Gun Control Restricting Rights or Protecting People

Gun Control: Restricting Rights or Protecting People

The leading nation in the number of deaths resulting from gun related violence is United States. It is also noteworthy that about half of all the American homes possess a gun. The United States have consequently, taken the initiative to control the possession and distribution of guns. However, this is not without challenges and criticisms. Some of the people support gun ownership control, whereas others do not support.

The possession of a gun is granted in the law by the Second Amendment among other rights of the people. The topic, therefore, elicits controversial opinions as to whether gun control measures are for protecting the people or denying the people their rights. The liberal law scholars and citizens who support the collective rights hold that; the Second Amendment seeks to allow the state to control arms (Magoon, 2008). On the contrary, the conservatives are in favor of the individual rights; thus they are among the people who think that gun control is restricting the rights of the people. To understand the arguments that surround the topic of gun control, it is pivotal to evaluate a few cases related to gun incidences, and then argue out the pros and cons of gun control.

There are a few facts surrounding the topic of gun control. These include, guns are the most used channel in suicide. This raises question as to the rules governing the ownership of guns. Most people commit suicide by shooting themselves. Secondly, it is also discovered from statistics that most homicides in the U.S.A. are by use of the gun (Magoon, 2008). Therefore, guns favor the crime of murder. Moreover, the guns take many innocent lives of Americans through accidental shootings. Thus, guns are involved in accidents that lead to life loss. Another factor is that guns are being used to cause mass killings. Several mass killings that have occurred in the United States have been by use of riffles, and they have consequently, resulted in more deaths than other mass killings. Gun ownership is a social and cultural subject since ownership of a gun changes a person. Gun can make a person inclined towards or away from confrontations. Also, blame of increased violence in children and young adults is mounted on other factors such as violent movies, games and homes. Therefore, when such a person accesses a gun, the consequence is utter destruction.

From these facts of the gun use and gun related incidences, the various groups raise their theories to argue their support or opposition to gun control. Those who call for continued and better gun control cite factors such as guns are not responsible for killing people, but rather people kill other people. Therefore, the only way that the killings can be reduced is by ensuring that guns are only possessed by those who can handle them safely (Spitzer, 2009). They are in support of the policy, in pursuant to protection of the civil rights of the people. The large number of deaths from gun related suicides and homicides can reduce largely if the gun possession is controlled. Regions that do not have many guns in their possession are most free of gun related disasters.

Moreover, the states that have strict gun control such as Washington DC have lower murder cases as compared to those without strict guidelines. The cases of accidental shootings are as a result of individuals who are not acquainted with how to handle guns owning them. When these guns fall into the wrong hands, for instance a child or a mentally challenged person, the result can be devastating. The measures of procuring a gun are also equally to blame for the cases of gun violations. There are no clear guidelines as to who should own a gun (Spitzer, 2009). Moreover, when the person is buying a gun, the background checks on the buyer are not effective. Additionally, the period of waiting after ordering an arm is short to facilitate scrutiny of the gun buyer. In addition, the federal law is ambiguous since it does not set a minimum age for one to own a firearm. Therefore, these weaknesses in the constitution cause the call for the strict gun control by the liberals who are on the lookout for protecting the larger interests of the society.

However, the opposition of the gun control measures has the view that these laws will deny the people their individual rights. According to the American bill of rights, those in opposition of gun control argue that they have the right to secure their homes and property (Spitzer, 2009). Also, the people have right to possess an arm according to the Second Amendment. This is the first reason why the gun control is facing stiff challenges. The law itself allows for people to argue that their personal right is being restricted. They have the right to guard their possessions and own the arms, thus the reason they have the lee way to own guns.

Secondly, vested interests in the industry of ammunition such as National Rifle Association and other parties are of the view that their personal corporate rights to trade are being violated. This causes that not in favor of guns control to have access to the guns easily. Also, the making and involvement of government in regulating the guns is thwarted from these parties with vested interest in the industry (Nemerov, 2008). Moreover, the argument that people with guns can help to curb those with the thugs is also another reason. Those with guns argue that the thugs and those who cause these unnecessary shootings are the ones who ignore the present laws. Therefore, it is not fair to deprive them of their right because of a few elements that are negative.