Essay on Gun Ownership and Importance of Strict Gun Control

More often, when something terrible happens people in that place or society tend always to find the explanation to precisely what was behind that particular happening, for instance, the shootings. The reason why people would want to understand why some incident happened indeed is to find a solution so that the incident is prevented from occurring again (Fox and DeLateur, 136). Sometimes the resolutions to controlling the occurrence of the event are overlooked, and the incident can reoccur. In the essay, I look forward to bringing to light on the ownership of the guns, laws surrounding the ownership of the firearms, effectiveness, ineffectiveness, and eligibility of owning a gun in the U.S.

The United States has been in the quest of finding ways to get the guns available to the citizens who abide by the law looking forward to controlling the crimes that are gun-related. It is worth noting however that taking the guns away may not provide a solution to the gun-related violence and atrocities. Doing so; taking the guns away from the citizens who have acquired them legally will only lead to increased problems. Controlling the gun ownership just curtails the freedom and rights of the citizens. The Second Amendment gives persons owning a gun absolute rights to do so. The right to own a firearm has been faced with two different political arguments in the recent times. There are those that are the freedom and others denying citizens this right to own a gun might be a violation of the constitution's second amendment. It is worth noting that this right enables individuals to protect themselves if any danger is posed and also their property. According to individuals a right to own guns actually in the cases I read and summarized below I concur does it reduce the crime rates.

In the State of Washington D.C., a law was passed, and it banned citizens from owning a gun. Only the police officers were allowed to own the firearms according to Bandler. If one had a gun already, it had to be trigger-locked and if at all one wanted to use the gun permission had to be granted by the D.C. police. By doing so, the security situation which was expected to improve worsened. Homicides shot high, and it was some case between Supreme Court District of Colombia vs. Heller that dealt away with this law. There was a drop in the homicide rates however we cannot attribute it to granting the right to own a gun alone. In the year 2005, the FBI report equally indicated that the states that allowed private gun ownership recorded minimal crime cases whereas the ones that had a gun ban had the highest crime rates.

In another case of the gun ban in Britain and Australia, the outcome came out to be a terrible one. In a study in the Britain Journal of Criminology, the gun ban didn't affect the rate at which the homicide cases were reported. However, the finding by the Crime Research Prevention Center turned out to be different. Before 1996 the graph of homicides was downward sloping which meant that the rate was decreasing gradually, however after the gun ban law was implemented in 1996, the graph was upward sloping which implied that the rate of homicides was rising steadily. Indeed it can be seen that gun ban doesn't work in reducing the rate of crimes but instead increases it by looking at the Australian and Britain's homicide graph.

The department that deals with the research on the crimes and how they can be prevented equally has a finding that concurs with the argument that most of the shootings take place in the gun free areas. For instance let's take a look at the Orlando terror attack and the firing of Christina Grimmie in June (Bandler, part 12), the two cases all took place in gun-free areas. Through the two cases, it is evident that the people who want to commit a crime would want to do it to many people as possible and always target places that people have minimal resistance. Equally, it is important to note that at such sites the number of police officers usually is small compared to the people who would like to be protected from the criminals. It is in such cases that the police murder ends up shooting highly and thus it is vital to allow the citizens to be armed to prevent many murder cases that happen when the people are not armed. Gun ownership and the mass shooting of individuals is indirectly related to that if the number of people owning the guns increases then the number of shootings experienced will be lower. In places where guns are not allowed, most of the shooting occurred.

Between 1993 and 2003, the gun-related violence drastically decreased since the people who had access to the guns had also increased. The individuals who own the guns in the recent past ten years use the weapon for defensive purposes and not for criminal activities. Banning the citizens actually from having guns renders them defenseless and scared. Instead of taking the guns away from the citizens who are a violation of their rights, it is crucial to establish a way to control the issue of the arms. I am not supporting the idea that crimes have been part of the society but preferably as a community is to find ways to curb the crime rates. Using a gun illegally is what we can term as a criminal activity, and if someone who is a criminal wants to access the firearms, he or she can go despite the law.

There is a question that lingered in my mind throughout the study; actually, why are guns manufactured if they are a danger to society? The arms are made to be used for protection, but it is people who want to commit crimes who misuse them. Thus, it is not such a good idea to take the guns away from law-abiding citizens. Taking them away means there would be restricted sales, owning, purchasing, and even carrying the weapons. There is a two-way consequence of taking the guns away from the citizens. First, the arms might end up being obtained illegally by the criminals for them to carry out their operations. Another consequence is that the defenseless citizens are likely to be quickly attacked and submit since they know that they don't possess means by which they can protect themselves.

