Gun control is one of the most conflict-ridden issues in American politics. With each mass shooting antagonism grows between both sides of the gun control argument. Proponents of stricter gun regulations distress for their safety in a country where there is an average of 88 guns per 100 people, according to the 2011 Small Arms Survey. Opponents of regulatory arguments, however, also fear a loss of safety. They argue that restricting the right to bear arms would leave citizens unable to protect themselves in their daily lives or, in a worst-case scenario, from a government turned against the people. Though regulations vary from state to state, there are a few key conditions for obtaining guns in the US.
Guns are an important part of the safety of Americans, but the risks outweigh the benefits. While some people benefit by owning a gun, many innocent people are killed by registered firearms. The argument that guns protect people and discourage criminals from breaking the law doesn’t outweigh the negative consequences of owning a gun. The American Constitution should be amended to reflect new laws that don’t allow firearms to the general public. Though state and local governments regulate whether residents may, for example, carry guns in public, laws regulating who may receive or possess guns are set out at the federal level and it is the federal governments job to ensure the protection of their citizens.
A quarter of all Americans own a gun, while gun owners are a major part of the discussion, those who don’t own a gun are also affected by laws that could regulate their use. “Recent survey data suggests that about forty per cent of males, about ten per cent of females, and about thirty-five per cent of all adults do not own any guns,” (Cook, 2009). However, the same research states that guns are becoming less common in homes. This is no surprise, as the quality of home alarm systems has increased rapidly, leading those who are troubled with their safety find comfort in the protection of companies that offer this type of security.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a division of the Department of Justice, administers and also regulates the standards for issuing licenses to gun vendors. Shotguns, rifles, machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The purchase of semi-automatic weapons is legal in most states, as are automatic weapons made before 1986. Like handgun owners, dealers interested in obtaining a Federal Firearms License (FFL) must be at least 21 years of age. They must have premises for directing business and must alert a local law enforcement official at the time of submitting their requests to the federal bureau that regulates firearms. Just like gun owners, they must fulfill the same criteria regarding their history of prior convictions and mental state. Selling firearms online also falls under these regulations. Although the purchase may be paid for online, the gun itself must be shipped to a registered FFL holder. According to research at the University of Chicago, 200 to 250 million firearms are in private circulation throughout the country, (Cook, 2009).
Stricter gun control laws are needed since mandatory background checks to possess a firearm helps to ensure that criminals, mentally ill individuals, or terrorists who pose a threat to national security will not obtain and misuse a firearm. Although criminals have been known to illegally obtain guns through the black market, background checks for purchasing and privately transferring guns helps to prevent criminals from acquiring weapons since those on parole and probation are not allowed to possess weapons.
In addition, stricter gun control laws are needed since they can reduce the number of violent crimes in society. In 2010, 12,996 people were murdered in the United States, and 8,775 of these deaths were due to firearms (Economic Policy Journal). These shocking statistics not only prove that violence from the misuse and abuse of gun privileges are a leading cause of death in this country, but they also show that tougher laws are needed to prevent innocent children, women, and men from being murdered. According to the Gun Violence Archive, a US-based survey group that collects information on gun violence, there were 15,612 gun-related deaths in the United States in 2017. This means that on average 42 people were killed each day in the United States as a result of gun violence.
Some argue that not only are there sensible reasons to allow someone to own guns, there is also the consideration that the American Constitution says United States residents have the right to bear arms. It is contained in the Second Amendment. The Amendment states that people are allowed to have their gun rights safeguarded against even the threat of government to take control over their arms. As long as the Second Amendment exists, the federal government has no authority to take away the right to bear arms, as long as the person with the guns is not been restricted because of their past. The Constitution places the same amount of protection on the guns as it does on a person’s right to free speech.
Some people might say that the Second Amendment is a remainder of a time when the American culture was much different, and there shouldn’t be any impact given to the right. But change is necessary, because if the right still exists, there hasn’t been a concentrated effort from current politicians to get rid of the right. That means that the Second Amendment is still relevant today. “While most courts continue to interpret the Second Amendment as a collective right, academic scholarship is more divided,” (Cornell, 2004). For the courts to say it is a right, means that it will take a lot of effort to create gun control laws in America. Moreover, it is the governments duty to protect their citizens and provide safety and not have children fearing to go to school in danger of a shooting. We as a country should do more to protect, not only ourselves, but our neighbors and fellow citizens around us.
Although the US has no exact counterpart elsewhere in the world, some countries have taken steps that can provide a window into what successful gun control looks like. Japan, a country of 127 million people and yearly gun deaths rarely totaling more than 10, is one such country. Japan, which is known for its strict firearms legislation, has historically had little gun crime by international standards. In 2008, the number of shooting crimes fell below 50 for the year and has remained at this level ever since. This can be attributed to a general decline in both the illegal firearms trade and the number of “gangsters” in possession of guns since 2005. The number of members and associate members of organized criminal syndicates is also dropping. Japan’s strict gun laws which in result has their 2017-gun crime rate at only 22 deaths in that year. The weapons law of Japan begins by stating "No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords", and very few exceptions are allowed. Citizens are permitted to possess firearms for hunting and sport shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure. The government here protects their citizens but does not limit them. There are ways to find common ground between pro-gun control and anti-gun control. Gun control in Japan, combined with the prevailing respect for authority, has led to a more harmonious relationship between civilians and the police than in the US. It's something of a chicken-egg problem: The police, in choosing to use sub-lethal force on people, generate less widespread fear among the public that they'll be shot. In turn, people feel less of a need to arm themselves. The US, meanwhile, has a more militarized police force that uses automatic weapons and armed cars. There is also less widespread trust between people (and between people and institutions). The factors combine to produce a much fearful culture that can seem to be always on-edge.
It is challenging to apply a gun control strategy that is pointed at certain individuals. Instead of approaching gun control from the perspective of eliminating groups from gun ownership, there should be regulation in effect that limits that possession to all groups of people. In order for this to be possible there would be call for action in amending the Constitution. While gun ownership is a constitutional right, it should be noted that when the legislation was passed, life was different, and guns were more of a necessity in everyday life. In change of the times, there is other ways people can protect themselves by utilizing home security systems to keep their families and homes safe. Guns are no longer a means of ensuring safety to the public, these guns procure more harm than good. Now, instead of owning guns, people can utilize home security systems to keep their families safe. Guns are no longer a fundamental means of ensuring the safety of the public, and they procure more harm than good.