Gun ownership in the U.S is a thing that has rapidly evolved into the gun culture. Today, there are about 120.5 guns per 100 people in the U.S which makes the U.S the highest gun possession. This is attributed to the colonial history, the industrial revolution, and the second amendment.
Because of this, gun culture has turned out to be a matter of social security. The spike in numbers of gun deaths and mass shootings has evoked varying opinions both for and against gun control. The arguments are as compelling as those for or against gun control are.
Here are arguments for and against gun control.
There are several reasons being touted by those against gun control such as the need for self-defense. Keep reading below for the arguments against gun control.
Guns for Self-Defense
Self-defense is an innate and natural sense that human beings possess. People need to equip themselves when the enemy attacks. This could be during incidences such as robberies, burglary, or even severe altercations.
It is in such scenes that guns become helpful in preventing gun death. Guns are necessary for these circumstances because the victim can shoot the offender. Such individuals would enjoy the Aero Precision lineup.
Most of the time, the offender is shot on the leg or other body parts to prevent them from committing a crime. Therefore, by imposing gun control laws, self-defense is also weakened. This contributes to more gun deaths than when guns are accessible for people to defend themselves.
The second amendment is the most persuasive argument against gun control. Affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2008, this constitutional amendment protects the right for citizens to own and have access to a gun.
The rationale for this as stated by those framing the bill was split into three. One is that citizens need to be able to execute self-defense — two, to empower civilians to resist oppression. The third reason was to enable people to practice the civic duty of protecting the state.
In this regard, gun control policies would be going against a constitutional right. Further, the amendment clause states the conditions for gun ownership.
With the requirements in place, possession of guns is not an unlimited right. The amendment protects individual rights while reinforcing personal responsibility towards safety.
Guns Don’t Kill People; People Kill People
“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” This is one of the most used phrases in than regarding gun control.
By and large, this phrase is anchored on the ethical perspective of the matter. Moreover, opponents of gun control argue that the problem is not the gun but the state of the society.
For instance, the reason why man kills wife is not because they possess a gun. The reason why teenagers shoot their peers in school is not guns. There are deeper issues around these. Life’s frustrations are the leading cause of gun deaths.
Remember this cuts across the board for people of all ages. Mental conditions, such as depression and stress, are also cited as a cause of gun deaths.
Going by this, it does not help to restrict access to a gun or even bar ownership. The only remedy would be to work towards improving the psychological state of people. Also, educate people on how to deal with those issues.
Gun Control Won’t Work
This presumption may be broad, but it has critical facts that must be considered in the gun control debate. First, the lack of accurate statistics regarding legal and illegal gun ownership is a challenge.
It is almost impossible to track those in unlawful possession. If there are no specific numbers, then it is unreasonable to tamper with a constitutional right.
Another standpoint meant to justify why gun control won’t work is that restriction does not lead to inaccessibility. Well, it may be hard to acquire a gun, but in reality, a determined person can easily find themselves a gun.
Someone so determined to either commit a crime or get a gun for self-defense knows precisely where to get it. Gun control laws won’t be as practical as people think.
Gun control proponents mainly tout the ease of acquisition as the main reason behind their stand. Below are arguments for gun control.
Reduce Accidental Gun Deaths
Above everything, the sole purpose and need for gun control policies are to reduce the number of gun deaths. This counter-argument to guns won’t work yet it is almost justifiable. Where a firearm is readily available, it will be used to cause death or severe injury.
Where it is unavailable, it is improbable that death will occur. This is because then one might have to reach for other firearms which don’t kill as easily as the gun.
Numbers showing a correlation between gun laws and gun deaths in other states supports the argument. Statistics indicating that states with stringent gun control laws have fewer gun deaths are compelling.
In addition, statistics indicate where guns are loose, crime and gun deaths are rampant. Such statistics and findings justify gun control.
Unfortunately, the economic impact of crimes propagated using guns is often overlooked. While unearthing the financial implications, gun deaths and gun crimes are the key issues.
Ultimately, the rise in gun crimes attracts the public’s attention while drawing the government to invest more in law enforcement. In this light, the government spends more on law enforcement and protecting its people. This expenditure could have been directed into other development agenda.
On the individual level, crimes resulting from guns translate to the expenditure of court cases to settle the crimes. People who have had to go through this can attest, it is financially draining to hire lawyers without assurance of justice.
Additionally, injuries due to gunshots are the worst. It takes lots of capital to seek medical attention. This is even more frustrating for accidental injuries.
Imposing gun control laws would thus eliminate incidences leading to massive financial costs to individuals and states.
Control of Homicides and Suicide
Besides accidental gun deaths, possessions of guns are a core cause of increased suicide and murders. In line with the mental and social aspects of gun crime, proponents of gun control argue that firearms provide the means to commit suicide and homicides.
People commit suicide when overwhelmed with depression. Some even inflict pain and project on others as a way of dealing with the feeling of hopelessness.
There is no doubt that where there are guns, minor conflicts quickly get more aggressive. People get killed in love triangles because a gun was within reach. Drug dealers trade with guns, and they don’t flinch when they get offended.
Interestingly, the second amendment has been interpreted in several ways contributing to the controversy of gun control. The supporters of gun control insist that the second amendment provides for militias and not individuals to own guns. This is per the inclusion of the clause “well-regulated militia” in the amendment.
In other words, only permitted militia can legally bear and use guns. However, there exists another contradicting interpretation. The clause “well-regulated militia” means that as long as one satisfies the conditions, they can own a gun.
The terms refer to background checks of one’s criminal record and their mental health state. Of which more than 50% of the population would pass this criterion. Based on the first interpretation, individuals have no right to gun ownership, and so gun control must be implemented and reinforced to combat crime.
Guns Don’t Prevent Tyranny
On political levels, people tend to believe that guns protect against tyranny. Well, this may seem right, but it is not. It is purported that gun ownership equips citizens to go armed rebellions against impending or actual tyranny.
Looking back in history, the number of successful armed rebellions is insignificant. This was proven during President Washington’s tenure. The historical Whiskey Rebellion failed because the armed civilians on the streets disappeared even before militia arrived to restore order.
What followed was peaceful conflict resolution and tax reforms that settled peace. As such, lax gun laws offer no confidence to citizens against tyranny.
Amicable negotiations are better ways to resolved political differences. Thus, defense against tyranny is no reason to let the guns loose.
Since ancient times, guns have always been associated with people of individual races and terrorist activities. In the U.S, law enforcers are likely to believe that a black person committed a crime using a gun than a white person.
Further, increased gun ownership has led to the allegations that immigrants need to be deported. This notion has no basis because no one knows exactly that it is immigrants who possess guns illegally. This is the sad reality that guns continue to propagate. Therefore, by reforming gun control policies, the justice system is likely to act on fairgrounds.
Arguments for and Against Gun Control
Because of these arguments, it is evident that gun control is a cause of disagreement. While both sides pose rational approaches to their arguments, one thing is apparent; that both parties have well-meant intentions for civilians, particularly in matters safety.
Focusing on this, it is possible to find a middle ground that reconciles constitutional rights and improves individual safety. Arguments for and against gun control will, therefore, depend on individual preferences.
Let us know what you think.