Gun Regulation and Control

Stricter gun control regulations will not have a positive effect on society no matter how many gun control laws get enforced in our communities. Sure, there will be counter arguments from people who have a strong stance on gun regulation – ranging from the process it takes to acquire guns, to who should be able to have access to them. That being said, there are advantages and disadvantages to almost every topic relating to societal changes and this topic is no different.

Currently, there is nationwide attention being placed on the Second Amendment and its related policies. Anti-gun advocates want it to be removed or at least modified for the country’s sake, while pro-gun supporters insist that this amendment is one of the major pillars in the structure of this country. Based on James Madison’s notes deriving from the Constitutional Convention, the second amendment doesn’t discreetly single out individual rights to own guns but focuses more on state militias – who are made up of part-time citizen-soldiers protecting their respective colonies from any acts of tyranny (Waldman). Nevertheless, this amendment does declare that citizens can or should have the right to own a gun, now whether these citizens have to be part of a militia, that’s where the constant debate lies.

However, there is a respect I have for law abiding citizens owning a gun; whether being used for hunting, educational purposes or for their own personal safety, I understand why people would want to acquire them. Personally, I’m not eagerly determined on owning guns but if I should start a family or own multiple properties, there would be a growing necessity to get a gun for safety reasons. Guns are inanimate objects that doesn’t have a life nor can they make decisions on their own at any time. Let’s face it, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. In addition, two thirds of gun related casualties are suicides (Barrett). Does that mean if there are tighter restrictions on accessing firearms, the suicidal rate will decrease dramatically? I highly doubt it. Recently, there have been a lot of mass shootings – these are real tragic events that add more spark to the public conversation on why these murderers are having access to these high-powered firearms with large magazines. Although there is a tolerable consensus on civilians having access to smaller guns that falls under the “conceal and carry” umbrella, heavy artillery such as the AK47 and the M-16 should not be just as accessible to the general public. Thorough vetting should be implemented in such cases.

There have been nonfactual statements that are constantly being promoted by the media which are now engraved in the public psyche. Therefore, the general perception on gun ownership is equivalent to a gun owner being untrustworthy. Or the presence of guns in an owner’s home will lead to higher rates of accidental deaths. Other nonfactual statements includes. Gun control deters crime, guns are hardly used for self-defense, or urban cities need gun control (Wintersteen). Protection is the leading, if not, one of the main reasons why owning a firearm is necessary. While Anti-Gun supporters call for a nationwide gun ban. According to a Pew Research Center national survey conducted in 2013, forty-eight percent of gun owners identified protection as the main purpose for owning firearms. Next, thirty-two percent claimed their firearms are primarily for hunting, and the rest indicated other reasons (Clark). According to John Lott’s research, whenever a city introduces the right to conceal and carry to the public, there is a decrease in crime rates. Hence, murder, rape, and aggravated assault cases ranges between 5 to 8.5 percent in reduction. Studies show that 2.5 million guns are used for self-defense annually. However, this statistic gets easily overlooked as only a small percentage of self-defense incidents literally led up to be classified as a “crime”. This is because as soon as a defender draws a gun, the criminal will immediately disperse from the scene before any crime gets committed.

Chicago has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country; however, this city can be used. As a prime example of the consequences that a community faces when stricter gun control laws are enforced. As a consequence, access to firearms are extremely difficult for law-abiding residents in the city. Thus, leading criminals – who have access to guns – to do as they please and terrorize the city. Washington, D.C.’s murder rate tripled as a byproduct of their handgun ban which was implemented in 1977. Chicago then followed in D.C’s steps and consequently, their handgun-related murder rate doubled (Wintersteen).

In conclusion, stricter gun control laws affecting all guns would not have a positive effect in communities. However, being specific, if there can be modifications on gun control laws affecting access to high power firearms or assault rifles, there would be far less of an outcry. If narrowed down to make the “conceal and carry” laws more available to law abiding citizens. We can see a drastic change in crime rates in areas where tighter gun control laws make citizens feel defenseless. Also, we need to raise the awareness of the general public for them to be entirely educated about guns and how to use them. There needs to be a focus on the responsibilities that comes with owning of firearms and to ensure proper training is learned before acquiring them. Protecting yourself, your loved ones or others from danger should be the main priority above all.

Cite this page