GUN CONTROL ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY
Despite the fact and arguments that gun possession by many individuals can be a threat to human life and well being, there are groups which advocate and campaign against gun possession putting forth logic points as to why they oppose gun control policy. These arguments as contrasted with those agreeing with gun control have rendered the issue some controversy. With the case being taken to court, they have shown their firm grounds and decision on the issue of gun control. This essay will explore the key reasons as to why these people and groups oppose the gun policy program and why this have resulted into a duel.
The individuals and groups reason that the formation of gun control as well as gun ownership restrictions and laws will not deter crimes. They argue that in research studies done, the banning of assault weapons do not significantly impact or reduce the rate of murder or other crimes such as robbery. They also argue that with increased ownership of firearms in the 20th century, there has been reduced murder rates as well as violent crimes. The banning of weapons may result to an overly powerful government that can turn to a tyranny against its people (North, 2013). This argument has been supported using the past eras of dictatorship which took place mainly because the king or ruler had all sorts of weapon at their disposal and under their control.
The regulation and formation of gun control rules and laws will not limit criminals and thugs from obtaining illegal firearms. In some instances of the shooting spree and mass killings, most of the guns used by the killers are found to have been legally acquired and owned. The law, according to opposes, would take away the firearms from law abiding citizens who do not have ill motives. However, the criminals are likely to ignore the rules and go ahead to acquire guns through illegal means from the black market (Hsiao, 2015). This has been the case with many cartels and radical groups which use unlawful methods to acquire powerful and lethal assault weapons.
People are entitled to a right to privacy. The government may conduct surveillance on its citizens, but it would be some limit. The passing of the law on gun control or banning lethal assault weapons would require the government to conduct surveillance programs as well as background checks. They can as well execute the application of micro-stamping. This has been termed as the infringement of the rights of people to privacy. There would be databases by the government that would preserve the personal information and individual data on the gun holders which includes names, addresses, phone numbers, residential places, mental health history, and crime records among others (“People for and against gun control: a biographical reference”, 2000). This would profoundly invade the privacy of citizens.
Some people have termed the regulation and control of guns as unnecessary. They support their argument by stating that there are relatively few people who die by a gun. This is in comparison to other causes of death especially diseases such as Malaria, heart diseases, diabetes, hypertension, tumors among others. They also argue that accidents also cause more deaths as compared to guns. This, therefore, validates the gun control requirement would be unnecessary since it would not help solve fatalities nor reduce the number of deaths that occur due to other reasons as named above (Eller, 2016). The number of suicides is also not significantly reduced due to the regulation of guns.
It has also been argued that the government should focus more on educating people and children on guns, safety handling measures as well as proper uses such as sporting activities. This should be done with the aim of reducing and preventing incidental and accidental accidents among people and in families. It would also help reduce cases of homicide since people, through the programs, will be able to keep the arsenal from wrong hands safely. It has also been observed that the law is not found and has been a subject to breaking in countries that have put the code in place (Woldoff, Litchfield & Sycafoose Matthews, 2016). These include Mexico which still records high death rates brought about by guns during drug cartel wars as they fight to maintain or expand their territories.
Other absurd arguments that have been raised against gun control are in regard to terror attacks done using bombs. Some of the individuals have raised concerns that, despite bombs being illegal, they are still used against the human race. Such an attack happened in Manchester claiming the lives of over 22 people in May during a concert. They remarked that it would be worthless to have laws that would not prevent any eventualities or disasters. The truth and facts that bombs are illegal does not prevent tragedies and so will the gun control policy.
From the above discussion, it is clear that the duels and debates on gun control are likely to continue persistently among the two sides. One argument brought by one group will trigger a counter argument point from the other team. However, in truism, possession of guns is likely to trigger more vulnerabilities and risks against the lives of people. This, in my opinion, therefore calls for gun regulation and control. However, in as much as the two groups do not agree on specific significant points such as safety and the welfare of people, the topic remains subject to debate upon.
Eller, W. (2016). Review of:The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Liesby John R. Lott. Risk, Hazards & Crisis In Public Policy, 7(4), 209-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12107
Hsiao, T. (2015). Against Gun Bans and Restrictive Licensing. Essays In Philosophy, 16(2), 180-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/1526-0569.1531
People for and against gun control: a biographical reference. (2000). Choice Reviews Online, 37(08), 37-4233-37-4233. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/choice.37-4233
Woldoff, R., Litchfield, R., & Sycafoose Matthews, A. (2016). Unpacking Heat: Dueling Identities and Complex Views on Gun Control among Rural Police. Rural Sociology, 82(3), 444-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12142