NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Gun Control: the Pros and Cons Recently public debates on gun control policy gained new emotional and social colors. Current situation regarding to the concern of the government about gun safety can be illustrated with the following. In 48 states people can legally buy and keep guns, and in 43 states there is no registration or license required for that. In 46 states there are no limitations on the amount of guns, which an individual can buy at a time; only 4 states allow buying one handgun per month, trying to control illegal gun traffic. In North Carolina a child of 12 needs a permission of parents to participate in Baseball League games, but not to owe a gun or a rifle. In 5 states, including Texas, there are no age limitations for gun possession. 40 % of American homes have guns.
Annually about 1, 500 children are hurt by accidental gun shots, and about 150 die. Every day about 10 teenagers between 15 and 20 die because of gun related violence. There is a lot of alarming statistic, but some questions are left in mind. Is the situation really that critical? Are the Americans really that much ill-tempered and choleric people to cause such amount of deaths and misery with the guns? Can more severe governmental gun control be effective?
Public opinion on gun control is polarized: there are two obvious camps of supporters (used to be called as gun control advocates) and opponents (gun rights advocates) of gun restrictions. The main appeal of gun control supporters is that free buying and keeping of guns leads to increase of criminal danger and make our life less safe. At the same time, the majority of gun owners, belonging to the second group, claim that gun control limits the rights, they state that the Bill of Rights and gun control are completely alternative. To start analyzing the pros and cons of gun control, first of all, it is necessary to touch ethical and moral arguments of both camps. Anti gun coalition says that guns are first weapon of crime and that is why its manufacturing and distribution must be strictly limited and controlled.
The reply from gun supporters group comes: not guns, but criminals are guilty in committing of crimes, no matter which way they are armed. And, the first group continues that guns have only one purpose: to kill. On what the supporters can say that there is a huge amount of guns, used exceptionally with the purpose of being practiced in competitions, like target shooting, or they are historical rarities for collectors. Gun opponents say that it is better for own safety not to keep ready firearms at home, because those guns can be accidentally used against members of family or close people, especially in moments of rage or anger. Supporters state that, on the contrary, it is for more safety to have charged and loaded guns at home in case of a crime or robbery, for better self-defense.
It is important to make all members of family able to handle the guns and learn the rules of gun safety. As to unconscious shooting at home, in the most cases the reason of this is alcohol or drugs, using of which brings to such homicides. Gun haters say that if people can freely buy and carry guns, they can kill each other on the streets in case of any little misunderstanding, a quarrel or accident. So, only the military and police should be allowed to carry guns. But statistic of such cases talks for gun owners, they proved to be more responsible and law-obedient, then average Americans, in defending themselves. The states, which allow registered people to carry handguns and firearms, have better crime statistic than other states.
Besides, there are numerous incidents of unjustified murders of own relatives, friends or suspects by police officers, some of them were caught on selling their guns. So, why to trust in them more, than in usual people? Being a weapon of crimes, guns seem to bring the most of harm and death. That is why, according to gun control advocates, in case of robbery, for own safety it is better not to resist and to obey calmly. For receiving help and protection it is better to call 911 and make professionals deal with the criminal.
But in real, to resist a robber with a gun is much more effective and safe, than call police and spend time for waiting for their coming and investigating. A research, made by the National Institute for Justice, reveals that 60 % of criminals will not mess with a victim with a gun, they much more afraid to be killed by such victim, than to be taken to police. Besides, 74 % of robbers will never try to enter the houses where people are at home, because they afraid of being shot for the robbery. Frequently, gun issues debtors appeal to American legislative system. Gun control supporters consider it necessary to pass more gun limiting laws that can result in lowering of crime level in the country. Especially they are eager to repeal the Second Amendment, which protects American peoples right to keep and use any sort of weapons.
They say that nuclear weapon is also a sort of weapon, so under the Amendment people can also keep and use nuclear weapon. In reply, gun bearers state that the Amendment only regulates governmental involvement and its right to exempt or restrict gun possession rights. The very right of keeping guns is a part of the Bill of Rights of the country, the right of a free American. Also, gun restrictive laws will not help to reduce the amount of crimes and felonies, they will not disarm criminals. There is one appropriate example.
