At present, the United States has the highest number of gun-related deaths among the most developed nations. This wary trend has resulted in the passing of numerous gun-control control laws by both state and federal governments with the main objective of reducing violence and crime through limiting private gun ownership (Madison, 2012). Advocates of gun control are advocating for stricter gun control policies as regards the distribution and sale of guns. On the other hand, opponents of gun control laws such as arms manufacturers and citizen groups are of the opinion that private gun ownership is for recreational and self-defense purposes. Opponents site the Second Amendment to the US constitution, which gives US citizens the right to own a gun for individual use. There is no doubt that gun control is a subject of contention in the United States, with both sides of the divide justifying their arguments (Wright, 2012). During 2008, the US Supreme Court made a ruling stating that the Bill of Rights guarantees the individual right to possess a gun; this was a significant blow to the pro-gun control movement. Nevertheless, in the wake of the recent mass shootings, advocates of stricter gun controls have emphasized on the need to impose significant limits on gun ownership. In wake of these divisive opinions, this paper argues against the implementation of gun control laws.
The conventional argument used to support gun control laws is that gun ownership increases gun-related violence and crime; however, this assertion has been proven to be flawed. The underlying fact is that, at present, 42 states allow law abiding citizens to carry around concealed guns, and these states have not reported substantial increases in gun shootouts (Madison, 2012). In fact, several individuals have saved their lives because they access a firearm. In the wake of this, it is evident that the gun control laws personal safety; as a result, private gun ownership should be allowed in order to enhance personal safety. A normal person does not unexpectedly turn into a murderer because of accessing a gun; there is the need to address the root cause of the criminal culture in the United States rather than making presumptions that carrying a gun increases the chances of being involved in gun-related violence and crime. In fact, with the increase in public insecurity, gun ownership is one of the avenues through which Americans can enhance their personal safety. The underlying fact is that the Unites States has a problem as regards the violence culture rather than gun culture. Therefore, Americans should be allowed to carry around concealed guns (Madison, 2012).
Another reason to repeal the gun control laws stems from the shifting public opinions away from the need for tougher gun control laws. Advocates of gun control often cite that gun-related shootings, such as the Colorado tragedy, pose the need to enact stricter limits on gun ownership. Just after such tragedies, the public opinion is always swayed towards the need for tougher gun control, probably due to circular blame (Wright, 2012). However, despite this hysteria, the mood towards tougher gun control always shifts towards against stringent gun control. Wright (2012) reports that 72 percent of Republicans, 27 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents feel the need to adopt less stringent gun control measures.
The right to own and carry a gun is also protected under the Second Amendment to the US Constitution; therefore, disallowing citizens to possess common guns while allowing soldiers and police officers to own and carry them is an instance of a violation of moral equality, wherein guns are reserved to the powerful and denied to the powerless (Madison, 2012). In order to promote fairness and create a level playing field, the government should not disarm citizens while allowing civil servants to own a firearm. In the Second Amendment, the right to own and carry a concealed weapon had the primary objective of providing Americans with the means to safeguard their rights against organized and individual aggressors, both foreign and domestic. In line with this argument, it is evident that the Second Amendment to the US constitution is not a grant to the US citizens, rather, a form of restriction on the federal administration (Madison, 2012).
In conclusion, it is evident that the reasons cited against gun control laws are flawed. Advocates of gun control always cite the need to reduce crime; however, this argument is flaws because there is no link between guns ownership and crime. In 42 states, ownership of concealed weapons is allowed; however, significant shootings have not been observed in these states. In addition, the right to own and carry a gun is spelled in the Bill of Rights; as a result, limiting gun ownership will be a violation of people’s fundamental right to protect themselves against potential aggressors.
Madison, T. (2012). After recent shootings, Americans reject renewed calls for federal gun controls . The Washington Times .
Wright, (. (2012). Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives. Guns and Crime .