The debate on the essence of gun control laws in different states has been a controversial issue for a long, attracting propositions and opposition to equal measures. Gun control laws are established and enacted in different countries to weed out criminal and social menaces that are made possible by the unregulated ownership of guns. Some of the intended reasons for controlling gun laws in contemporary society include beefing up public safety, preventing violence and protecting citizens, and the prevention of firearm-related crimes. Ownership of guns by civilians with the most minor regulation has resulted in negative implications, such as an increase in gun violence, propagation of criminal activities, and an increase in homicide cases (Husak 59). Despite enacting gun control laws with clear goals and objectives, that has not always been the case, as many negativities have emerged in the long run. Gun control laws are justified to be harmful because of grounds such as suppression of individual rights and freedoms, creation of unintended consequences, lack of practicality and effectiveness, overlooking mental health, and downplaying the root cause of criminality.
Gun control laws are bad because they tend to suspend individual rights and freedoms to protect themselves and their property against malicious attacks or threats. The central significant argument against the enactment of stringent gun control laws revolves around the preservation of individual rights and freedoms. When individuals are denied access to firearms to protect themselves in their time of need, they are left vulnerable and susceptible to any dangers should they arise. Lobbyists for the right of individuals to bear guns opine that citizens should have the ability to protect themselves and their property without necessarily relying on law enforcers who are not available in some instances (Swanson 4). Through limiting individuals’ access to firearms, infringes upon their fundamental rights, potentially leaving law-abiding citizens defenceless in the face of criminal threats.
The enactment of the gun control laws is terrible because they advantage the law offenders to commit many misdeeds against unarmed civilians. In societies where there are stringent gun control laws, law-abiding citizens are brutally victimized by criminal gangs because they have nothing in their protection to defend their lives and properties from being taken advantage of by the armed lawbreakers. In some countries with much religious intolerance, the members of extremist and outlawed gangs are likely to attack unarmed masses and shoot them mercilessly as they try to get revenge on behalf of their religions (Bilgel 606). In balancing the equation, it is advisable to relax the gun control laws and allow individuals to have guns that they can use for self-defence in the event they are treated for no due cause.
Secondly, gun control laws are a terrible idea because they lead to several unintended consequences in the process. Ideally, gun control laws are intended to reduce cases of gun violence, reduce cases of criminality, and homicides, but in most instances, the contrary is achieved. The implementation of gun control laws sometimes results in unintended consequences, such as an increase in criminality and the creation of other avenues for conducting law breakages (Swanson 5). The adoption of strict regulations of gun laws in society can lead to an increase in violent crime rates as potential victims are left defenceless in the events they are persecuted. In that regard, some other criminal activities mushroom in society in the form of illegal gun business to provide civilians with weapons for self-protection.
The illegal gun market is likely to flourish when gun control laws are implemented in society because unarmed individuals will pursue other unwarranted alternatives outside the legal framework to obtain guns. It is evident that in some societies where criminality is rampant, individuals cannot survive without holding firearms for defense because without such, they are endangered by the violent criminals in their midst (Burton et al. 349). Through these extra-legal gun activities, the individuals are not educated on the responsible usage of the guns by the dictates of laws in the society. For society to weed out these unintended consequences of controlling gun laws, it is quintessential to relax gun control laws and train individual firearms bearers on responsible usage.
In addition, the implementation of gun control laws is a bad idea because it is based on something other than the effectiveness and practicality of the subject matter. Prior to enacting gun control laws, there needed to be more substantial consideration to evaluate how gun control laws are effective in achieving the desired outcomes. In some cases, the policymakers pursue the option of controlling gun laws. However, they need to provide the practicality of the policy framework to achieve what is intended in society (Husak 62). From past experiences, it is evident that not all enacted gun laws and regulations have led to a significant reduction in firearm-related crimes. Based on this realization, policymakers should appreciate that the option is not effective and practical and pursue other options.
The control of gun laws seems to be impractical and ineffective in achieving the intended purposes because the hard-core criminals in society can obtain illegal firearms. However, in the cases of law-abiding citizens, they encounter many hurdles in their efforts to access tools for self-defense. The failure of gun control laws tends to mean that the policy decree facilitates the criminals to do their criminal activities because the law-abiding citizens are deprived of their abilities to do self-defense and protection against criminal gangs (Bilgel 598). The government should rise to the realization that gun control laws have many flaws in achieving what they are intended to achieve. The government administration should be open to other security options likely to achieve better results and forgo gun control laws that appear to be all the same.
Furthermore, gun control laws are bad because they overlook the intersection of mental health in the commission of criminal offenses in society. The aim of enacting gun control laws is to achieve sanity and orderliness in society, which is attributed much to the accessibility of guns and other firearms for conducting criminalities. In such pursuits, policymakers tend to overlook some issues, such as mental health, that are responsible for many social menaces (Burton et al. 356). Though guns are used to execute some criminal missions, perpetrators usually have some other underlying factors, such as mental ill health, that prompt them to use guns for purposes for which they are not meant to achieve. Suppose the underlying factors, such as mental ill health, are addressed satisfactorily. In that case, it can be possible for the members of the society to coexist harmoniously without using their guns in their proximity to do criminal deeds, harm others, and do self-destruction.
Lastly, it is a bad idea to enact gun control laws because it tends to shield the policymakers and the criminal justice systems from dealing head-on with the factors that account for gun violence in societies. The mere availability of guns to civilians cannot be singled out as the sole factor causing violence in society. There are a lot of other factors, such as socioeconomic factors, cultural aggression, poor mental health, and other factors that make an individual decide to use the guns in their custody for some immoral acts. It is essential to address the root causes of firearm-related violence that aid in building up a comprehensive approach to public safety rather than being obsessed with the availability of guns (Husak 62). The guns are just objects that the inflicted persons use to execute what they intend to do, as informed by other factors such as racism, ethnic profiling, unequal distribution of resources, and religious intolerance. The sole focus on restricting access to firearms is an attempt to overlook these underlying issues, and it leads to the pursuit of an incomplete and ineffective solution to the societal issue under concern.
Gun control laws in different societies and countries are implemented to attain some intended goals and objectives. In some instances, gun control laws are wrong and misguided undertakings because they skew their achievements, achieving many negativities. The undertaking is terrible because it leads to overlooking the root causes of the social concerns, it infringes on individual rights and freedoms, it achieves unintended purposes, it increases armed outbreaks of violence, and it flourishes illegal gun markets. Policymakers and criminal justice systems must recognize this reality and consider pursuing other effective and practical options. The enactment of the gun control laws is not solely effective in achieving its intended purposes, and other probable options need to be explored and executed to attain the intended results.
Works Cited
Bilgel, F. (2020). Guns and homicides: a multiscale geographically weighted instrumental variables approach. Geographical analysis, 52(4), 588–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/gean.12227.
Burton, Alexander L., et al. “Gun owners and gun control: shared status, divergent opinions.” Sociological Inquiry 91.2 2021: 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12413.
Husak, Douglas. “Why Gun Control is So Hard.” Criminal Justice Ethics 38.1 2019: 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2019.1603875.
Swanson, Jeffrey W. “The color of risk protection orders: gun violence, gun laws, and racial justice.” Injury Epidemiology 7.1 2020: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-020-00272-z.
write