Gun control is controversial issue in the United States. Debates about gun control have been held for a long time before arriving at a concrete conclusion. Different groups have different reasons that they use to support their arguments in favor or in opposition to the debate on gun control. The current president of the United States is emphasizing on the need to exercise gun control. Several terrorist events have occurred in relation to gun violence. These events have forced many people in the society to change their opinion on the debate by appreciating the need to exercise gun control. This shows that the issue of gun control in the United States is a sensitive one with different groups taking different positions.
According to history and the available gun control laws, it appears that private ownership of guns has been allowed in the history of the United States. People have had their rights of ownership of guns. However, terrorist activities and increased criminal activities associating use of guns is what initiated the debate. In addition, there is also the challenge of accidental shootings, which takes place because of easy access to guns. Mentally stable individuals also misuse guns resulting to murders. There are increased shootings in schools resulting from student easily accessing guns. Increased murders using guns also have raised an alarm on the guns control. All these factors have led to the debate on how to achieve gun control. The argument of those advocating for gun control is that private ownership of guns is the reason behind increased terrorist and other gun related criminal activities as well as accidental gun shootings. Many people are agreeing to this belief and are blaming those, who support the gun ownership for the problems associated with the use of guns (Lott 21). The problems that faced by the society have made people change their minds without evaluating the matter effectively. However, there are organizations formed in order to fight with an aim of ensuring that people of the United States are allowed to own guns (Lott 62). The stand of this research is that gun control is unnecessary in the United States as there is no relationship between terrorism and the private gun ownership.
In the first place, it is important to first realize and appreciate that, those people who made and advocated for the law legalizing the ownership of guns, had their reasoning and they should not just be ignored or be misjudged. People need the security in many instances. It is obvious that the federal government takes the responsibility of protecting people in the United States. This is why they ensure that there are no external threats in the United States. However, the federal government forgets that people also need the security from attacks by the domestic criminals. The government cannot manage to offer security to every individual due to the high cost involved. This therefore, calls for a ratio of soldiers to the total population according to the ability of the government. Due to this fact of insufficient law enforcers, people who feel that they need to protect themselves, advocate for private gun ownership. By this, the government will reduce the costs of having to offer the security for all those people, who need the extra security. (O'Neill 82)
The government has the security to protect itself from the domestic criminals. Therefore, people should be allowed to protect themselves from the government. In some countries, dictatorial governments have emerged, and this has led to the abuse of rights in such countries. However, the founding fathers of the United States saw that passing laws legalizing the private ownership of guns would ensure that the government did not become tyrannical. This is why people should be allowed to own guns; thus, in case the government changes to become tyrannical, people can be in a position to fight for their rights (Lott 77).
In history, before introduction of community policing,it was observed that the police usually take time to respond to criminal activities. (Cozic 20) As a rule, they arrive even after the crime has ended, and damage has already taken place. It is true that those, who support the gun regulation, want to ensure that the number of deaths in the United States reduces. However, it is also essential to realize that private guns save the lives of other people, whenever there are criminal activities, and the police officers fail to responds within the shortest time necessary to provide the security needed (Cozic 23). Taking guns from people in this case means that such criminal activities will be taking place, and people will not be in a position to help by any means.
Criminals commit crimes that are related to the gun use. People, who are not criminals, do not own guns for the wrong purpose. Giving a gun to a person, who is a non-criminal, does not increase criminal activities in the society in any way. This means that even if gun laws are passed to prohibit the individual ownership of guns, criminal activities will not reduce. These criminals will use other weapons to conduct their criminal activities (Schulman 93). Others will still own the guns, even if they are prohibited, so that they can propagate their criminal activities. This means that the security personnel should carry out their duties of ensuring people have the security they need instead of blaming the gun ownership laws.
Those, who propose that gun control laws should be passed, argue that the presence of the private ownership of guns is the cause of the increased criminal activities. The truth of the matter is that the gun ownership by the public does not in any way increase criminal activities. Instead, the public is even safer. It is essential to state that criminals usually target people, who are not armed. If a criminal realizes that a certain individual is armed, then such a criminal will not attack such an individual or any person around such an individual (Lott 32). From this, it can be observed that criminal activities will increase if gun ownership by the public is prohibited. This is because criminals will realize that the public is unarmed, hence, they cannot respond in case of an attack. As a result, criminals will have the courage to engage in criminal activities.
