pay you

Running head: GUN CONTROL 1

GUN CONTROL 2

Gun Control

Student's Name

Institution

Instructor

Course

Date

The topic of gun control in the United States has been causing divisions across the political spectrum for decades. Despite being a secondary issue in American political campaigns for years, recent increased cases of public mass shootings have brought the issue to the fore. The growing popularity of these discussions and the increased participation of previously dormant stakeholders might lead to actual change. I am a huge proponent of strict gun control regulations that prevent people that might pose a threat to themselves or the society from acquiring weapons and using them to actualize the said threats. Gun control is a matter of social responsibility by preventing avoidable loss of innocent lives. This paper compares and contrasts major arguments for and against gun control to find the best way forward.

One of the main reasons why I support stricter gun-control regulations is the possible significant reduction of gun-related deaths. Available data show that between 1999 and 2016, more than half a million people succumbed to gun-related deaths in the US, with nearly 60% of these deaths being suicides, and the rest homicides and gun-related accidents (Bilgel, 2018). I am confident that this unfortunate statistic would significantly change for the better if stricter gun control laws were put in place to prevent mentally disturbed individuals with a high risk of suicide, domestic abusers, and convicted repeat gun criminals with high recidivism risk from acquiring weapons.

Another crucial argument in support of gun control is that military-grade automatic and semi-automatic rifles, as well as high-capacity bullet magazines, often turn a single murder into mass murder. In the dozens of mass shootings that have happened in the US since the early 1980s, more than half of them have been executed using semi-automatic or automatic rifles that were legally acquired and loaded with high-capacity magazines. The combination of high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic or automatic rifles allows mass murders to shoot tens of people without having to reload their weapons, and they are also harder to stop. If they couldn't be legally accessible to civilians, future mass shooters would be easier to stop and wouldn't take as many lives as they have in the past.

Available evidence shows that the majority of American adults, including those currently bearing arms, support common-sense gun regulations such as banning assault weapons, background checks for those seeking to purchase guns, and bans on civilian-access to military-grade weapons (Jones & Stone, 2015). This is a testimony about more people waking up to the grave implications of having such loose laws on gun ownership and use. Legislating on universal background checks for those trying to acquire weapons will prevent guns from being acquired by known criminals with the sole intent of harming others, and it will also help in more efficient tracking and minimizing of gun-related crime. 

Many opponents of gun control argue that any legislation regulating gun ownership and use violates individual gun ownership right that is protected by the Second Amendment of the United States constitution (Lancet, 2017). This amendment states that "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Lancet, 2017). Bearing arms has come to be seen as a part of the American identity, which is why cultivating political support for gun control has been such an uphill task. Many people that cite this argument believe that gun control laws will prevent even people who want to use their weapons for lawful purposes such as self-defense from acquiring guns.

Another popular anti-gun-control argument is that regulating gun ownership and use will not deter crime, but only providing guns to good people will. Proponents of this argument believe that stopping legal access of weapons to criminals will not prevent them from acquiring weapons since they will just turn into the black market. They believe that, by arming law-abiding citizens, they will be able to stop criminals from taking innocent lives when the need arises. For those that cite the violation of the Second Amendment in their anti-gun-control crusade, it is important to know that the Second Amendment does not guarantee unlimited gun ownership rights. Some gun ownership regulations are even older the Second Amendment, which means that even the founding fathers understood that there are situations that require limiting a civilian's right to gun ownership and use.

  Also, when untrained civilians try to use their weapons to stop criminals such as mass shooters, it increases their chances of being shot exponentially, not just by the criminals they are trying to stop, but by the responding law enforcement officers. It is clear from the available evidence that the best path to take should be stricter gun ownership and use regulations that prevent people that are at high risk of harming themselves and others from acquiring weapons. The Second Amendment should not be used to legitimize the rampant loss of innocent lives due to lax gun ownership laws, and it should be made harder for potential mass murderers to acquire high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic and automatic rifles.

References

Bilgel, F. (2018). State Gun Control Laws, Gun Prevalence and the Supply of Homicide Organ Donors. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3111071

Jones, M., & Stone, G. (2015). The U.S. Gun-Control Paradox: Gun Buyer Response To Congressional Gun-Control Initiatives. Journal Of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 13(4), 167. doi: 10.19030/jber.v13i4.9449

Lancet. (2017). Gun deaths and the gun control debate in the USA. The Lancet, 390(10105), 1812. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32710-1