Essay on Gun Control Debate

Introduction

The United States has struggled with the debate on gun control, which has continued to be a significant issue over the years. Often, several people ask whether or not guns are practical tools, as claimed by other people are merely killing machines, as seen in recent shootings. Americans have a constitutional right to own handguns however; current gun laws need to be modified to save the lives of Americans.

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

Order now

Background Info

The U.S has a dark history when it comes to gun violence, for example shooting in Great Mills High School in Maryland and Marshall County High School. Incidences of shooting that have happened over the years and misuse of guns by police has led to countrywide demonstrations against gun violence. For example, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) argues that guns are primarily accountable for most of the violent crimes in the U.S.

Show Understanding of Opposition

Most Americans are against stringent gun regulation measures as a method of limiting violence in the community. Many Americans argue that gun control would lead to a decrease in crime since most violent criminal offenses are committed using firearms.

Statistically, it is problematic to acquire correct data on the on how guns and crimes associate. Hence, it is also problematic to demonstrate and validate that gun control will lead to the decreased crime rate in the U.S. However, most of the advocacy that supports gun control is derived from an emotional perspective.

Assert your Position

Supporters of gun regulation measures argue that eliminating weapons from the hands of individuals will help in promoting a secure environment for all people. As much as this may be true, it can be argued that most of the places or locations where innocent people were harmed or murdered as a result of gun violence were in civic areas that forbid carrying firearms.

Secondly, there should be reasonable gun regulations measures to limit how easy people find it to acquire a gun lawfully. Hence, through moderate gun regulations, it will guarantee people some modest form of security by making it difficult for criminals to go to gun stores and buy a firearm.

Demonstrate Common Ground

The gun control issue will continue to persist until rules are changed so that every child in an institution, as well as adults, feel protected. However, before modifying the gun laws, all perspectives must be taken into consideration to establish an agreement that best suits everybody. America can achieve this by further controlling who may purchase a firearm and not restricting the gun itself. Until pro-gun owners and gun control activists reach a mutual ground, America could be ready to deal with criminals who harm innocent civilians.

Conclusion

The gun control issue will continue to persist until rules are changed so that every child in an institution, as well as adults, feel protected. Hence, with these changes comes a safer country that citizens can live in comfortably. There are numerous advantages to community when firearms are responsibly owned and used by citizens, just as there are advantages of moderately enacting gun control measures. Hence, this will best fit individuals who practice responsible steps with firearms rather than preventing them from acquiring them.

Gun Control Debate

The United States has struggled with the debate on gun control, which has continued to be a significant issue over the years (Moore 434). Often, several people ask whether or not guns are practical tools, as claimed by other people are merely killing machines, as seen in recent shootings. The U.S has a dark history when it comes to gun violence. Examples of shooting in America include Great Mills High School in Maryland, Marshall County High School in Kentucky, and Freeman High School in Washington, and Huffman High School in Alabama. These are just a few of the recent cases in the long history of gun violence in America. Americans have a constitutional right to own handguns however; current gun laws need to be modified to save the lives of Americans.

Incidences of shooting that have happened over the years and misuse of guns by police has led to countrywide demonstrations against gun violence. Most Americans are against stringent gun regulation measures as a method of limiting violence in the community (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives). After the enactment of the Brady Law, it applied to all weapons leading to a waiting time of five days before the gun is lawfully delivered or sold to a person who is not licensed to carry firearms (Moore 437). The main apprehension is that a felon who has an urge to acquire a gun, irrespective of any regulation, can purchase a firearm illegitimately. Hence, the argument is that it renders law-abiding Americans, vulnerable against latent dangers of criminals with unlawfully acquired firearms or weapons. Therefore, people perceive that there are better methods to execute gun regulation without deterring the legal acquisition of weapons and the constitutional entitlement to own and operate firearms.

Many Americans argue that gun control would lead to a decrease in crime since most violent criminal offences are committed using firearms (Horwitz 18). Based on this perception, it implies that putting restrictions on gun ownership would reduce crime. Horwitz argues that gun ownership makes a person highly likely to become a target of associated gun suicides, murders, and accidental fatalities (Horwitz 18). It is a firm belief that control of gun licensing for ownership will guarantee a decrease in violent crimes and fatalities. Ineffectual gun regulation constituted and backed by anarchists are having a significant toll on human beings (Horwitz 18). Though Horwitz's argument may have some elements of truth, however, the origin of gun violence is primarily as a result of human behavior.

With all factors included, statistically, it is problematic to acquire correct data on the on how guns and crimes associate. Hence, it is also problematic to demonstrate and validate that gun control will lead to the decreased crime rate in the U.S. Regrettably, most of the advocacy that supports gun control is derived from an emotional perspective. After the shooting Sandy Hook School, the emotional was evident in the reaction by Senator Dianne Feinstein. Senator Dianne reacted by claiming that weapons of war do not have its place on the American streets, shopping malls, theatres, and most fundamentally, not in American schools. From this perspective, it is correct to say that an emotional reaction is appropriate based on the incidence; nevertheless, it was the actions of the gun shooter for the atrocious crime and not of the gun control system.

Supporters of gun regulation measures argue that eliminating weapons from the hands of individuals will help in promoting a secure environment for all people (Fox & Fridel 16). As much as this may be true, it can be argued that most of the places or locations where innocent people were harmed or murdered as a result of gun violence were in civic areas that forbid carrying firearms. Enacting stringent gun control measurers or banning firearms will hinder decent Americans from possessing and legally bearing their guns. Yet, this will serve as a motivation to criminals knowing that the public is unarmed and are incapable of protecting themselves, thereby ambushing innocent civilians. Alternatively, it is proof that liable use, possessing, and holding a gun can be rationally crucial in preventing attacks by criminals knowing that their targets will be armed.

Also, it is a common occurrence that people advocate for banning firearms is the best strategy of averting crime. However, people fail to notice that it is not the fault of the gun; but the mistake of the individual pulling the trigger. It further points out to the inability of people to realize that individuals behind the spree of mass shootings possibly have a mental illness (Fox & Fridel 16). The theological and psychological interpretations of gun regulations may be based on the system's perception of human conduct (Fox & Fridel 16). Alternatively, if the person with mental challenges was incapable of acquiring the firearm lawfully, then the possible gun attack could not have occurred. However, with the number of firearms currently present on the streets illegally, there will always be a risk of a person quickly acquiring one. If an individual has the motive to engage in criminal activity, using a weapon or without a gun, they will always locate the resources they require to perpetrate the crime. Therefore, it intrinsically validates that gun control would be worthless.

There should be reasonable gun regulations measures to limit how easy people find it to acquire a gun lawfully. Hence, through moderate gun regulations, it will guarantee people some modest form of security by making it difficult for criminals to go to gun stores and buy a firearm. However, before modifying the gun laws, all perspectives must be taken into consideration to establish an agreement that best suits everybody. America can achieve this by further controlling who may purchase a firearm and not restricting the gun itself. Enacting stringent penalties for violent offences and improved education on firearm safety and possession may be instrumental in preventing violent crimes. Hence, this will best fit individuals who practice responsible steps with firearms rather than preventing them from acquiring them.

In conclusion, the gun control issue will continue to persist until rules are changed so that every child in an institution, as well as adults, feel protected. Hence, with these changes comes a safer country that citizens can live in comfortably.