Over the past years, heated debates have continued to dictate Congress over the efficacy and whether according to the federal laws, it is constitutionally right to own firearms and ammunitions. This has seen the enactment of a range of federal laws to promote such regulation since the fall of 1934. In this essay, I am going to argue against the whole issue of gun control and provide justifications for gun and ammunition ownership, among them safety, self defense, women protection, and a constitutional rights. However, it will be prudent to look at some of the reasons why ownership and use of guns is strongly condemned by those who drum up support for gun control. By comparing the reasons for vis a vis reasons against gun control, I will get an in depth insight into the subject.Those who are pro -gun control among the juveniles, criminals and other individuals deemed dangerous argue that federal laws can successfully cut down the availability of guns. These champions of gun control often fight for policies to changes which entail prohibiting non police to own guns, and the registration of all firearms and firearm owners. They go ahead and assert that the constitution does not act as a barrier to such measures and also no significant social costs accrued. On the other hand, there are those who advocate for policies which are less comprehensive which they argue would not impede legitimate transfers of firearms and ownership. This has seen the enactment of significant federal statutes that control ownership and transfer of firearms among the civilian population. In the United States of America, The National Firearms Act of 1934, for instance, established stringent measures on registration requirements and a charge on the transfer of machine guns and short-barrel long guns. Similarly, the 1968 Act prohibits the interstate sale of firearms, mail order sales, prohibits transfers to minors and impose heavy penalties and licensing requirements for importer, dealers and manufactures.Gun control advocates have presented a number of reasons possessions of guns carry along with it. Roth's for instance in his research points out that guns make it easy to injure or kill someone. Many deaths in the United States of America, for example, are caused by firearms. Some of these shot victims are left with permanent disabilities, and others incur heavy expenses in the process of seeking medical care, not to mention disability and premature deaths. Moreover, the probability of the victims to die in robberies where robbers have guns is high as compared to a situation where the perpetrator has another weapon or is entirely unarmed. In his research, Roth's seems to argue that the presence of guns makes a crime scene more potentially dangerous. Furthermore, it makes it easier to kill, more instantaneous, and does not allow room for thinking. In a nutshell, it is easier for an irrational person who does not always think to do a greater damage when there is a gun around.
Besides deaths which result from gun shots, there are also countless tens of thousands of those who sustain gun shot wounds. Kellermann et al in "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership," assert that the residents of homes in possession of guns are more prone to deaths than the homes that are without the guns (462). Persons under the influence of drugs, depressed, or in a fit of rage, and are in possession of guns are also more likely to commit suicide or harm others. These are just but a few reasons those who are pro gun control bank on failing to see the other positive side of letting people own firearms.Gun control has been equally met with a strong opposition by factions that see no harm in one owning a firearm. Opponents of gun control deny objecting the federal policies arguing that it infringe upon the constitutional rights of an individual. Others argue that ownership of guns help helps prevent crime, as well as potential tyranny by either the government or gangs. They also criticize the adoption of federal powers as opposed to state powers.Self defense is one other reason I will cite for owning a gun. Asked, everyone who possesses a gun will give you this reason. This seem a valid reason to me. However, Kellermann and Reay in An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home found out that guns kept at home are prone to killing a friend or a member of the household than an intruder (289). Zimring also observes that when one uses a firearm to resist a violent assault, then his or her risk of injury and death increases (48).
Gun ownership also sees to it that women considered psychologically weaker than men use it to protect themselves. In addition, recent researches on laws in some states which allow citizens to carry guns have significantly reduced violent crime in those states. However, these researches are not conclusive because they fail to address any other issues of concern. It also fails to explain the continued crime in other sates, which allow guns.The introduction of gun control measures on the grounds that it increases violence is misplaced. This is so because if one argues that guns increases violence and that it should be banned, then he fails to realize that there are other weapons such as knives that can be use to execute the same violence. Cook observes that cases of attack with knives have been widely reported, and deaths result from such assaults (362). Furthermore, one would question the validity of such a statement because deaths occur through other means like car accidents. It does not mean that since car accidents kill, then cars ought to be banned.In as much as those who are fighting for gun control envision a society free of guns and ammunition, they should be realistic and agree with me that such a society is not feasible. Nevertheless, they ought to tone down and instead agree to the following recommendations. Firstly, a national system of registration of guns and ammunitions should be instituted as opposed to registration per cities. This will ensure that there is no legal buying of guns from a state lets say New York and selling them legally in another state. National registration will see the owner of the gun used in crime held responsible and also help in tracking and bringing to justice crime perpetrators after the crime has happened. Secondly, before selling someone a gun, a background check should be run on him or her.This ought to be done in order to avoid selling guns to ex convicts and juvenile and misdemeanors should count in one's record. Thirdly, stiffer penalties should be passed on those found involved in gun crimes. In addition, educating the public and more so those who buy guns on gun safety is vital. Moreover, provision of general education will assist in cutting down crime. These two factors are correlated in that lack of education leads to an increase in crime. Therefore, investing in general education means cutting down crime rate. Furthermore, guns should be designed in a way that it only recognizes the owner. If another person uses it, then it will simply not work. This gears towards curbing stealing of guns. Last but not least, the manufacturers on their part should manufacture guns with safety features. Perhaps, instead of the federal government passing regulations that restrict gun ownership; it should emphasize more on guns to be built with safety features.Allow me to conclude by alluding to a short story by Sarah Vowell the author of a book called "Shooting Dad". Sarah and her father, who always struggle in their relationship, are different in character. The father is a republican who finds it difficult to identify her daughter's democratic opinions and beliefs. On the other hand, the father loves guns while the daughter has a passion for arts. Much to her chagrin, Sara's younger sister also took to guns just like the father. She recalls having been taught by her father to shoot when she was six and says that guns were not for her and termed the experience as learning. Sara admits that they both have passion for weird equipment and says that although they struggle in their relationship, they have similar passions. This story serves to call upon those who are against the ownership of guns to change their perception on the issue. Just like Sara, they ought to admit that guns play vital, positive roles in the society and they should cease from campaigning against their ownership. Sara is in pursuit of her passion, which is art, and although her relationship with her father is dictated by hiccups, she seems to have realized that the father is in love with guns and has learnt to appreciate it. Having discussed both the reasons for and against gun control, I am convinced that those who are for gun control have seen the point of owning a gun.