“Gun Control as A Lifesaver”

“Gun Control as a Lifesaver” is unquestionably an eye-catching topic. Not long ago, I was led to believe that gun control was the solution to reducing gun crimes, but my study opened my eyes to new information. As a result, in the aftermath of the Las Vegas mass shooting, it is time to reconsider our gun safety policies. To appreciate the gun safety debate, you must first understand that America takes a different stance when it comes to weapons. Not only does America boast about possessing more weapons, but it also mourns the deaths caused by gunshots as opposed to other technologically sophisticated countries. Having said that, it is evident that the question of gun safety is not well handled. Additionally, guns can be classified among other factors such as urbanization and poverty which require attention on a regular basis. However, after varied research, researchers have concluded that the high level of gun ownership in America causes more gun violence. Nevertheless, if more strict measures are impounded, there will be reduced gun violence.
Also, researchers who have revised the gun policies have ended up with coinciding information relating gun control to politics that have a little speaking in America at the federal level. Therefore, it seems very complicated when the US ban some types of guns and set up new registration for the firearms just like Australia. As if that program was not satisfying, Australia mandated for the confiscation of all guns.

Proponents

Sometimes, it can be true that in an environment with no gun, violence can drop to zero. Nonetheless, no one wants to make America a gun-free environment. It’s true that can only be achieved through gun control. For sure, we need our military and police possessing guns. Moreover, politicians and high-level businessmen still want security from the guns, and in such a process, there is a mix up of both authorized and illegal firearms. Therefore, as we strive to curtail gun violence, the big question remains “how can it be done in an environment that has a mix up of firearms?”
In some cases, gun-control is better since it helps to reduce gun-related crimes. It is common knowledge that a large percentage of violent crimes are committed using a gun. Apparently, if people find it hard gaining access to a firearm, gun-control will have helped to reduce violent crimes. It is evident that many countries that have tight gun-control measures record a low number of violent crimes. If there is more circulation of handguns, we are going to experience more violent crimes leading to deaths. For this reason, proponents will always advocate for tight measures when it comes to gun control. Consequently, owning a gun increases the chance of that person getting killed. Let’s take an example where two disagreeing parties are have a heated argument that cannot be stopped through human intervention. It will be effortless for a person who possesses a gun to end the argument once and for all through shooting. On the contrary, if this person was not in possession of a gun, there would be no bloody settlement of the issue. Additionally, many suicidal acts by use of a gun have been reported and are on the rise. It is because owning a gun has become an easy task in America. Therefore, to reduce the suicide rates, gun-control measures need to be heightened.
What happens if through gun-control firearms do not get to criminals? If the guns are kept out of reach from criminals, violent crimes would not be reported. The same way, guns can be confiscated from criminals, and there would be no chance for gun-related violence.
Gun control has played a crucial role in reducing homicide rates in countries where the restriction is upheld. In such countries, obtaining a gun license is a tough attempt if you are not either a soldier or policeman a few to mention. One of those countries is the United Kingdom. However, the story is different in America where an ordinary person has a chance to be in possession of a gun. For this reason, we find a very high rate of homicide deaths in the United States as compared to the United Kingdom. With that in mind, it becomes very easy to understand the importance of gun control. It goes without saying that the same way gun control measures have worked for the United Kingdom, they can also do a good job in America.
Ownership of guns has the likelihood of increasing violent death in a home. In case of a domestic fight, many people have ended up using guns and as a result death. This has happened severally when partners have argued. In this case, if owning a gun can be made a hard task, equivalent deaths would be a thing of the past.

