Essay on Against Gun Control

Introduction

Gun violence is on the rise in many societies, as contributed by control policies and licensing rules. Guns can be used for protective reasons in the community, and there is a need always to vet individuals who apply for the same before issuing them with handguns. An example of a country that has high gun violence cases is the United States. The gun culture in the country has led many to the assumption that guns are a must within the society (Azrael, et al. 295). The use of firearms within the society leads to a significant impact on the rates of crime. Some argue in favor of control policies for their reasons. It is essential to focus on the issue of gun control and assess the essence of imposing rules on the same. Gun control illustrates a situation where the government imposes laws and regulations that restrict the issuance and use of handguns within the society. Some societies have stringent rules on gun ownership, while others are lenient. In my opinion, gun control is not justified as guns are used purposively within the community. The paper aims to argue in favor of the topic of discussion by providing a detailed review of claims that support the elimination of gun control policies.

Body

Background Information

It is essential to approach the study by understanding the scope of gun control and use in the society. A background check on the topic of discussion indicates that over 35% of the population in the United States has licensed guns. For instance, Hsiao asserts that gun control is a matter that has helped the economy of countries such as the United States. In his article, “Against Gun Bans and Restrictive Licensing,” the author provides an argument against restrictions on the use of guns (Hsiao 180). The author argues that more guns within the society can lead to increased safety for many within the society. The article is informative on why many societies in the world should reduce restrictions on gun use and issuance (Hsiao 182). As such, the research supports the argument on reducing regulations and impositions on use of guns across the world.

Lott John in the 2013 researched on the issue of understanding crime and gun control as a significant social issue. The author has vividly explained how the increase in the number of guns issued can reduce crime in the society (Lott 50). When the number of firearms in the public hands is high, there is a possibility that criminals can fear attacking citizens, for they might respond with a gunshot. In his article, the author expresses interest in the reduction or elimination of control rules on gun usage.

In the year 2013, La Valle provided a critical argument that is against gun control and licensing. The author presents a case that is against the ideological divide favoring the topic of discussion. Elimination of gun control policies can help the society nurture upright citizens who do not need control rules (La Valle 20).

Reasons for Opposing Gun Control

The first argument that supports the elimination of gun control is self-defense and protection. Many people in the society need protection from unnecessary attacks in their daily activities. As such, gun control measures expose the general public to the danger of being attacked. A community that is unprotected is vulnerable to threats that endanger their social stability. Equally armed civilians can play a role in taking out bad guys who are threatening peace. In essence, gun control measures are a step towards creating an unsafe society (Azrael, et al. 298). For instance, rich business people and the wealthy in society need to protect their wealth. If individuals do not protect their money and property, criminals will take advantage of the situation as the government might not offer enough security. As an initiative, gun control should be avoided to ensure that security among citizens is beefed up. It is difficult for the government to protect everyone at all times, given the different situations that require the attention of security agencies. As such, eliminating gun control measures enhances self-protection among citizens and reduces unnecessary attacks by criminals (Azrael, et al. 296). Law enforcement agencies should consider the need for self-defense and protection in the event of amending or formulating a gun control policy. For instance, when the society has fewer guns with the public hands, criminals might take advantage of the situation, which risks the security state of the community. More guns within the society mean that people fear attacking others since they own guns. To the research, arms on the public hand should be increased in a bid to reduce the high rates of crime within any setting (Lott 60). The study conducted by Lott illustrates the concept of deterrence theory in the use of weapons within the society. If the general public possesses more guns, then there is likelihood that crime rates can be reduced (Lott 50).

Culture and legislation within a society should form enough reason why the authorities are supposed to eliminate gun control measures. An example of a country that has a long history in gun culture and violence is the United States. For instance, the second amendment advocates for the right to protection and defense. The introduction of gun policy measures is seen as an infringement on the rights of an individual (Depetris-Chauvin 66). The contradiction between the law and gun policy has escalated into a heated argument that seems to find no agreement. In the history of the US, many people own guns with a view of protecting themselves as stipulated by the second amendment. The role of security agencies is to enforce the law, which includes the provisions of the second amendment. To some extent, one can argue that the gun culture is a significant contributor to the wave opposing gun control. However, some countries have high crime rates even after banning the use of handguns, which indicates that there is no need for more gun control policies. The second amendment is a provision that the law enforcement agencies must implement in their formulation of gun control measures (Blocher and Miller 295).

