Gun Laws Consequences and Responsibilities

Gun Laws 

The term gun laws refer to established rules and principles that govern and control the handling of guns. These laws are set up to regulate all gun circulation stages from their manufacture, sales and distribution, purchase, possession, alteration, and usage. Every group of one hundred people in the United States of America possess one hundred and twenty-one guns and hence the necessity of gun laws. There is also a high rate of homicides and gun violence in the United States. (“Homicides and Open Usage of Guns: A Case of Louisiana, USA,” 2019). Access to firearms in the United States is controlled by laws and regulations which fall under several federal statutes. It is essential to review gun laws' background to understand their evolution for a more straightforward evaluation. 

A Brief Background and History of Gun Laws 

Guns are an integral and significant part of American history, and they hold an ideal place in the country's culture. Firearms played an essential role in the United States of America even before they gained their independence. Guns were a necessary tool in the lives of European settlers who explored and colonized America (Campbell, 2019). As they continued settling in America, so did the number of guns, which called for establishing laws to regulate firearms. Many events have occurred, and several amendments have been made to the American constitution, influencing its federal gun policy. 

Gun regulation started in 1791 when amendments were made to the United States constitution, formerly referred to as the Bill of Rights. The amendment stated that a properly controlled Militia was crucial to the security of an independent state. Hence, the rights of individuals to obtain and keep arms should not get breached. On June 26 of 1934, the first section of the national gun control legislation was passed. Gangland crimes were prevalent during that time, and the core aim of this legislation was to diminish them. It was called the National Firearms Act. As part of its gun control approach, tax started getting imposed on the production, trade, and distribution of guns and various gun accessories. However, many changes were made to the National Firearms Act due to rising defects in the constitution. 

New regulations were added in 1938, requiring all firearm producers, distributors, and handlers to acquire certified federal firearms authorization; it demanded that all deals involving firearm exchange were recorded and preserved for future reference and easy tracing. It further declared that people who could purchase guns, criminal offenders, and ex-convicts were excluded from owning guns. The importation of firearms that were not meant for sporting activities was made illegal. It further excluded offenders and mentally unstable individuals from possessing firearms. A precise serial number was to be written on all guns produced and distributed. More restrictions were added on license and regulation, and necessary screening was conducted on individuals who wanted to purchase firearms. Congress passed another firearm law in 1986; it aimed at giving privacy and security to those in possession of weapons by preventing firearms deals from being recorded in the national registry. Licensed dealers in ammunitions were now permitted to conduct gun shows and sell guns during these shows, and strict regulations on gun distribution were eased off. This law stated that it was illegal for a civilian to possess or distribute a machine gun that been processed past May 19, 1986; this law was known as the Firearm Owners Protection Act. In 1993, the American president Bill Clinton passed into law an amendment that mandated that thorough background screening be conducted on all aspiring gun owners. Another amendment followed in 2003 that was meant to protect gun distributors from legal problems. This amendment was referred to as the Tiahrt amendment, and it banned the release of data indicating where criminals bought their firearms. Now that I have discussed the history of guns, it is essential to review the common misconceptions and fallacies about gun laws. 

Gun law Fallacies 

The topic of guns evokes mixed feelings and reactions. It raises a lot of emotional debate because gun advocates and individuals against the second amendment have resulted in irrational rhetoric thinking and argument. Opponents of the second amendment have increasingly continued using a senseless idea to attack innocent and law-abiding citizens who, in a real sense, would never think of using their firearm to accomplish unlawful acts. Their main motive is to discourage American citizens who feel that possessing a gun is much safer from purchasing a firearm. Amazingly, many Americans have fallen for the fallacious arguments of second amendment opponents and have reconsidered obtaining a gun (Jones & Stone, 2015). What are the most baseless facts and fallacious arguments about gun laws? 

Only Criminals Will Possess Guns if Guns get outlawed 

It might seem like a logical argument on the surface because the reality is that gun laws cannot prohibit a determined outlaw from acquiring a gun. However, as much as gun laws have made it difficult for citizens to obtain guns, it has not stopped them from committing the crime. A very high percentage of crimes committed with firearms happen in the heat of the moment. Therefore, if a prospective offender is unable to acquire a gun due to the laid out gun control regulations, he will result in other violent methods to accomplish the crime. Many tools and objects can be effectively used to commit a murder; it doesn't always have to happen by a bullet. 

However, it is a reality that if guns were outlawed, significantly few average civilians would consider going through all the trouble to obtain a firearm and risk getting jailed. Therefore, it implies that crime committed through guns would significantly reduce, but a crime committed using other violent methods would increase. It stills means that the overall percentage of homicides would dramatically decrease because many people would never consider using their fists or other close and personal methods to kill each other. Not many individuals would consider fighting someone to death to kill him; events could easily take a twist in a level playing ground. Equally, not many people would be willing to part with a large sum of money to own a gun. Not many citizens could afford to pay the black market price if they were completely illegal. Therefore, I feel that a more appropriate statement that would make this fallacy right is that; if the law made firearms completely unlawful, only the wealthy outlaws with criminal affiliations would possess them. 

