Gun Control
Introduction
For quite a long period of time, states and countries have come up with and developed laws that in one way or the other regulate the ownership as well as use of firearms by individuals. These laws vary from state to state and from country to country. Historically, there has been a controversial debate that continues to rage on even today on the cons and pros of gun control. In this text, I will discuss the cons of gun control.
The cons of gun control
Squires (2000) defines gun control simply as the regulation of gun sales. However, other authors argue that gun control does not have an assigned meaning and hence the definition largely depends on the context. This is partly true. The questions that come to mind with regard to this are; does gun control mean making it so difficult for a law abiding citizen to own a gun that he is unable to protect him or herself? Similarly, does gun control mean making it so hard to own a gun so that the law abiding citizen does not feel threatened by guns in the wrong hands?
According to Lott (2010), in the developed world, the United States has the most prominent rate of ownership of guns. While there have been many arguments favoring gun ownership laws that are more restrictive, several individuals and groups argue that more restrictive gun control laws go against the common good. Below are some of the cons of gun control.
Gun control is expensive
Magoon (2007) notes that gun control is an expensive affair and it ends up using up many tax dollars that could have been put to better use. The costs in these cases are inflated by the statistical and investigative initiatives that are undertaken by the various authorities charged with regulating the acquisition and use of guns. The money spent on these initiatives could be used on various undertakings that can in one way or the other result in better societal benefits. Lott (2010) notes that the bureaucratic as well as administrative costs that go into gun control each year could be utilized to great effect in addressing urgent matters like concerning education, health etc.
Gun control denies some people the right to protect themselves
Magoon (2007) notes that in the United States alone, more then 45 % of would be crimes or attempted robberies are warded off when criminals realize the would-be victim has a gun. It has also been noted before that the number of crimes that could have been averted if a gun had been present are staggering. Whichever way one looks at it, more stringent gun control laws make it difficult for some to acquire guns. A look at the various federal laws makes it almost impossible for an individual in a crime torn neighborhood to acquire a gun.
What this essentially means is that the life of such an individual is put in constant danger. Gun control laws make it very difficult for some law abiding members of the society to own guns while on the other hand criminals continue to roam everywhere with guns they acquired easily albeit illegally.
Gun control laws stifle character improvement
Gold (2004) argues that when an individual possesses a gun, he restructures his life and starts being more responsible as he knows carrying a lethal weapon could attract a lengthy jail term if misused. Individuals have to hence watch their behavior this ends up shaping their character for the better. Having a gun also results in a feeling of self fulfillment and power. It is hence clear that gun control only ends up stifling the enhancement of better and more responsible character for individuals.
Gun control slows development
This is a point that can be argued from various diverse perspectives. Essentially, gun control stifles development both at a national and at a personal level. At the personal level, Lott (2010) notes that an individual’s ownership of a gun gives him or her freedom and a feeling of security in such a way that that particular individual can concentrate on various development issues.
For example, a gun owner does not have to leave work early for fear of an attack on his or her way home. Similarly, a gun owner cannot fear visiting some areas for, say, business purposes. The sense of security a gun owner has frees him or her to concentrate on other urgent issues.
At a national level, freeing citizens to concentrate on development matters rather than worrying about their security will inevitably increase the GDP by a substantial margin. With that in mind, all the members of the society should be allowed to own firearms for the economic betterment of a given nation.
Squires (2000) also argues that the resources used up by individuals in security enhancement around the home i.e., expensive burglar proof doors and windows, electric fences etc. can be used in better and beneficial ventures like investments. This when looked into in aggregate is a substantial saving for the nation.
Gun control is a form of discrimination
Gun control has been likened to some form of discrimination where some are allowed to own guns while others are not. For example, it is increasingly difficult for a common man to own a gun especially if he lives in certain low class neighborhoods that are known for high levels of crime. Here, it does not matter whether the applicant is a law abiding citizen or not. On the other hand, it is a lot easier for individuals with posh addresses to be allowed to own guns given their net worth.
Magoon (2007) notes that though it is not explicit, a low net worth individual may find it increasingly difficult to own a gun as compared to a high net worth individual other things held constant. This is however largely implied. This can be rightly viewed as a form of discrimination in some quarters.
Gun control laws are rigid and at times vague
According to Spitzer (2009), the law seems to be conflicting where in one segment it guarantees every member of the society the right to acquire a fire while other amendments seem to take away that right by making it almost impossible to for individuals to acquire handguns. This has been debated in some quarters as some individuals feel that their constitutional rights are being violated.
Gun control laws are also rigid in a sense as they do not give much room for considerations to be made in the midst of prevailing circumstances. For example, it may be very difficult for a reformed criminal to acquire a firearm. In most states, any criminal history can bar an individual from acquiring a firearm forever. This is a very rigid requirement as an individual could have served his or her term and shown good conduct in addition to reforming fully. This people also need o protect themselves and hence denying them a gun essentially takes away their ability to protect themselves as well as their families.
Gun control increases crime rates
According to Gold (2004), contrary to popular belief, gun control actually increases crime rates rather than reduce them. He notes that criminals are well aware that a majority of common people do not have the capacity to protect themselves when called upon to do so.
With this in mind, they continue to roam the neighborhoods without any fear of meeting their match especially in situations where they are aware that police intervention may take a while. In regard to this, Lott (2010) recounts a case where as many as 48 people watched a lady get stabbed to death from the safety of their windows. One of the factors that may have kept many from venturing out to help the lady was perhaps the fear that they would also be attacked.
The killer didn’t even have a gun but he could commit such a heinous act in full view of everybody in a residential area perhaps because he was sure that the chances of anybody with a gun stopping him were minimal. Yet again, the life of an innocent citizen was cut short as nobody had a gun to protect her.
Conclusion
It might be prudent for states to do a cost benefit analysis (CBA) as far as gun control is concerned so as to come up with the reasons for and against gun control in the light of the prevailing circumstances. It is only through this that measures can be undertaken to act in the best interests of everybody with respect to gun control laws.
References
Gold, S.D. (2004). Gun Control. Marshall Cavendish
Lott, J.R. (2010). More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws. University of Chicago Press
Magoon, K. (2007). Gun Control. ABDO Group
Spitzer, R.J. (2009). Gun control: a documentary and reference guide. Greenwood Publishing Group
Squires, P. (2000). Gun culture or gun control: firearms, violence and society. Routledge
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