An increased number of guns among the public ensures more safety for citizens in a particular place. This is because the weapons serve as collateral that scares off possible criminals from attacking an individual. Besides self-defense, the handguns can help take out guys that are causing social instability (Depetris-Chauvin 66). Many homicide cases are reported daily due to gun violence. Leashing out guns to citizens in the society can help reduces cases of homicide. For instance, over 100 people are killed daily in the United States as a result of shootings. If, in any case, individuals were armed with handguns, then taking the shooters out can be possible. In the event of the formulation of gun control measures, consideration must be made to helpless teachers in schools who should protect their students during shootings. Individuals within the society without guns are at more risk of being attacked than those who are armed (Azrael, et al. 295). Authorities should consider eliminating legislation that restricts gun use in a bid to ensure that the society is safer. Gun control measures risk the safety of the population and, thereby, should be avoided. According to La Valle, policies are not the major problem in increased gun violence and the high rates of crime within society. The research focuses on two groups one that favors gun control policies and those that are against restrictions (La Valle 15). The group that supports the elimination of control policies argues that the weapons are used for self-protection. On the other hand, the group that advocates for licensing and implementation of control policies argues that laws will reduce homicide rates and, consequently, the crime rate in the society. The research asserts that recent mass-spree killings have prompted policymakers and other stakeholders to argue for the formulation of control policies or eliminate them. La Valle notes with concern the impact of no gun policy within the society (La Valle 2). However, he agrees to the fact that an armed society is safer than one that thrives in stringent gun control measures.

Counter Argument

Gun control is being opposed by many in the society who value self-defense and protection. However, it is also vital to examine whether gun control is justified or not. For instance, reduced gun control measures leave dangerous weapons under the control of the public. The result of such a move is increased crime rates and deaths. Many people suffer in the hands of guns, necessitating the need to find a long-lasting solution to the matter (Mahadevan 27). Reduced number of firearms in the public hand might guarantee a reduction in homicide cases and gun violence. Some incidents of shootings happen because the legislation allows people to own guns within the society. In essence, gun control measures can help reduce the cases of homicide and criminal activities. For instance, couples in a quarrel at home can argue to the extent of one shooting the other. Controlling the use of guns proves helpful in avoiding such cases that result in deaths within the community. Increased issuance of firearms to the public for protection ends up causing a situation where people can be attacked at any time (Mahadevan 6). This is because criminals can obtain the weapons from those licensed and use them to advance their malicious agenda.

Gun control is necessary since it reduces deaths as a result of gun violence within a society. The number of people who get killed daily as a result of gun violence is high, and there is a need to reduce mortalities related to guns. The mass shooting on the public claims the lives of many people within the society and leaves some injured. Those injured have to incur health costs, which none of them anticipated (Mahadevan 20). Consideration of such happenings can prompt society to implement laws that restrict the use of handguns within the population. Gun control policies can help maintain peace in third world economies where the weapons can be misused. If such societies are subjected to less legislation on gun use, there is a likelihood that the number of deaths as a result of shootings will increase. Such communities are better off with stringent gun policy as compared to lenient legislation that exposes many to risks. Threats to security as a result of increased issuance of handguns in the society should form a major basis for the introduction of stringent gun control measures (Mahadevan 10). As such, the gun policy should be made stringent in a bid to ensure that citizens have no weapons that risk the lives of others.

Conclusion

To sum it up, gun policy help reduce the number of weapons in the hands of the public. Gun control policies should be eliminated in the society to help promote self-defense and protection among citizens. An armed society is safer than one that has imposed stringent gun policy. When an individual is not armed, they easily get exposed to attacks that they should have avoided by owning a gun. Equally, culture and legislation within some societies have prompted less stringent gun control measures. An example of a society that suffers from increased gun violence is the United States. The imposition of strict rules does not guarantee the society safety as it makes citizens vulnerable to theft and unnecessary attacks that could have been avoided. Reducing gun control policies can help boost safety for the society in general, for criminals will fear attacking ordinary citizens. The research also focuses on possible reasons why people support gun policy. Gun control measures ensure that people are less exposed to dangers or killings. Equally, stringent gun policies lead to a consequential decrease in the number of homicide cases as a result of guns. Having considered both sides of the argument, it is only essential that gun control measures are eliminated.

Works Cited

Azrael, Deborah, et al. “Firearm storage in gun-owning households with children: results of a 2015 national survey.” Journal of urban health 95.3 (2018): 295-304.

Blocher, Joseph, and Darrell AH Miller. “What Is Gun Control: Direct Burdens, Incidental Burdens, and the Boundaries of the Second Amendment.” U. Chi. L. Rev. 83 (2016): 295.

Depetris-Chauvin, Emilio. “Fear of Obama: An empirical study of the demand for guns and the US 2008 presidential election.” Journal of Public Economics 130 (2015): 66-79.

Hsiao, Timothy. “Against Gun Bans and Restrictive Licensing.” Essays in Philosophy 16.2 (2015): 180-203.

La Valle, James M. “Gun control” vs.“self-protection”: A case against the ideological divide.” Justice Policy Journal 10.1 (2013): 1-26.

Lott, John R. More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws. University of Chicago Press, 2013.

Mahadevan, Samyuktha. “A Comparative Analysis of Media and Legislative Rhetoric on Gun Control.” (2019).