In the United States, there are more gun related suicides than there are gun related homicides. Although, by the mention of a gun most people think of death, and a deadly weapon gun would be extremely significant if it was used for the right purpose. The only problem with availability of guns in the society is when it is used to take away innocent lives. There should be critical evaluation of the relationship between the number of guns allowed in the country and number of criminals. If regulation of possession of guns reduces crime incidences, proper measures should be undertaken. As a measure to control misuse of guns in the society there should be proper ground checks on the people buying guns. If an individual has past criminal record, he or she should not be allowed to possess a gun. Guns should only be allowed among sober people without previous criminal record associated with the use of guns. Guns in the United States should not be banned; it will make crime rates go up.
Right to bear arms
The constitution of the United States advocates for a right to possess arms. This is observed through the 2nd amendment of the constitution where citizens were to be allowed to possess fire arms for personal protection. The constitution is the main source of law in the United States. Therefore, anything that it brings forth must be respected as it is the law and no one has the right to change such a law unless through a process that requires extensive consultation among the stakeholders who are the citizens. The law is very clear that no man has a right to take guns from the citizens (Webster 94). However, the provision of a gun cannot be done on the basis that one is a citizen of the country. Extensive measures must be undertaken to ensure that there is proper consultation to check the trustworthiness of the person seeking permission to possess a gun.
At different instances, criminals will be found applying for possession of guns. It is the role of the government to ensure that necessary measures have been undertaken to control how such people acquire weapons. There should be ample screening for individuals applying for possession of guns. Individuals with criminal record should be critically evaluated to ensure that they are reformed from their past criminal behaviors. However, the gun control method may not have full guarantee of exemption of criminals in possession of guns. This is because once the guns are allowed to the rest of the society, they may easily access them. This may occur of existence of business deals between the criminals and the rest of the public issued with the permission to possess a gun. Criminals are known as safety hazards for the entire society since they may use their tools to harm the public (Wellford 63). Exclusive control of their ability to possess guns should be executed.
Without proper control of possession of guns in the country, households will not be guaranteed of safety. The society becomes exposed to massive crimes where people get killed in their homes following misuse of guns by the members of the public. Cases of theft in households would increase with a high number of guns in the hands of the members of the society. However, possession of guns in households would be significant in defending the society from extensive attacks by criminals (Wilson 112). It will be extremely easy to deal with criminals as they attack since the family is equally empowered.
Protection against criminals
Keeping guns away from criminals
If need for defending oneself arose in the society, it will be extremely hard for the members to protect themselves if they do not match the strength of the attacking criminals. It has been already said that gun control does not keep guns away from the hands of the criminals. There are numerous ways through which criminals may get guns. In this case, gun control would not be the best solution. This is because it will deny even those who have exclusive need for guns the chance to possess one as they may need to protect themselves from the exclusive pain of harassment by criminals roaming in the country. However, necessary improvements must be made to ensure that there is minimal flow of guns to the hands of the criminals (Wilson 92). Citizens have the right to protect themselves. Therefore, denying them a right to possess guns would be critically wrong.
Police officers are key figures in the security of a given country. They extend the required security to the members of a given society. They are usually armed to ensure that they protect the citizens from the criminals roaming in the country. There is no way the law of the United States can allow a police officer to execute his or her duty with a gun, which is their tool of work. Police officers should be respected for their protective duty. However, the guns that are extended to them may not only be used for public protection so as private protection. In most cases, they are in the possession of the gun, which may act as self-defense. This gives an advantage among police officers over citizens as most of the members of the public do not possess guns as elements for security. This makes citizens feel that it is favor for police officers to possess guns while they cannot access one (Henderson 62). Therefore, there should be a plan to ensure that citizens have the right to possess guns as an element for self-defense against any form of attack.
Lately, there has been massive increase in levels of crime in the United States. There have been attacks in various areas of the public including schools, which are signs of the alarming levels of crime in the country. This is an indication that despite the efforts that the government is making to ensures weapons do not get into the hands of the criminals there are still massive ways through which criminals acquire guns. In such a situation, it will be extremely difficult for common citizens to get access to guns. This is because they lack the advanced connection to people who may be linked to issuance of guns. With the high levels of crime, citizens will be the only ones without guns while criminals continue to possess them. This will lead to the most unsafe society. There will be high death cases among citizens who cannot protect themselves from painful treatments by criminals who possess guns (Lunger 73). Therefore, proper plan should be executed to ensure there are equal chances to acquire guns in the country.
