Posted: October 20th, 2022

Gun Control in the United States Sample Essay Topic

Gun Control in the United States
Students Name
Institutional Affiliation

Gun control is a term used to define set rules and policies that dictate the manufacture, transfer, sale, and possession of firearms by civilians. Many countries have restrictive gun policies, with only a few legislations considered permissive to civilians. Permission grant enhances civilian’s self-protection that further increases safety to a majority of homesteads in the United States. However, a recent number of events have exhibited the adverse effects of permitting gun possession to civilians. Should gun policies be stricter? Bringing this vital aspect to light, the essay critically analyses why the government should or should not impose more legislation and strict policies on gun control.
The history of gun control dates back to the year 1934 following the violence of Al Capone and his cohorts (Norman, 2015). In that particular year, all guns purchases and sales had to be recorded in the national registry. After four years, the FDR prohibited possession of firearms and guns to any American resident convicted of violent crimes. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Harvey Oswald further intensified the needs to take affirmative action to legislate gun control policies. Oswald had bought the rifle at NRAs mall order catalogue, and the Congress was left with no option but to pass strict laws through the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Act prohibited the purchase of firearms by mail order and further raised the age limit to possess guns to 21. Furthermore, the Act prohibited gun possession by criminals and deemed people mentally unsound as incompetent to own a gun. During this point, the NRA did not even ban the purchase of firearms or through their catalog. In the year 1980, the NRA used its influence to pressure American politicians to support granting equal freedom of gun ownership to the civilians (Norman, 2015). As a result, the 1986 Fire Arms Owners Protection Act made quite many changes to the Gun Control Act of 1968, claiming that the previous policies were too restrictive. The organization focused their argument on the Second Amendment that advocates for rights of a well-regulated militia as a means to foster security in a free state. The act suggested that American citizens had the right to possess and bear arms. Furthermore, the law prohibited keeping firearms records in the national registry.
In the year 1993, background checks were put in place as a precursor to gun possession. The background checks were as a result of The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that was instituted after a failed attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan by James Brady in the year 1981 (Norman, 2015). John Hinckley shot James Brady preventing the assassination, who bought the rifle in a shop using a false address. The incident came a few days before his arrest for attempting to board a plane with handguns. The new law provides that background checks to be logged in through NICS being maintained by the FBI. The NCIS imposed strict rules to American citizens and dictated terms for providing guns. The NCIS dictates, if a person had qualities such as a fugitive of justice, convicted of a crime and an American citizen by unlawful means, he or she had no rights to possess firearms. The NRA deemed such actions unconstitutional. From the year 1998 to 2014, a number approximated to be 1.2 million firearms purchases were blocked following successive background checks. However, the study of the law’s efficacy suggests that Brady backgrounds checks have caused a significant reduction of suicides, but gun homicides remain to be a challenge.
Critics tend to argue that, the killings that involve the use of guns in the United States is not a matter of the law but on cultural differences (Norman, 2015). That massive shooting may be pointed out to entrenched cultural attitudes as opposed to rules governing the issuance of guns and firearms. His research implies that the United States government should shift focus in addressing the massive shooting problems to focus more on cultural diversity. In an article published by James Alan Fox a student in the Northeastern University, he discusses the importance of cultural difference. “Mass murder just may be a price we pay for living in a society where personal freedom is so highly valued” (Norman, 2015) The above quotation represent the common cultural differences amongst different ethnic communities in the United States who deploy guns to achieve freedom and self-rule. Taking this aspect into consideration, it is worth noting that there is a force behind that further fosters most American citizens to use guns. Should most emphasis drive to curb the supply of weapons and firearms to civilians or should the government emphasize determining and solving the motive behind the acquisition of guns? James Alan article focuses on the rationale that would partially suggest, legislation of weapons and strict measures, eventually is not the answers to solve the massive shooting.
The US government is known to run often seeking salvation to crises through legislating policies. Political correctness and changes trump freedom and are high time the government focuses on the cause as opposed to means of correcting the situation. Many mass killers of today and ancient times had a mental problem. In the year 1949, a 28 year old by the name Howard Unruh shot 13 people in 20 minutes after his gate had been stolen from his yard (Haskins, 2017). Unrah went ahead to stand in front of the police after the killings and was imprisoned following a lifetime sentence. The motive behind the massacre was connected to mental incompetence. Such action only proves that legislation and strict policies may not be the only answer to prevent mass killings. However, to date, critics suggest that the government disregards such aspects and puts undue emphasis on legislation and banning. People tend to believe that, the government should continue to legislate laws and policies against law-abiding citizens to own firearms that will further result to reduce incidents in killings. The belief that the events could not have taken place earlier if the government had instituted policies that would restrict on who gets to own a firearm, even if he or she is within the legal constraints, to hold only proves to be a fallacy.
(Haskins, 2017) Suggests that it is the rights of Americans to own firearms. As provided by the law, law-abiding American citizens have the rights to own guns for their safety. Imposing strict policies only make Americans be easy targets to crime as they lack defense mechanisms. Haskins further purports that as previously witnessed in American history, when the government ends up with all the weapons and the citizens are left with none, and it only proves to cause a travesty. Haskins implies that it is a hasty generalization for gun control advocates to conclude that, imposing strict measure to discourage the acquisition of guns will expose Americans to more safety. Most of the states in the United States with the fewest limits on gun ownership, experience the lowest rates of homicides and crime rates. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, questions on how states with the weakest restrictions on gun policies receive the smallest amount of crime rates. Hence the above statics only prove that imposing strict laws can only be deemed as partially effective in controlling crime rates. Additionally, six states in the United States have 50 percent of their households owning guns. These states include Alaska, Arkansas, West Virginia, Idaho, and Wyoming. Ironically statistics consider the six states with the lowest amount of homicide reports and gun-related crimes (Haskins, 2017). Cities such as Chicago with stringent gun control measures and few rates of gun ownership experience the highest number crime rate.