People are responsible for killing others. Guns don't kill people 

Indeed, guns don't walk around spraying innocent people with bullets on their own. However, that would be a shallow way of basing an argument on gun laws. It is illogical to seclude a gun from gun-related violence because it is the most critical factor in gun-based violence. Amazingly, advocates of the second amendment have refused to acknowledge this because of the hysterical resistance against the media's exaggeration about how gun owners' freedom is repeatedly getting breached. A more logical hypothesis that would put meaning into this fallacy would be that guns don't kill by themselves but will lead to the loss of innocent lives (Hodges & Scalora, 2015). 

Vehicle and knives kill many people; will the government outlaw them too? 

Many different objects can be used to commit murder; it is also absolutely right that knives and cars have been used purposely to commit murder. However, there exists a considerable difference that differentiates guns from vehicles and knives. Many advocates may argue that guns are only for protection purposes, but no matter how you look at it, guns' sole purpose is to kill or inflict injury. On the contrary, cars and knives have many other useful purposes. They make our lives more comfortable and more effective; offenders who use cars and knives to kill people are abusing their goals. As for guns, you may argue that people who kill using them are just using them for their primary purpose. Cars and knives are also less effective in carrying out the murder because that is not their intended purpose. Therefore, comparing guns with useful objects like guns represents an entirely unreasonable argument. 

The government is corrupt and dangerous, and that's why I need a gun to protect myself. 

The government is indeed involved in acts of corruption and dubious deals; it is, however, very unreasonably to argue that the government wants to kill you and that you need to possess a gun to protect yourself. The country's economic growth requires citizens to grow; you are more useful to the government alive than dead because you can contribute to its development by paying taxes and buying products from affiliated government companies. Also, no gun would be able to save your life if the government required you dead. The government defense departments possess very sophisticated and state of the art technologies; it is irrational for an individual to think that a gun would match a drone strike in the field of battle. The only way to amend this fallacy is by individuals getting rid of the perception that they need a gun for protection because the system is out to get them. 

Arming good people with guns is the only way to stop bad people with guns. 

It is true that if you got caught up in a hostile situation with a gun assailant, you would perhaps feel more confident if you had a gun. Research conducted on gun opinions shows that Americans think owning a firearm increases safety (Lopez, 2018). It is important to have responsible people in society who can respond to attacks. However, holding a gun rarely hands you any advantage over an outlaw with a gun. On most occasions, an offender willing to use his gun on you will catch you unaware and put you in a situation where it is impossible to reach out for your gun and use it to counter that attack. It has occurred in many events where innocent people have been shot and killed with guns in their pockets. The only effective way to stop an offender with a gun is to set up measures that prevent him from initially obtaining a firearm. 

There is a severe drug problem in America despite drugs being illegal. 

The core motive of setting up laws and regulations in a given country is to maintain law and order. Policies and regulations only limit violence to a minimal level but don't eliminate it. Any country needs to have rules and regulations and a judicial system to implement them because many individuals will always choose to go against the law. However, it would be illogical to suggest that we should abolish rules and regulations because people continuously break them. Some people will choose to obtain guns illegally if they are prohibited from acquiring them legally; however, it is arrogant to argue that making it easy to reach guns is the best method to deal with gun violence (Allen & Lo, 2020). 

Based on the above information, it is accurate to state that gun laws can help regulate a country's homicide rate. However, they need to be appropriately reviewed to be fair and effective without bias to prospective owners and those already in possession. Effective measures should get established to deal with offenders who may obtain guns illegally and use them to inflict harm on innocent people. A lot of gun education is needed to create awareness about guns, thus ensuring guns' safety by gun owners an d protecting those around them. 

References 

Allen, A., & Lo, C. (2020). Drugs, Guns, and Disadvantaged Youths: Co-occurring Behavior and the Code of the Street.  Andrea Allen . https://doi.org/10.21428/1163c5ca.9c88713c 

Campbell, D. J. (2019).  America’s gun wars : a cultural history of gun control in the United States . Santa Barbara, California ; Denver, Colorado Praeger. 

Homicides and Open Usage of Guns: A Case of Louisiana, USA. (2019).  Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization . https://doi.org/10.7176/jlpg/82-07 

Hodges, H. J., & Scalora, M. J. (2015). Challenging the political assumption that “Guns don’t kill people, crazy people kill people!”.  American Journal of Orthopsychiatry ,  85 (3), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000069 

Jones, M. A., & Stone, G. W. (2015). The U.S. Gun-Control Paradox: Gun Buyer Response To Congressional Gun-Control Initiatives.  Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER) ,  13 (4), 167. https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v13i4.9449 

Lopez, G. (2018, March 23).  Poll: most Americans say gun ownership increases safety. Research: nope.  Vox. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/23/17155596/gun-ownership-polls-safety-violence.