Having a gun in the United States is a right which is accorded by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the US. However, since this is a weapon that can claim lives of people if granted to every individual regardless of even the mental health, some rules are to govern the licensing and usage of the guns. The law outlines several guidelines that can lead to one being disqualified from owning and using a firearm (Morse et al.). The law equally requires one to have a practical training on the usage of the gun and know how to handle a dispute without having to involve a firearm. It is also the requirement of the law that if one wants to possess a gun, they have to be trained how to handle a criminal who is a danger to life.

The research by Arrigo and Acheson (121) is indeed a good highlight on what grounds the law can exclude and disqualify one from having a gun to ensure senseless and careless use of the guns is minimized. The same research is quite informative as it also outlines what crime can hinder one from being licensed and using a firearm. For instance, a felony conviction is a crime that disqualifies one permanently from acquiring a license to use a gun. Individuals with psychological disorders are not legible to obtaining permission to use a firearm. Equally, the persons who are alcohol and drug abuse are disqualified from acquiring guns (Arrigo & Acheson, 123). The law requires only sober-minded people to have ownership of a weapon to curb with any gun-related violence. The only shortcoming of the law regarding gun ownership is that there is no available guideline on dealing with individuals who are short tempered. It is crucial to come up with a gun control initiative on the same so that unnecessary deaths and shootings are minimized in the US nation.

Giving people a free-will to own the guns is essentials as some disastrous instances are prevented. However, it is equally essential to come up with gun control initiatives so that we don't end up having unnecessary deaths and mass shootings. It is true that carrying guns around can reduce the incidents of hooliganism, but if there are no strict laws to govern the usage of those guns then the people may end as the victims of many shootings. Therefore, to promote security among the US citizens, it is essential to have strict rules concerning the gun ownership and the usage of the guns. Honestly, enacting the gun rules, senseless crimes can be averted.

Many people don't comply with the law regarding the issue of guns, and many people always try to use the guns on their fellow individuals. Having strict rules can considerably reduce the mistakes that the people who are inconsiderate make. With the strict laws of gun control, every individual who commits a mistake will be accountable for the mistake and has to answer to the law if one does something hastily and out of anger. In the society, many people have been seen to carry themselves around in a drunk manner, and if binding rules on ownership of the guns cannot be passed, there will be a mess in the nation. In one of his talks, Obama says, "There is a gun for every person including women and children n the corridors of America, so how can citizens who have their normal mind claim that guns will make us safe?" (Schildkraut et al., 96). From the statement, it is sincerely clear that there is a need for a nation to have strict gun rules to have a peaceful nation.

There is research by Lott which I tend to concur with. Lott claims that it is a good idea to have strict gun control since the religion, morality, and value of education are secured. At the campuses as much as the students are allowed to have the firearms it is essential to ensure there are strict rules that govern the usage of the guns so that the schools will be safe grounds as much as everyone has access to the weapons (Lewis et al., 260). The goal of education is gladly upheld if there are strict rules over the gun ownership as careless deaths are reduced.

Indeed, it has been an enlightening study on the ownership of the guns, laws surrounding the ownership of the guns, effectiveness, ineffectiveness, and eligibility of owning a gun in the U.S and I have found out that is very crucial to enact strict laws that govern the issue of gun usage and ownership. Equally, every individual has a right to ownership of a gun, but this depends on the legibility. Some few instances can disqualify one from owning and using a firearm for example if one is mentally ill. A gun if used correctly it can provide security, and if misused many innocent lives can be claimed for instance the careless shootings. Above all, as much as everyone can own, it is essential to have strict rules that govern the usage and ownership of the firearms. Lastly, banning guns cannot provide a solution to curb criminal activities, the only thing that can be done to ensure there is the proper and careful use of guns is to enact stringent laws.

Works Cited

Arrigo, Bruce A., and Austin Acheson. "Concealed carry bans and the American college campus: law, social sciences, and policy perspective." Contemporary justice review 19.1 (2016): 120-141.

Fox, James Alan, and Monica J. DeLateur. "Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown." Homicide Studies 18.1 (2014): 125-145.

Lewis, Shaundra K., and Daniel Alejandro de Luna. "The fatal flaws in Texas's campus carry law." T. Marshall L. Rev. 41 (2016): 135-271.

Lott, John R. More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws. University of Chicago Press, 2013.

Morse, Andrew, et al. "Guns on campus: The architecture and momentum of state policy action." Retrieved from NASPA website: https://www. naspa. org/RPI/reports/guns-on-campus-the-arc...