Recreational use and hunting
How hunters feel about this change
It is known that guns are used by hunters in their job. They act as the weapons in bringing down their prey. Hunting is a job where most people earn a living. Therefore, they would invest in any manner to ensure that their job continues. Using traditional weapons such as arrows would not match their current demands and missions. Therefore, there is massive need to invest in guns which act as tools to assist them in executing their duties. Hunters are usually granted the permission to kill some of the animals when there is overpopulation in the wild (Lott 65). This work cannot be done accordingly if necessary tools were not used. In this regard, hunters should be allowed possession of guns in the bid to execute their roles. However, it may be extremely difficult to control their ill activities in the forests if adequate control was not undertaken (Henderson 36). This means that guns should not be issued anyhow among hunters as they would destroy the wild setup. Wild animals are sources of government revenue through tourism and if guns remain compulsory among hunters, it will be extremely difficult for the government to prevent poaching, which is an enemy to tourism in any country. However, even after imposing extensive rules governing possession of guns among hunters it will be very difficult to control availability of guns among hunters (Henderson 32). This is because they will always be willing to kill animals for personal gains, which are mainly inclined to economic purposes among the hunters.
Local and state laws
Although, the United States has the national constitution that oversees activities in the entire country, there are local and state laws that oversee the activities concerned to possession of guns. Law will always come forth with a set of loopholes that will always allow leakage of guns to the pubic despite the massive investments that the various efforts that different governments will be trying to do. For example, the provisions of the constitution of the United States on hunters possessing guns may be compromised by local and state laws. Some states would find it extremely easy to allow hunters to possess guns freely (Goss 102). Having some states allowing easy possession of guns, means that other estates will not be in a position to prevent its citizens from possessing guns. There will be easy connection between the hunters and business deals will be done where guns will be the commodity of exchange (Goss 102). This means that local and state always will create loopholes for hunters to access guns in the United States.
Also, it would be worth noting that it would become extremely easy for hunters to travel out of state or country to be able to hunt. Local and state laws may not necessarily affect a law that will ban travel of hunters from one state or area to another. People will still freely move from one area to another. Therefore, it will be extremely difficult to control the movement of hunters if they were part of the people willing to move from one area to another. It is worth noting that hunters are equal to any other person who would be willing to move from area to another. Therefore, no special ban of travel can be issued to the group of people (Geberth 93). If any special ban of travel was enacted among hunters, extensive problems would be experienced. The main problem that would be witnessed is protest by hunters. They will not be willing to be segregated from the rest of the world. This means that if the gun ban was to be controlled through banning movement from one state to another, it must be done among all individuals who are willing to move around. Special ban will not be accepted by any group (Cook 75). Instead, it will lead to quarrels as well as protests as people seek to attract to grab the attention of the government denying a given group easy movement in a given area.
It is worth noting that at the current times, sports sector is the best paying sector with massive support from private sectors. The United States is well known of being crucial supporter of shooting competitions. This is usually a major competition where winners are guaranteed financial awards. This means that like any other form of competition, the shooting competition will equally attract a large number of competitors. This means that all these individuals will require guns for the competition. These people will look for all means that will allow them to acquire the needed guns for competition. The competition forms a part of the history of the United States. It has been taking place in the country for a long time (Cook 75). Therefore, challenging it would be one of the most daring moves to stop the competition. The competition cannot take place without presence of guns. This means that all participants of the competition must possess guns, which are the tools needed for the competitions. It is at this point that the government must extend possession of guns to all the people involved in the games (Atwood 143). They must make substantive use of the law to allow individuals access guns.
However, it is worth noting that not all the guns applied for through competition purposes will be used for that purpose. Some people will take advantage and apply for guns with variant motives. Criminals will also have gotten an easy method of accessing guns in the United States. It is worth noting what will happen to the guns after the competitions. It is true that they will not be stored until the next competition (Atwood 123). Some people will have extended access to the guns even the government tries to control the possession of guns after the competition.
Gun control will not change anything; it will only make our lives more dangerous. The government will have to come up with an outstanding plan that will allow possession of guns among its citizens through a legal process. People who will be applying for possession of guns must be individuals with unique traits in terms of cleanliness and general acceptability in the public. Criminals should not be allowed to possess weapons. However, it is difficult to control their possession of guns as leakages will be witnessed in the country. It is extremely difficult to control possession of guns among hunters as their activities must continue. With gun control, crime rates are likely to increase since people will be trying to access guns not only for self-defense but for criminal activities. Possession of guns in the United States should not be outlawed as it will lead to a protest among citizens.
Atwood, James E.. America and its guns: a theological exposé. Eugene, Ore.: Cascade Books, 2012. Print.
Cook, Philip J.. Evaluating gun policy effects on crime and violence. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003. Print.
Geberth, Vernon J.. Practical homicide investigation: tactics, procedures, and forensic techniques. 4th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Taylor & Francis, 2006. Print.
Goss, Kristin A.. Disarmed: the missing movement for gun control in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. Print.
Henderson, Harry. Gun control. New York: Facts On File, 2000. Print.
Lott, John R.. The bias against guns: why almost everything you've heard about gun control is wrong. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub. ;, 2003. Print.
Lunger, Norman L.. Big bang: the loud debate over gun control. Brookfield, Conn.: Twenty-First Century Books, 2002. Print.
Webster, Daniel W.. Reducing gun violence in America: informing policy with evidence and analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013. Print.
Wellford, Charles F.. Firearms and violence a critical review. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005. Print.
Wilson, Harry L.. Guns, gun control, and elections: the politics and policy of firearms. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Print