When in mid 90 th danger of crime of car-jacking began increasing at a fearful rate, some states legalized the right of using of deadly force to eliminate the danger. And soon after some criminals being killed at once at the place, the crime statistic started getting better. OK, if it is impossible to prohibit the guns, it is necessary at least to limit the sales of hand weapons and ammunition in time and amount, to register and to license everybody who buys and owns them. This is what slight gun control can be like. But gun proponents can say that in some states limiting laws are effective, but in real they are only limiting social and personal liberties of citizens, they do not affect on some crime statistic.
And there are definite categories of people, like sportsmen or professional hunters, who frequently need good amount and variety of guns and ammo's. As one more argument, gun control advocates accuse gun manufacturers and sellers in lack of responsibility for such business. They say that gun makers should understand that their goods are weapons of crimes and can bring death. Besides, often gun distributors play with womens fears in order to advertise their goods. But this features are not specific for gun marketing only, there are many other goods, like safes, alarms, gas sprays, security systems, etc. , which also serve for peoples safety and peace. Besides, there is a great variety of things (like chemicals, machinery, tools, nails, etc. ), which can be abused and become harmful, and only the one who uses them must be responsible for such results.
There are numerous debates about the quality, price, size or accuracy of guns. Guns opponents say that cheap guns are really poorly made and inaccurate, they can bring danger and must be banned. Expensive assault guns are mostly a choice of criminals. But they are too powerful and accurate to be kept for citizens with the purpose of self-defense. Guns supporters say that inexpensive guns can be afforded by poor people with purposes of self-protection.
As to criminals preferences to gain expensive guns, it is natural, because expensive guns are better and more precise, but mostly criminals use any sort of guns they can find. And it is obviously better to keep at home a good-quality accurate expensive gun, which will never fail in case of emergency. If criminals prefer to get more expensive, better and accurate guns for their dirty business, maybe the increases of prices or taxes will stop them from getting guns? But specialists will state that tax or other financial obstacle for buying guns will not act as a deterrent of a crime, such industry is rather flexible for taxes, for economical and political changes and tendencies.
For example, statistically, if any rumors as to tightening of the legislation regarding keeping or prohibition of guns appear, the demand for firearms and other weapons immediately increases. Gun control advocates claim that we must not let people own complicated sophisticated guns with many controls and big capacity, because there are no reasons for usual citizens to shoot that much. Such guns must be only at the disposal of police and specialists. The answer is that, first of all, mostly handguns do not have more than 4 controls, so it is not very hard to handle them for an average American. As to restrictions for powerful weapons: sometimes it is very much harder for a civilian to resist an attack, because it can happen at night or in a lonely place. Undoubtedly, policemen always have to be very well armed, but, being professionals, they work in groups and with the help of radio connection or helicopters, so they have good backups and protection.
Gun opponents say that control and limitations of gun distribution will result in lowering of amount of suicides in the USA. Though it hardly will come true, because guns are scarcely being used for suicide, there are a lot of other methods, like jumping from bridges, tall buildings, etc. Finally, the most ardent gun control proponents strictly demand immediate and full gun restriction and prohibition. They are certain that it will reduce the crime level and save many peoples lives, it will bring more peace and safety to everybody. They point on lowering crime statistic in other countries.
And the keenest gun supporters refer to history, showing that decades ago it was much easier to buy a gun, there were no forms to fill, no check and waiting periods, and at the same time crime level was considerably lower. And one of the strongest arguments from them: if you do not trust people with guns, why do you trust them with expectations to obey such gun prohibiting law? It is up to an individual to decide, who is right and who is wrong in this public discussion. There is a great deal of opposing viewpoints, and that is why gun control issues are primarily on the agenda of the parliament. Probably, this dispute started to be that much emotional because it touches many essential communal and psychological matters. In any way, if the appeals for strengthening of gun control by government would be heard and accepted by the legislation, many important changes may happen in social and political systems of the United States.
Bibliography: Gun Control in the United States." A Comparative Survey of State Firearm Laws. Apr. , 2000. Open Society Institute. Oct. 2004 < web publications / gun report 20000401 /GunReportChart 1.
pdf > Korea, D. B. Trust in People: the Case against Gun Control." July 11, 1998. CATO Institute.
Oct. 2004
Free research essays on topics related to: pros and cons, bill of rights, gun possession, nuclear weapon, gun control advocates
Research essay sample on Gun Control Advocates Pros And Cons