Studies have established that criminals do not undergo the legal process in acquiring guns but use black market and other social connections to get firearms. Black market provides an entirely separate collection of weapons that further fosters criminal activities. Thus, imposing more strict policies will not stop crime but only hurt law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights. Universal background checks only prove to be futile as it won’t address the situation at hand. Thus, the United States government should shift their focus on curbing the trade of illegal guns as opposed to imposing stricter gun policies to control crime.
Taking a different perspective on the subject, gun laws and policies should be imposed to reduce the number of gun-related deaths in the United States. An approximate number of 31000 people die from gunshots in the United States (Hopkins, 2012). Most of the victims are usually young that further leads to premature death. The death of this young people is a burden to most families, some of which held a promising future. To protect our youths and Americans in general affirmative action had to be taken. Additionally, a number close to 73, 505 were non-fatal victims suffering from bruises and injuries. The United States being a wealthy country, the high crime rate is unusual. In comparison to other wealthy countries, the homicide rate in the United States is seven times higher than combined rates of 22 other wealthy countries (Hopkins, 2012). Considering these concrete facts, doesn’t the government owe its citizens protection? Even though the essay earlier on critics the method deployed by the government and emphasizes more on the source of the crime rates, I tend to believe that limiting access to guns will reduce the number of cases. The long existence of firearms in the US is attributed to the high number of crime rates relative to other wealthy nations.
The gun-related violence in the United States does not only accrue to the death of innocent people but also has adverse effects on the county economy. In the year 2005, the United States spent $32 billion to incur expenses on lost productivity and medicine (Hopkins, 2012). Moreover, the cost of gun violence goes overboard when including psychological and emotional trauma, decrease on property values and other legal consequences. In the year 1998, the United States lost a total amount of $100 billion. The annual cost of crime for every resident in the United States strike to be $1300 per head. These figures prove to be a loss in resources that would further be used in other development initiatives.
Imposing more restriction on access to guns aids in reducing crimes amongst young people. The age limit to acquire firearms as earlier noted in the essay is the year 21. Below the age limit, most citizens face adolescent that further affects the brain structure concerning impulse control and risk-taking. (Hopkins, 2012) Suggest that, adolescent children heighten the risk of violence when firearms are put to their exposal. Hence from a psychological perspective, depriving juvenile rights to possess firearms safeguards their safety and of others. The same case also applies to civilians engaging in substance abuse. Substance abuse is closely associated with heightened levels of crime in the USA. Imposing strict policies that govern access of the firearms to individuals using the substances may reduce the level of crime rate (Shapiro, 2018).
Furthermore, people with mental issues such as bipolar disorder, depression, and schizophrenia have a possible, likely hood of engaging in crime. Hence, as the government laws have provided an outline that prohibits such people from possessing guns, it shows the extent to which these policies play a huge part in reducing crime. Even though critics, may argue that to solve the problems is to treat the conditions of such people to reduce crime, the government however efficiently govern human behavior that eventually leads to mental disorder. Thus, it is critical for the government to broaden further the legislation brackets that will inhibit more dangerous people for acquiring guns.
Gun Control advocates consider getting a gun in the United States very easy linking the fact to massive crime and destruction. Often, people who should not have access to firearms can legally obtain weapons that further fosters a heightened level of crime in the United States. Critics hold contrary opinions to such sentiments, suggesting that, gun policies will only stop law abiding citizens but not criminals. However, the logic driving gun control policies is straightforward. The lesser guns are made at people disposal, the lower the opportunities to engage in gun-related crimes. Gun control thus involves avoiding guns landing into the wrong hand. For such an endeavor to be a success, it calls for imposing restrictions on the type of weapons people have access to and conducting constant background checks. The United States can borrow an example from Australia who deployed gun control to reduce crime. Following the death of 35 people in the Port Arthur Massacre, the country banned weapons known to be automatic and semiautomatic.
Moreover, Australians are permitted to own weapons, if they have other reasons to own guns apart from personal protection. The Australian government initiated the gun buyback program that had a successful impact on reducing the number of guns in circulation. Gun related deaths and homicides in the country dropped with significant figures. Global gun control studies concluded that gun control attributes to less violence and crimes. Guns are known to wreak havoc more than any other weapons. Gun control thus presents an opportunity to reduce chaos as it emphasizes reducing the number of firearms put at people disposal.
Conclusion
With the above research, we can conclude that the US government should not only impose more strict laws to prevent homicide rates and other crime rates but should also emphasize on eradicating the cause behind the crimes. Restricting access of guns thorough black market also proves to be a means to foster gun control as opposed to imposing more gun policies. As the essay has pointed out, gun-related violence cost the United States both lives of people and resources. The government is entitled to ensure that it upholds rights of citizens to own firearms and also protect the citizens from the consequences of possessing the firearms.

References
Haskins, J. (2017, October 13). Strict gun control will never work in America. Retrieved November Saturday, 2018, from https://www.newsday.com/opinion/commentary/strict-gun-control-will-never-work-in-america-1.14453352
Hopkins, J. (2012). The Case for Gun Policy in America. Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Norman, A. (2015, December 3). A Brief History Of Gun Control Legislation In America. Retrieved November Saturday, 2018, from Ati: https://allthatsinteresting.com/gun-control-history-america
Shapiro, L. (2018, February 20). How strictly are guns regulated where you live? Retrieved November Saturday, 2018, from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/national/assault-weapons-laws/?utm_term=.a4919e39196a

Order | Check Discount

Tags: write my essay for me, online essay writers, homework for you, help write my paper AI free, cheap dissertation writer