Academic Master

Business and Finance

Should Citizens Have The Right To Bear Arms?

In simple words, public policy is a pattern in which the government system decides what should or should not be done in the system (Dye, 2017). Government systems can regulate policies in societies and help them maintain symbolic rewards and material services in their area. In the criminal justice system of the United States, Gun control is one of the most problematic issues, and its related policies are determined in the US Constitution. According to the Second Amendment, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Second Amendment. 2018)” Due to the permission granted by the United States Constitution, the people of the US have the right to bear arms, and that promoted the high death rate in the country (Liptak, 2008).

The rate of murder in the US was 5.7 per 100,000 people in the year 2006, and in 2005, more than 55 per cent of homicides occurred with the usage of a handgun, and more than 16 per cent of homicides occurred by using different kinds of guns (Liptak, 2008). The proponents of the policy argue that the right to bear arms should only be given to organized and regulatory groups such as the Military forces of the United States. Similarly, the opponents argue that all national citizens of the country should have the right to bear arms, such as the National Rifle Association.

One of the pros of ‘gun control policy’ includes the fact that if there were more gun control laws, this would deter or eventually decrease the rate of crimes. Studies have shown that because of the increase in gun control laws, people have developed more consciousness regarding the ownership of firearms. This not only makes people think about their ownership of weapons but also makes them more safe and more cautious regarding their proper use. However, if we look at the other side of the same matter, then it is also claimed that gun control laws do not decrease the rate of crimes; instead, the ownership of firearms eventually deters the rate of crimes. This point is justified by the fact that when more people own more guns, there will be something to protect them, and it will reduce the crime rate. Moreover, because the opposite person might also possess a weapon, it would prevent a person from initiating the use of a weapon.

The next point of the discussion focuses on the fact that media of all kinds, though considered as one of the important and most significant ways of information and knowledge, sometimes misuses its position. It has been claimed that paper media, like some magazines, highlight the issue of gun or weapon abuse more than it exists. It means that some magazines highlight the issue of mass murder more than it exists in society, and they must be banned for the spread of this wrong information. The Second Amendment, on its side, which was ratified in 1791, though supports the ownership of guns but does not entirely support gun ownership on an individual level. The Second Amendment was approved under the supervision of its stakeholders, including the US government, Congress, and the US establishment.

The groups that are in favour of the fact that citizens should have the right to bear arms are the ones who benefit from the Second Amendment. The ones who lost their lives, victims of homicide, and victims of mass murders are the ones who do not benefit from the policy.


Dye, T. (2017). Understanding public policy (15th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Liptak, A. (2008). Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Retrieved 1 April 2018, from

Second Amendment. (2018). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 1 April 2018, from



Calculate Your Order

Standard price





Pop-up Message