With every incident of mass homicide in the United States, gun laws come into focus, bringing about the Second Amendment right which has been in heavy contest in recent years. With an ever-rising cause for concern with dealing with this issue, the government of the United States and the public in general is constantly discussing these laws and their effectiveness. Notably, this topic is normally discussed vis-à-vis the security of citizens or high incidences of gun violence which have rocked the nation in recent years. Moreover, vices involving guns have rocked the country to the extent that school children are in fear as they attend public schools. This paper, therefore, considers the gun violence and gun laws discourse in the United States, sampling some of the reporting done on this matter to measure objectivity or bias as well as why this topic is of interest.
Emerging issues in the United States are always interesting issues. The most recent Las Vegas shooting, where over fifty people died and dozens others were injured, is an example of an instance where the use of guns went awfully wrong, resulting in the catastrophe exacted upon innocent individuals. The Second Amendment empowering Americans to bear arms with reasonable restrictions on their use had noble purposes, including protection of the state against insurgents, among others. However, the cases of gun violence in the country have brought into question the need to regulate the ownership of guns and possibly reducing its ownership altogether. While one would think that the argument in the country would be for either gun prohibition or gun control, the issue is solely among those who wish to have gun ownership controlled. Indeed, Americans are not interested in giving up their Second Amendment right; rather, they are divided on what measures of control will best enable them to realize their use of guns while limiting instances of gun violence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As a result, the issue of gun control becomes an issue of interest. The main arguments between the camps is between the fitness of the holder of the weapon. One camp asserts that gun holders are considered competent individuals, capable of holding and handling a weapon until proven otherwise. The other camp asserts that bare minimums should be put across where the gun-holder must meet or face permanent restriction from handling a firearm. In the Clinton administration, this issue was central to the national conversation, during which period, there was a significant increase in the number of firearms in the possession of private citizens. These firearms varied in types and caliber amount.
With regards to the topic of gun control, the issue often comes up in different settings, but mostly after mass shootings. For instance, the topic of gun control was especially hot after the Orlando shooting which left forty-nine people dead. Moreover, it was also popular after San Bernardino where fourteen succumbed, and Newton, where twenty-six perished. As a result, it is almost possible to the trend which appears during these reports, which may highlight the underlying issues with the need for gun control. With the guns in the wrong hands, it is possible to inflict a lot of damage under the banner of the right to bear arms. Criminal activity can easily be occasioned by hooligans who think that they have a cause; and this brings about a worrying trend regarding allowances provided to Americans regarding the ownership and use of guns. Again, gun control is equally largely discussed in the context of other crimes and public health concerns. In the United States, the largest number of weapon assault victims obtain their wounds from gun-related incidences, showing a need to educate people on the proper use of guns. Otherwise, it is likely that those using the guns are not proficient, thereby bringing harm on themselves and others. As a result, public health concerns arise.
Considering the gun control concern in a whole, therefore, one notices the trend that is present, in which guns are almost always discussed when a tragedy happens. In this case, the tragedy almost always involves loss of life occasioned by the careless or negligent use of a firearm. As a result, the national conversation often comes back to the need for further regulation of firearms as well as a higher standard of care when using weapons. Flowing from this, it is possible to adduce some bias in terms of this conversation. This is because, where tragedies involving guns are not in the limelight or have faded for some time, this discussion is not normally at the forefront of national interest or news reporting. Only when the issue crops up again is the issue revisited and reconsidered in the public eye.
Having established this fact, therefore, an argument regarding the issue of gun control can be proposed in this paper, noting the national importance of this topic. The issue of gun control is literally a matter of life and death in the United States, with many losing their lives and their loved ones as a result of careless or negligent use of firearms. Both sides of the pro-control camp have their arguments right. Some individuals can be trusted to handle weapons. This trust can be invested in them until they prove otherwise. However, the state does not have the expense of offering this benefit of the doubt to individuals who can turn against their neighbors and countrymen at any time. More so, this benefit cannot be offered where the lives of people are at stake.
As a result, it is necessary to argue for the party that argues that control of firearms ownership should be extremely stringent, only offering a small part of the population with this benefit of the doubt. Where one has a criminal record relating to the use of a firearm in a manner that is adverse to public security, such an individual should be proscribed against having weapons in future. Furthermore, their handling of a weapon after this incident should be considered, in itself, a criminal offence. In this manner, therefore, the safety of public interests is safeguarded, while the American constitutional right to bear arms is protected. Without severe measures put in place for those who betray the trust bestowed upon them by the American people and government, it is impossible to have safe gun control mechanisms that will hold in the long term.
Conclusively, therefore, this issue presents an issue of national interest as it involves the security of the American people. Where adequate and objective measures are put in place to counter the adverse use of firearms, it is possible to achieve a zero-violence environment, even with widespread gun ownership. Moreover, civic education on the correct use of firearms must be taken seriously, thereby empowering the citizen with adequate knowledge on knowing suspect persons who may use weapons lethally and enabling them to use weapons responsibly.
References
Woldoff, R. A., Litchfield, R. C., & Sycafoose Matthews, A. (2017). Unpacking heat: dueling identities and complex views on gun control among rural police. Rural sociology , 82 (3), 444-472.
McKee, E. (2017). The Effects of Terrorism on Public Opinion of Gun Control in the United States (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Mississippi).
Eaves, L. J., & Silberg, J. L. (2017). Attitudes to gun control in an American twin sample: sex differences in the causes of variation. Twin research and human genetics , 20 (5), 371-373.
Bloomberg, M. R. (2013). Reducing gun violence in America: informing policy with evidence and analysis . JHU Press.
Swanson, J. W., McGinty, E. E., Fazel, S., & Mays, V. M. (2015). Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy. Annals of epidemiology , 25 (5), 366-376.
