Gun Control

Name

Course

Tutor’s Name

Date

In the United States, serious discussions have been made on gun control and the major concern has been who is supposed to have the right of carrying a gun. Some proponents of gun control argue that guns do not harm but the bearers do hence raising a hot debate on whether to legalize or not to legalize gun control. After several shootings in public institutions such as schools, control of guns on school campuses has taken two basic approaches, that is, criminological and the legal. Many people have had various opinions on whether various controls on guns would reduce gun crimes as well as other forms of gun misuse or whether restrictions of guns would deprive the innocent victims of a very effective way to protect themselves (Wilcox, 2011).

Gun control may enable the police to recognize illegal owners and reduce the number of deaths caused by guns. Criminological as well as legal approaches tend to evaluate guns in a realistic manner by looking at the benefits as well as harms that could be presented by guns to the person in possession. Through most of American history, possession of guns has not been restricted on school property and therefore it was common for students to carry guns to school, store them in their lockers or vehicles so that they could use them later after school to carry out activities such as hunting or target shooting after classes (Reville, 2010).

Gun ownership greatly helps in self-defense among the citizens and the proponents of Gun ownership argue that the idea that guns are used in criminal activities is misleading since these activities are believed to have existed even before the guns came into existence. Guns may play a major role in reducing crime rates since the criminals may fear being attacked by their target who own guns. Ownership of guns may imply that the government is no longer responsible in providing security and this may discourage tourists from visiting the country (Wintemute et al., 2010).

Gun control does not deter criminals from their activities but instead provides guarantee that they will not face any armed resistance from the civilians. Gun control does not dissuade the law-abiding citizens. Considering the adoption of the gun free zones and gun control rules, a faculty member with a concealed-handgun permit who breaks the campus gun ban would be fired and fail to get a job from any other institution (Persky, 2010). Interestingly, gun control can have serious adverse consequences for law-abiding people such as a student with a permit who brings a gun to school facing expulsion and would probably find it difficult to get admitted to another school yet the Virginia Tech killer, the threat of expulsion is no deterrent at all. Furthermore, prohibition of guns may lead to increase of black market that may impose serious threat to the citizens (Wintemute et al., 2010)

There have been various incidents of insecurity that have greatly occurred in America that cannot be blamed on guns. For instance, the worst school massacre in U.S. history occurred in 1927 and was carried out with a bomb where a fifty-five year old man killed his wife and family, in a rural community in Bath, Michigan. The man set his farm on fire and then as a pre-planned attack, set off 500 pounds of explosives in one wing of a local elementary school that killed thirty-eight children aged seven to fourteen, two teachers and four others. It was alleged that the man would have killed more, but 500 pounds of dynamite that he had placed in another wing of the school failed to explode, yet he did not use any gun. It is obvious that the incident would have not been stopped by the gun control laws or even a bomb free zone law. It is also evident that citizens owning guns did not contribute to 9/11 attacks. People have used knives in killing others and other simple things such as pens that are turned into weapons by their users (Persky, 2010).

Probably, peaceful coexistence that comprises love, trust and forgiveness amongst individuals would be better than gun control law. Gun free zones have not completely solved the issue of insecurity. This is evident from the numerous failures such as various shootouts that have been experienced in various parts of America. It is therefore important to note that gun control cannot solve the issues of insecurity by making others safer, yet these zones, whether on college campuses or at the city or country level, have not disarmed criminals (Blocher, 2012). It may be assumed that the law only target innocent citizens who are the most law-abiding citizens hence exposing them to risk while making criminals lives easy because they cannot be easily disarmed.

References

Blocher, J. (2012). The Right Not to Keep or Bear Arms. Stanford Law Review, 64(1), 1-54. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1000450947?accountid=45049

Persky, A. S. (2010). An Unsteady Finger on Gun Control Laws. ABA Journal, 96(12), 14-16. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/817291259?accountid=45049

Reville, Patrick. (2010). Supreme Court to Chicago On Gun Control: Go To Heller! Journal Of Business & Economics Research, 8(11), 39-43. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/815766507?accountid=45049

Wilcox, C. (2011). Gun Crusaders: The NRA’s Culture War. Political Science Quarterly, 126(1), 157-158. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/859256612?accountid=45049

Wintemute et al. (2010). Gun Shows And Gun Violence: Fatally Flawed Study Yields Misleading Results. American Journal of Public Health, 100(10), 1856-60. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/751879688?accountid=45049