Opponents

It is quite clear that opponents disagree with proponents on gun control measures. According to them, owning a gun is outlined as a right arguing that the society would be a better place with unrestricted ownership of a firearm.
Opponents argue that citizens in the United States have the right to own a firearm for self-defense. It is clearly outlined in the U.S. Constitution second amendment. Therefore, opponents argue that if a citizen is restricted to owning a gun, it will be cited as an infringement of the constitution. Not only are the citizens deprived their constitutional right, but also prevented from defending themselves. To make matters complicated, the supreme court of the United States supports this right.
It can also be argued out that when people are restricted from accessing guns, criminals will get down to business. One strong argument that supports this is that if guns are restricted in the United States, a black market will be created whereby people will have the chance to access guns illegally without numerous measures put in place. Therefore, to prevent such a happening, guns should be available to all citizens as a right, and they can purchase them wherever they want.
Opponents also argue out vehemently that gun control measures cannot prevent criminals from accessing guns and overwhelmingly use them. Whether measures are there or not, criminals will still commit crimes. This is evident in Mexico where in spite of the strict measures of owning a gun, there is an alarming rate of crime in the country. This brings out the argument that guns do not kill, but rather bad people kill. Therefore, if any criminal wants to commit a violent act, they will access a gun regardless of the gun control measures that are crafted. To some extent, hardcore criminals have the capability of manufacturing their guns.
To reduce violent crimes, citizens need to have access to guns. According to the rifle association, when you keep guns away from people, it does not mean that the society is safe. To affirm this, the association says that violent crimes will be reduced when citizens who abide by the law own a gun. In relation to statistics in 2010, there was an indication that the rate of homicide fell by at least 52% while violent crimes fell to an astonishing 52%. This was attributed to the fact that citizens had the chance to own a gun.
The government will also gain more power if citizens are restricted to owning a firearm by the gun control measures. Opponents say that if this happens, the government will assume a governance based on tyranny. According to the U.S. Constitution second amendment, owning a gun will prevent people from being governed by a tyrannical government. It is because ordinary people will get a chance to stop the government.
Other than setting all sorts of gun control measures, criminals who commit violent crimes using firearms should be subject to mandatory sentence. Crime will reduce significantly without imposing such unconstitutional measures.
Opponents also argue out that most deaths recorded in the United States are not homicides but suicides. Therefore, imposing gun control measures will not reduce the deaths in any way. However, the government should aim at increasing mental health services and community support a few to mention in controlling the number of deaths.
Gun crimes occur due to the impudence of human life. Emotional reaction can be counted as a sole contributor to the deaths caused by guns. For instance, criminal gangs use gun violence for the purpose of creating a territorial control. It is because their emotions tell them that their life is not being valued. In this case, gun violence can be taken as a value problem. Therefore, instead of the government talking about gun control measures, they should address equality as mandated by the constitution.
A detailed training of how to use a gun should be addressed instead of setting up measures. In many cases, people fear guns because they know little or no information about a gun. Some people use the gun for sports or as a tool also. When people get prior knowledge of how to use a gun, there will be no need of fearing.

Conclusion

Proponents who are in support of gun control support argue that some of the arguments against it are invalid. They cite statistics implying that citizens who have carried gun in self-defense reduce gun crimes by just a little percentage.
They also argue out that throwing away gun control measures and sentencing criminals cannot serve as a way of reducing the crimes. They affirm that crimes will not be affected because such past laws have been imposed without any success.
The big question remains whether gun control has the capability of reducing crimes. Additionally, the ban on handguns has failed to bring any impact on the rates of murder. It is because of the prior supply of handguns before the ban. Although many people have tried to ban the manufacture of guns, their efforts have proved futile due to the establishment of a black market. Many laws to keep the guns away from the criminals have failed since the criminals already have the firearm or even can steal them. The waiting periods and the background checks for a certain period prevent criminals from getting guns. However, they still get them from the black market.
It can be so promising to take guns away from the criminals. Arrests can also be made by patrols in crime spots and use of traffic investigations for carrying weapons that are illegal as a way of reducing gun crimes. Moreover, for a person to own a firearm, proper training should be compulsory so that people will outdo their fear and face the reality of today’s world. Gun control measures might be a good idea but with the advancing world, civilian ownership of a firearm is the best idea. The more the technology grows, the more we need to use modern methods of solving gun crimes other than imposing laws that may not work in the present setting.

Works Cited

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post Retrieved 2 Dec.2017
https://ezinearticles.com/?More-Gun-Crimes,-Less-Sanity-About-Gun-Control&id=5159998 Retrieved 2 Dec.2017
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/criminal-justice/crime/does-gun-control-reduce-crime Retrieved 2 Dec.2017
https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Gun-Control-Advantages-and-Disadvantages Retrieved 2 Dec.2017
https://vittana.org/10-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-gun-control Retrieved 2 Dec.2017
https://ezinearticles.com/?Gun-Control-in-America-Today---Is-It-the-Answer?&id=7426543 Retrieved 2 Dec.2017