Many proponents have discussed the topic of gun ownership restrictions for years. On one side, many advocates have argued that it is essential for strict gun measures to be in place to reduce mass shootings and gun violence and improve public safety. On the other side, many proponents have argued that the rights of citizens, such as the second amendment, should be respected. Therefore, violating this right would undermine the structure of American liberties. As the country struggles to deal with the effects of gun-related consequences, it has become important to address the issue of gun ownership restriction from both perspectives to shape better policies on gun ownership.
Arguments for stricter gun restrictions
Advocates of stricter gun ownership restrictions have presented valid points to enforce it as a policy. First, stricter gun restrictions will improve public safety. The advocates argue that conflicts are more likely to become violent where there is a presence of guns. Stricter gun ownership restrictions reduce cases of gun-related violence such as homicides, suicides, and mass shootings will reduce (Hamlin, 2021). Moreover, stricter regulations will reduce access to firearms by criminals, people with mental illness, and history of violence. Thus, rigorous rules when purchasing a gun will reduce the number of illegal guns available, including stolen firearms, enhancing public safety.
Secondly, cases of gun-related violence will reduce. Firearms have been the cause of homicides, suicides, domestic violence, and mass shootings. According to Gramlich (2019), nearly 80% of all homicides and suicides have involved using a gun in recent years. Specifically, handguns have contributed to about 59% of gun murders. The number of death tolls is projected to grow if necessary measures are not enacted to reduce the accessibility of guns. Stricter gun ownership laws will limit the availability and use of guns by individuals during their times of emotional distress. In addition, fewer guns will be in homes, thus reducing the number of domestic abuse, suicides, and homicides.
In addition, guns are rarely used by individuals for self-defense. In mass shootings, average gun owners are similarly scared as those without guns, and they are more likely to stop the killers when they are out of bullets. In such situations, gun owners will only make the situation more dangerous and threatening. It is, therefore, necessary for the government to implement laws to restrict gun ownership.
Finally, there is a greater need to align with the international norms. Many countries with stringent gun ownership laws have registered fewer gun-related incidents than the United States. In countries such as Switzerland and Finland, gun owners must pass background checks comprising mental and criminal history and acquire licenses (Sanchez et al., 2020). This proves that stricter gun ownership policies can reduce the number of gun-related crimes. Adopting those policies will also improve the international perception of the United States and lead to collaboration in International security policies.
Although arguments for stricter gun ownership restrictions are valid, they also have weaknesses. First, law-abiding citizens will be disadvantaged as they are disproportionally affected by the stringent restrictions. Criminals may continue obtaining guns illegally, leaving citizens without proper means to protect themselves. This would lead to the growth of illicit markets as demand for guns would increase. In addition, stringent gun control policies such as background checks would also invade citizens’ privacy. This would violate citizens’ liberties without addressing the root cause of gun violence.
In addition, the second amendment makes implementing stricter gun ownership rules challenging. Critics have frequently argued that citizens can keep and own firearms. Thus, it would be unconstitutional to infringe on their rights as citizens will be limited to self-defense. The ambiguous language in the second amendment has left room for more discussions about gun ownership.
Arguments against stricter gun restrictions
Opponents have argued that it is the right of citizens to bear arms and keep them for self-defense (Zick, 2020). Police cannot protect everyone. Thus, citizens have the means to protect themselves and their loved ones. This is constitutionally stated in the second amendment. Therefore, implementing stringent gun ownership laws would violate these citizens’ rights and expose them to dangerous criminals.
In addition, stringent measures are more likely ineffective in reducing gun violence. In most mass shooting incidents, most perpetrators obtained their firearms legally, while few obtained them from friends, relatives, or other means not addressed by strict restrictions. This highlights the potential disadvantage of implementing such measures.
Moreover, opponents also argue that stringent gun ownership policies would have adverse economic effects on the firearm industry and related sectors. It is essential to protect these industries as they play a crucial part in enhancing public safety. Implementing stricter rules would reduce the demand for guns leading to these industries collapsing.
Finally, opponents also argue that giving firearms to citizens prevents government tyranny. They argue that stricter rules would give the government too much power, leading to further violation of other citizens’ rights. It serves as a check to the government and plays a crucial role in safeguarding the citizens against tyranny, thus emphasizing the historical context of the second amendment.
Arguments against stringent restrictions have valid evidence to prohibit the government from implementing the policies. However, they have their weaknesses. First, there are insufficient background checks in the current gun ownership. Critics have argued that there are loopholes that allow criminals to easily access firearms. Implementing stringent policies would address these loopholes and potentially prevent the rising gun-related crimes and fatalities.
Secondly, they argue that there is a misinterpretation of the second amendment. They argue that the second amendment was implemented in a different historical context to address a well-regulated militia. Therefore, modern interpretations do not consider the impact of unrestricted access to firearms on society. For example, many children in the United States have been exposed to gun violence in their homes or neighborhoods, affecting their mental health (Vasan et al., 2021). Stringent gun ownership policies will help address these consequences and other gun-related incidents, such as suicides and domestic abuse.
Additionally, frequent surveys have shown that many Americans and gun owners support the idea of stricter gun ownership policies. Measures such as background checks can be significant in ensuring that guns are given to responsible people. Implementing restriction policies will align with the majority ensuring that policies serve the interests of collective American citizens. Therefore, policymakers must engage citizens and related organizations before enacting any law.
Finally, easy accessibility of guns has significantly contributed to gun violence. The current policies have not protected citizens from increasing gun deaths. This has made policymakers seek to implement ways that can prevent gun-related violence. Adopting stricter gun restrictions can make a significant impact in reducing gun violence. In addition, the United States will align with other developed countries in controlling gun-related incidents. By adopting these stringent measures, firearms will be handled appropriately and stored, reducing cases of gun violence.
In conclusion, advocates and opponents present valid ideas that policymakers can consider before implementing gun restriction policies. Stricter gun ownership restrictions will promote public safety, reduce gun violence, enable the US to align itself with other countries that have implemented such laws and reduce life-threatening situations in times of mass shootings. However, this will violate the rights of citizens, such as the second amendment, and may result in the growth of illicit gun markets. On the other hand, not implementing stricter policies will protect citizens’ right to self-defense, prevent tyranny by the government, and prevent consequences that may arise due to the ineffectiveness of implementing stringent policies. However, the existing loopholes in background checks, increasing gun violence, misinterpretation of the second amendment, and more people supporting stricter laws make the implementation of more restrictions on gun ownership inevitable. The government should consider implementing stricter gun restrictions as its advantages outweigh those against stricter restrictions.
References
Gramlich, J. (2019). What the data says about gun deaths in the US. Pew Research Center.
Hamlin, D. (2021). Are gun ownership rates and regulations associated with firearm incidents in American schools? A forty-year analysis (1980–2019). Journal of criminal justice, 76, 101847.
Sanchez, C., Jaguan, D., Shaikh, S., McKenney, M., & Elkbuli, A. (2020). A systematic review of the causes and prevention strategies in reducing gun violence in the United States. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 38(10), 2169-2178.
Vasan, A., Mitchell, H. K., Fein, J. A., Buckler, D. G., Wiebe, D. J., & South, E. C. (2021). Association of neighborhood gun violence with mental health–related pediatric emergency department utilization. JAMA pediatrics, 175(12), 1244-1251.
Zick, T. (2020). Framing the Second Amendment: gun rights, civil rights and civil liberties. Iowa L. Rev., 106, 229.
write