For some time now, there has been debate on whether to control ownership of guns and other firearms by the locals in the United States of America. The proposal to strictly control guns has been met with even more stronger opposition from the Americans. The argument for the proposal has surrounded peaceful coexistence between the Americans in terms of reduction of violent cases. On the other hand, the opposition has continuously argued that the right to guns and other forms of firearms is a constitutional right, just like other rights and thus it cannot be purportedly taken away from them. The right to own and bear firearm is contained in the second amendment to the United States constitution. Each federal state has its own statute that controls how the residents should handle and use firearms but omnibus laws and regulations also control the federal states.
It must however be noted that there are actually cogent grounds upon which may be cited to show that there is need for more strict laws and regulations with regard to control of guns and other firearms. The second amendment to the constitution of the United States should be interpreted in such manner as it preserves peaceful coexistence of the members of all the communities in USA. Caution should taken in how the arms are used. They should not be used excessively against each other as that would only worsen situations. This research will dwell and ride on the premise that there should be stronger laws in the realm of gun control in US. The preceding work will expressly give reasons why it is believed that that should be the position.
Reasons for Stronger Laws on Gun Control
Many cases of homicide have been associated with the freedom to own and handle guns in the USA. A survey conducted recently shows that in each hundred people in America, there is approximately 88.9 firearms held by them. The survey conducted by Harvard School of Public Health reveals that homicide cases arise more often when people have easier access to firearms that when they do not. Therefore, a relationship between ownership of firearms and incidences of shooting has been created. There exists further evidence to this reasonable ground of controlling guns. Between 1982 and 2012, there have been sixty two mass shootings in the states that allow freedom in ownership of guns. Forty nine of the cases were instigated by use of legal ownership of guns. The allowance of the firearms has thus been attributed to the violent status of the people in USA, unlike in other parts of the world where residents are not allowed to carry guns along with them.
Another clear reason of the need to have controlling laws is that by doing so lives will be saved. States that are more civilized in terms of control and the use of guns and other firearms actually experience less deaths out of, say mass shooting or negligent use of the arms. The states that have no control mechanisms for controlling guns experience as twice the number of deaths from shootings. It can therefore be suggested that stricter laws on the ownership, handling and use of guns and firearms may not reduce completely the death toll but will fundamentally reduce these deaths. A survey conducted by Harris Polls between 19998 and 2010 suggests that the number of people that favor stricter laws on the arena has risen steadily. 51% favor the strict control. The reason being that the strict control would definitely reduce the number of deaths that arise out of the merciless and illegitimate shootings as has been the trend in USA.
From the arguments above then, it will therefore not a limitation of liberty to impose stronger laws on the ownership and use of firearms in USA. The rights to have guns should be looked through the aspect of the misuse of the same and finally ending with violent societal members and increasing deaths on merciless shooting. It is upon these arguments that this research roots for the stricter laws on gun control in the United States of America.