Should There Be Stricter Gun Control Laws Essay

Currently, gun control has developed into a topic of controversy. In today’s society, shootings have turned into the new norm, and shootings are occurring every month. It looks like guns have turned into a critical issue, or is it something else? There is a continuous situation of conflict, political crisis, attacks, and personal threats. All of these factors affirm that a person should have access to the resources that can ensure his or her safety. On the same platforms, the people who think that all the conflicts and issues in this world are due to the fact that humans are given the chance to practice security attempts themselves and it has made them too free to be afraid of killing others. Gun control is a two-folded topic, each with a thought-provoking assertion, which has made this issue unresolved even in the century of the most advanced departments of knowledge, thinking, and industrialization.

Certain crimes like mass shootings can be kept from happening in several means.

Gun control is one of the most sensitive and controversial topics that is being discussed occasionally. Unfortunately, the aspects of this topic are too wide to collect, and every time this topic is left undiscussed and unanswered. Nowadays, many of the people think that gun control should be limited. The underlying meaning of this statement is found in the lines of the US Constitution, which says, “In order to form a perfect union of people, with established justice that can ensure domestic tranquility and provide common defense, the blessing of prosperity and liberty needs to be secured as it can bring prosperity” (Luca et al.). It is not just a quote but a matter of fact that is demonstrated as well as an answer to everyone trying to understand guns and why their control should be limited.

In addition to this, there is a concept that it is not the people but the motivation to kill people that makes violence occur. As per this logic, it is affirmed that, without guns, fewer shootings will exist, taking into consideration that humankind will have to plan long and complicated instead of buying a gun and killing the culprit within four to five minutes. In order to know what can be done, if there were another mass shooting, we should look at the evidence we have on the effects of gun regulations. “Guns kill more than 38,000 people per year and cause approximately 85,000 non-fatal injuries” (Kevin Loria). Limited gun control really works. A scientific thorough analysis in this article finds that states that have right-to-carry laws have increased the number of shootings. When people are around guns, the chance of using guns for shooting or accidental shooting is increased. Though this affirmation is considered a cause of promoting utilitarianism, others cling to the theory that society trained people to be vicious and that their brutality is conveyed through the use of firearms. The reality of this fact is seen in the form of the shooting drills that are given to the students at schools. In real life, the shooting drills are training pupils to articulate their aggression in a more brutal way. There are questions about why an average person needs a firearm while the government conducts all the possible efforts to build the improvement of security for the citizens. Every so often, concerns about security come up and the government makes considerable effort to address them.

In addition, it is pointed out that controversies come up when teenagers are noticed with firearms and weapons when it is not expected and teenagers should not carry them. This instance is also a question of the attention that the government gives to the people because if there were significant security checks and accountability, students and youngsters might not have access to guns this easily. There is an affirmation saying when someone acquires a gun, the government should attempt to sustain a complete check and balance so that the probability of misusing the firearm is slim.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Likewise, it is pointed out that there should be identification cards for people who purchase weapons so that the probability of getting to the criminals is increased in catching the culprits (Smith and Spieler). The more utilitarian views highlighted that it is human errors of understanding in reliance on the weapons that have brought death closer to human beings, it is also seen in the form of ideas presented by researchers. According to the Desert News, it is “announced that the Brady Campaign issued a 100-point scorecard” ensured that imposition of background checks, permit the purchase of guns, and a strict check and balance has reduced the rates of crimes because anyone who commits the crimes is sure of the punishment that he might be getting after being found as the criminal (Smith and Spiegler).

According to Gordon (2019), there is an urgent need to conduct some technical efforts because technology and advancement have made easy access to weapons, In such a case, the government and industries should attempt to conduct less stringent means toward gun control by reducing the size of the ammunition storage in the gun and reducing the ability of the firearm to shoot far off places (Gordon et al.). On the contrary, the people and critics, who believe that limiting gun control is not necessary because gun control is needed, have many disputes. The first argument is presented in reference to the US Constitution, which affirms that “every human being in this world and in this country is responsible for his/their own defense which ensures that someone should have the device or weapons of defense.” In addition, it is highlighted that critics have a strong belief in the philosophy that, “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy who is having a gun” (Sanjurjo). The stance of this anthology is reflected back to the theory that mentioned that guns do not kill people, people kill each other.

Many critics think that the misunderstanding comes from “mental conditions” because mass shootings at school are just the result of the mental disabilities that cause a person to conduct this behavior (Smith and Spiegler). Also, it is pointed out that more gun control will have no effect because the one who wants to commit the crime will do it in any way and the intention is strong much like smugglers and drug traffickers. According to Lott, historical data and statistics convey how prohibiting firearms is doing more harm than good to the general public. Lott writes when the prohibition of handguns took place in Great Britain, “…the number of deaths and injuries from Gun crime in England and Wales increased an incredible 340%, in seven years from 1998 to 2005” (Coia). In the analysis of the time period from 1997 to 2001, the rates and the incidents of crime doubled in the past when people were six times more at risk of being robbed and defrauded at gunpoint (Sanjurjo, “Gun Securitization and Gun Control Policies”). According to Sanjurjo, it is highlighted that gun control is something that causes people to be more radical due to the powerful intuitions of rebelliousness that cause a majority of all the crimes in this society.

A majority of utilitarians believe that every person in this world has the right to practice their will and have a free existence. This existence is also seen in the form of making self-related decisions and having a gun is one of those decisions; it is not acceptable to impose an absurd implementation of gun control because the public wants access to weapons to protect their lives as the government has failed to ensure their life safety. One of the reasons for this fact is that murder rates were reduced after concealed handguns were allowed to be carried. Also, the imposition of gun control measures is more like a prohibition on the passions and the choice of people because there are many people who want to have firearms for pleasures such as hunting (Sanjurjo, “Gun Policy Processes and Interest Group Politics in Latin America”).

Also, an article promoted that the stance of gun control has brought a dominant and prominent role to government officers who misuse their powers to ensure adherence to the laws. It is evident that the causes of violence are more common in the police officers rather than the other people who are usually threatened and accused of carrying weapons. Data collected from PEW research, in which it is highlighted that about 57% of the people think that gun control measures have brought more issues to their lives, proves this fact. The reason is, that they are just and obvious in their practices still, all the allegations and sometimes enforced allegations are associated with them. Such groups have failed to prove their righteousness, resulting in imprisonment (Sanjurjo, “Gun Policy Processes and Interest Group Politics in Latin America”).

Taking into consideration that people proposed arguments, in favor and against, gun control, a critical insight conveys that there is an urgent need to revise both grounds because both sides have some significant gaps. The government should take responsibility for enforcing both sides and then the citizens should be freed from the fear of any brutality targeting and victimizing them and the methods for limiting gun control should seem to be working. On the other hand, the government should be representative of its citizens; policies should be applicable and acceptable for an amateur without any issue. The government should conduct measures that can impact its citizens positively rather than making them more aggressive about the government. In conclusion, both government and policymakers should take the issue of “gun control” as a topic that can be well justified and well explained.