The issue of gun control in America is a matter of great concern, with divergent views on the subject. The National Rifle Association (NRA) argues that responsible citizens should be able to use guns for protection, while others believe that only the National Guard and law enforcement should have access to firearms due to their hazardous nature. These individuals claim their viewpoint aligns with the second amendment, which addresses firearm possession by American citizens but has been open to various interpretations. The high number of gun-related fatalities each year contributes to many people perceiving gun ownership as problematic. Personally, I support restricting access to firearms and emphasizing gun safety education as essential measures toward creating a safer America because I believe firearms contribute to an increase in crime, murder, and household accidents. To form my own stance on this issue, I carefully considered others’ opinions and gathered relevant statistics.
Gun control opponents, including the NRA, argue that individuals should bear responsibility for the negative consequences of firearms in America. Helen Smith, a forensic psychologist who shares the NRA’s viewpoint, wrote an article titled “It’s Not The Guns” addressing the rise in school and youth violence related to guns. She attributes this increase to children and irresponsible parents. Smith challenges the belief that guns are now more easily accessible to kids since many gun owners securely lock up their weapons.
Another advocate for firearms is Dr. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University specializing in gun-related accidents. His research findings indicate fewer incidents of gun-related accidents compared to those involving automobiles, falls, drowning, pedestrians, fires, poisoning, and suffocation. Consequently, he suggests that instead of mandating safety classes for all gun owners, it would be more effective to randomly select and educate a group of drivers as a means of saving more lives. This approach would also benefit society by providing education on first aid administration practices and promoting proper eating habits…
Despite acknowledging the valid points made by these individuals, I do not fully agree with their statements. While it is true that people are responsible for how they use guns, it is incorrect to deny that guns contribute to the problem. Although eliminating those who mishandle guns may not be feasible, removing guns completely can prevent problems and accidents from occurring altogether.
In response to Dr.Kleck’s survey, it is important to emphasize that while firearms may not be the primary cause of accidents each year, they still result in an excessive number of unnecessary deaths. Therefore, action needs to be taken regarding gun control. While some may consider 900 deaths a year insignificant, their perspective might change if it personally affected them or someone they knew. This consideration is significant for everyone.
Regarding Dr.Kleck’s belief that providing random drivers with safety lessons and teaching common sense would save more lives, I must disagree. Common sense alone does not determine the occurrence of accidents as even individuals like Dr.Kleck have experienced incidents such as tripping or choking, raising doubts about their possession of common sense. Furthermore,I also disagree with certain points raised by Helen Smith in her article.Although I agree that children who target their peers with guns often have mental health issues that set them apart from the average child, I strongly believe that firearms contribute to this problem. If the students at Columbine High School did not have access to weapons like a Tech 9 and a shotgun, I believe the outcome would have been different. These guns caused multiple senseless killings. How can anyone argue that “It’s not the guns”? Considering different opinions raises questions for me, such as why do we need guns other than for use by the National Guard and law enforcement? The answer is self-protection, but protection from what? From others who possess guns. It becomes a chain reaction – observing others buying guns leads some to believe they also need one. In this scenario, I understand individuals purchasing handguns to safeguard their families in dangerous neighborhoods. I also comprehend people buying hunting rifles for obvious hunting purposes. However, I question why assault weapons are being acquired. Do people truly buy these high-powered shotguns and machine guns with seemingly endless clips for hunting? I highly doubt it. These firearms were specifically designed for lethal purposes. It deeply concerns me that these weapons are easily accessible to ordinary law-abiding citizens.
While acknowledging that children who target peers with firearms often exhibit mental health issues distinguishing them from typical children, my firm conviction is that firearms exacerbate this issue.
Had the students at Columbine High School lacked access to weaponry like a Tech 9 and a shotgun, there would likely have been an alternative outcome which avoids numerous purposeless killings.
To dispute “It’s not the guns” seems unfathomable considering these circumstances.
When contemplating diverse perspectives on gun ownership, questions arise regarding reasons beyond those pertaining solely to use by entities such as the National Guard or law enforcement.
The basis of self-protection may be cited; however, protection against whom?
Protection against those armed with similar weaponry.
This prompts a chain reaction where the act of observing others purchasing guns convinces some that they too require one.
Understandably, individuals in perilous neighborhoods may opt to purchase handguns to safeguard their families.
Similarly, it is comprehensible that people acquire hunting rifles for explicit hunting purposes.
Nevertheless, I question the acquisition of assault weapons.
Is it genuinely plausible that individuals buy these high-powered shotguns and machine guns with seemingly endless clips for hunting? My doubt is considerable.
These firearms were intentionally designed for lethal intentions.
The ease with which ordinary law-abiding citizens can access such weapons greatly troubles me.The main concern is that there is now a permanent military force, unlike in the past when state militias were more prevalent. The original purpose of the second amendment was to grant firearms rights to militiamen. However, differing interpretations of the amendment have led to significant controversy.
The second amendment affirms the importance of a well-regulated Militia for the security of a free state and states that the right of the people to possess weapons should not be violated. However, there are varying interpretations regarding this right. Some argue that citizens have a Constitutional right to bear arms and maintain a militia, while others contend that with a permanent army instead of a militia, average citizens no longer require weapons and thus lack this Constitutional right. The Supreme Court has analyzed the meaning of this amendment as well. In the 1876 case of U.S. v. Cruikshank, which was the first case pertaining to this amendment, it was determined that although possessing arms was not safeguarded by the amendment, it was also not prohibited by it. Subsequent cases presented before the Supreme Court have upheld this decision.
Despite the constitutional right to possess firearms, statistics on gun ownership should dissuade individuals from owning guns. The Chicago Police Department’s Murder Analysis reveals an ongoing increase in murder rates linked to firearms. In 1998, 65% of murders were committed using guns, with handguns involved in 52% of these cases. It is important to note that 25% of these offenders had no prior criminal record, indicating that new gun owners are not exclusively using firearms for self-defense purposes. Shockingly, there were an astounding 13,790 homicides involving firearms in 1995. Personally, I find these numbers extremely high; undoubtedly, many of these victims should not have lost their lives.
My objective in this essay is to illustrate the importance of implementing gun control measures to reduce rates of crime, murder, and household accidents, which are at an unacceptable level. Firearms result in numerous daily fatalities, and I firmly believe it is imperative for this trend to stop. In this essay, you will be able to examine both perspectives of the debate and form your own viewpoint. Through the presentation of statistics, background information, and personal opinion, my intention is to express why I hold such strong beliefs about this matter and emphasize the critical significance of regulating the widespread availability of firearms throughout America.
