civilians need arms in order to protect themselves from the marauding criminals in the society.

At times, the anti-gun control agencies turn hopeless in their argument for unrestricted gun access to all individuals in the country. They argue that just like banned substances like illegal drugs, guns will always find their way into the arms of private individuals and therefore they see no need of restricting it. Another argument is an assumption that illegal immigrants and Muslim terrorists are the ones responsible for the crime related murders in the country and finally they are of the opinion that gun ownership limits tyranny among dictatorial regimes (Squires & Peter, 17). The above are the arguments that have been advanced by the guns-for-all organizations in the United States to enable as many people as possible to have guns. I would not wish to dismiss those arguments at their face value as some may be holding water as far as the individual safety is concerned. In fact, they came up with these arguments appear in the total interest of the safety of every citizen in the country.

However, there are several gaps in their points that they may have failed to notice while coming up with those arguments. First, an argument that people are killed by individuals not guns is entirely baseless. A gun is just used as an object to execute a person's ill-motives towards another. Therefore a person with ill-intentions and temperamental issues should not be allowed to own a gun as he or she will use it for murder at some point in his life (McGinty, Emma, Webster & Barry, 510). Arguing that restricting gun ownership and use is against the letter and spirit of the second amendment is also an untrue interpretation of the law as the law is very clear that your right to life should not be at an expense of the right to life of someone else. Therefore, no one is allowed to use his or her gun to end someone else's life in the name of him or her protecting his or her life. Therefore, allowing gun ownership and use may lead to extra-judicial killing which is against the provisions of the second amendment. Arguing that gun-control has no direct benefits to the country is also neither here nor there because statistics show that countries with strict gun-ownership laws have very few cases of gun-related violence and deaths as compared to countries that have relaxed their laws on gun ownership (Klent, Gary & Patterson, 261). Comparing the cause of deaths caused by cars and guns is missing the point as the reasons why there are car accidents on the roads are various not just human error. Most of the licensed gun holders are persons of sound mind and therefore arguing that those who commit gun-related crimes have mental problems is false. A person undergoes a psychiatric test before he or she is allowed to own a gun and in the case where they realize he or she has a mental problem then such a person is denied a license. Crimes committed by licensed gun holders, therefore, are committed by sound mind persons who are just criminals or have temper-management issues.

Advocating for easy access to guns for individuals to protect themselves from criminals is in itself advocating for a crime. Research shows that more than ten percent of American adults are unemployed and therefore giving them guns may be a leeway for them to start engaging themselves in criminal activities in order to earn a living. The agencies then go ahead to mention banning them or not will not deter people from accessing guns just like they access banned drugs. What they fail to admit is that there are some countries like Canada who have completely restricted fire-arms access to civilians and they have succeeded in minimizing crime related to firearms. As long as there are strict border laws, America can be able to extensively limit the access to guns by civilians. This assertion that only immigrants and Muslim terrorists commit murders using guns is also a lie as research shows more than 50% of convicts convicted of gun-related crimes are Native Americans. Finally, I also rebuke the last two arguments that gun-ownership controls tyrannical regimes as this is another way of promoting violent uprisings (Siegel, Michael, Craig & Ross and King III, 2005 & 2103).

Gun-control and ownership is a very emotive issue in the country. There have been several reported cases of mass murder of innocent children in schools in the recent past. The proponents of easy access to guns have had their arguments documented and I have held my reservations on those arguments. Whichever way we adopt this gun-control issue, it must be in the best interest of the innocent civilians and the peace and stability of the great country of America.

Works Cited

Andres, Antonio Rodriguez, and Katherine Hempstead. "Gun control and suicide: The impact of state firearm regulations in the United States, 1995-2004." Health Policy 101.1 (2011): 95-103.

Kleck, Gary, and E. Britt Patterson. "The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates." Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9.3 (1993): 249-287.

McGinty, Emma E., Daniel W. Webster, and Colleen L. Barry. "Effects of news media messages about mass shootings on attitudes toward persons with serious mental illness and public support for gun control policies." American Journal of Psychiatry 170.5 (2013): 494-501.

Siegel, Michael, Craig S. Ross, and Charles King III. "The relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981-2010." American journal of public health 103.11 (2013): 2098-2105.

Squires, Peter. Gun Culture Or Gun Control?: Firearms and Violence: Safety and Society. Routledge, 2012.