Other people argue that the private ownership of guns makes the work of police officers difficult, since they cannot differentiate the legal owners of guns and criminals. This argument is not reasonable, considering that security officials know those, who own guns. For one to own a gun, there is a need to file an application, and then, details of the gun and such an individual are kept. When an individual is indentified, it means that it is easy to determine whether the gun is owned legally or not. With the current technology, identifying whether a person owns a gun legally or not is rather easy. In addition, identifying the gun that was used in a certain criminal activity is an easy thing. In this regard, the private ownership of a gun does not complicate the work of police officers in identifying the shooter. (Gold, 43)
Supporters of the ban of the gun ownership argue that giving people guns increases the chances of them committing crimes. However, it should be clear to such people that an individual cannot become a criminal just because such a person has been given a gun. Unless such a person was a criminal, even before getting a gun, there is no reason why such an individual should engage in criminal activities. Those, who commit crimes just because they have guns, are people, who are mentally challenged. This is why such groups of people should not be allowed to own guns. (Lott 42).
From the above observations, it can be seen that those, who support the gun control have no strong reasons to support their arguments. It can be seen that there are greater advantages associated with the private gun ownership. People in opposition should evaluate the issue from other points of view as it will help them realize the need to support the private ownership of guns.
The way forward
The fact that people should have a right to have private guns does not mean that everyone, who wishes to have a private gun, should be allowed to do so. This could be substantially dangerous to the public. The government should ensure that the ownership of guns is of benefit to the society. In this regard, certain guidelines should be followed, when allowing the public to own private guns.
In the first place, people, who wish to possess a private gun, should apply to the security agents, giving details of why they need to have a private gun. The information of such people should then be stored in the database of the security agents. The details of the gun should also be kept in the database (Lott 74). This is crucial as the security personnel will be able to identify the location of such a gun, whenever there are problems. It also becomes easy for the police to identify those, who legally own a gun. By this, people are able to benefit from the private possession of their guns.
The history of individuals, who wish to own a gun, should be evaluated in order to identify whether such an individual is a responsible citizen, who qualifies to own a gun. By this, anyone, who has ever engaged in criminal activities, should be denied the right to own a gun for the benefit of the society. People with mental problems should also be denied the right to own a gun. This is because such people use the guns they have for the wrong purpose.
People in possession of guns privately should be prohibited from going to certain areas where there is a crowd. For example, private gun holders should not be allowed to enter in a school compound in possession of their guns. This will prevent cases, where criminals use their guns to kill innocent children, who cannot protect themselves. Other areas where gun should be avoided are meeting places or filed where accidental shooting can occur. Gun possession should be allowed to people, who have reached the age of majority. This ensures that children do not carry guns to school, which can be dangerous to the lives of other children.
The sale of ammunitions and guns should be closely regulated. As far as guns are allowed to the public, the sale of ammunitions should be regulated to ensure that the wrong people do not buy ammunitions or even guns. This will ensure that it is only the right people, who own a gun, and this will not threaten the security of the society (Crooker 67). Automatic machine guns that can cause a massive destruction when used should be allowed to be owned by private citizens. There are no good reasons why people should have such guns in their possession.
The important thing that people should realize is that guns have their advantages to the society. It is true that they are used for wrong purposes. However, the benefit of the public ownership of guns is greater than the ban on the ownership of private guns. The people proposing the ban on the ownership of guns should consider the advantages of owning guns as well, before making their own conclusions. People should not take a side that favors their interest on the debate, ignoring the significance of the issue to the rest of the society (Spitzer 104). Gun control is not a reason for the increased crimes or terrorist activities, and it is the responsibility of the security officials to develop better measures of dealing with criminal activities, instead of solely blaming laws that allow the private gun ownership. However, measures should be taken to ensure that the presence of guns in the society does not affect the society negatively. The proposed measures in this research are of paramount importance to making a concrete conclusion on whether guns should be owned privately.