Moral Social Probls Gun control Essay

Respect for Life: Validation for Gun Control 2

Respect for Life: Validation for Gun Control

Name

Institution

Date

Respect for Life: Validation for Gun Control

Introduction

Public and political debates have been on the same wavelength for a long while when it comes to the issue of gun control and its impact on the increasing criminal activities, or gun-related violence. The second amendment, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", is the start of the argument that has to be understood as a level that falls within the fundamentality of the rights of a citizen. By definition, the well-regulated militia is understood as an argument that brings to attention the institutionalization of ownership and by this account an indication that there is a weighing criterion for measuring the regulation aspect (LaFollete, 2000). If taken apart, the amendment points to two parts that clash, “well-regulated militia” indicating that only the army should be able to bear arms, and “right of the people shall not be infringed” that raises the question of which people we are talking about those being protected or those being allowed to own guns. By LaFollette's argument, derivation of fundamental rights is based on the contention of which aspects are being protected and therefore the main interest with key words being main interests as grounds for restrictions (Wheeler, 2001). Guns should therefore be regulated and ownership controlled as the redefined culture of respect for life.

Justification for Gun Control

Considering that the second amendment was made in mind with the British environment at the time, the social contract during that era would be something that has been changed by the evolution of the American culture through time. Concerns of identity and family protection are no longer a big factor in the scheme of security as a big concern as socioeconomic growth overpowers that need to a level and there is a more strengthened internal security. The social contract between Americans at the moment is bound by respect for life and we have gone a long way in coming up with several ways that we could vilify respect for life (LaFollete, 2000). The rules of moral behavior are more for the mass than for one person and by consideration of this, gun control must come from the voice of the people.

In 2018, alone, 4,775 young people between ages 10-24 years old became victims of homicides across the United States, a number that is alarming because it is the age group that should be categorically enjoying the American dream. In the same breath, we must recognize that at least 316 people are shot daily and among them, 1 is killed unintentionally (Brady, 2019). The rate of deaths indicates a lack of systemic organization and thus a disjoint between the derived right and the preservation of interests. In this case, the interest is the preservation of the life of the younger generation who are America’s future. Based on the good of the many and the weak, there should be a relook at guns and issuing of guns from a perspective that accounts for what interest is more important right now (Wheeler, 2001).

Conclusion

The rising age of technological advancement means that there is a paradigmatic shift in the perception of security that no longer holds to the use of arms. There are safer ways to disarm an opponent than the use of firearms that could be used instead. The boundaries of usability of guns is no longer a personal one but rather a communal one that requires us to recognize that as a protective tool, it ensures permanency to the injured irreversibly. If the government no longer feels that the chair is valid and execution as a solution is no longer humane, then why would the use of guns still hold. It is hypocritical to expect that the worst of the society and offenses can be given a chance yet, the “potential” and “probably” first offenders in life who fall among the 10-24 years old don’t. By this account, there is no justification why there are no better gun controls to reduce or eliminate citizen ownership.

References

Brady. (2019). The Facts That Make Us Act. Retrieved from https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. (2021). Gun Violence: Facts and Statistics. Retrieved from https://violence.chop.edu/types-violence/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and-statistics

LaFollete, H. (2000). Gun Contro. Chicago Journals 110(2). The University of Chicago Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/233269

Wheeler, S.C. (2001). Gun Violence and Fundamental Rights. University of Connecticut, Storrs.