Gun control is easily one of the hottest topics in American politics today. Debates tend to rage shortly after people have been killed in high-profile shootings, and given the rate at which that happened in the US, debates are raging more often than many people would like (McGinty et al, 2013). There are plenty of politicians who have staked out their ground on gun control. Tighter restrictions on guns have become a major part of the Democratic Party platform, while the protection of unregulated gun rights has become an article of faith on the Right. These debates implicate a host of varied interests, with powerful lobbying groups lining up on either side to try and influence the development of the debate. The arguments against gun control are more compelling than the arguments for gun control, even though both are well-articulated and supported in the current debate.
The arguments against gun control tend to center on the Second Amendment and its purpose. The Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, and those against gun control generally feel that this societal building block should be respected. They argue that the Second Amendment was there to serve a purpose, and though things have changed some over the last 200 or more years, there is still a purpose behind protecting the rights of citizens to own guns today (Haynes, 2016). Guns, these advocates argue, are a sign of freedom and the ability of a person to demonstrate autonomy in defending his own home, person, and possessions. The right to own guns harkens back to a time in America when people were capable of being self-sufficient, maintaining their own authority in various sectors of life. Those against gun control argue that restrictions on gun ownership cut into this autonomy, leaving people without the freedom to defend their families, their homes, and their possessions, and their lives.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Gun Control in the United States".
These individuals also argue that gun ownership protects the rights of people to either engage in recreational shooting or hunting, both of which are major sports in many parts of the United States. These individuals argue that they should not have to justify their gun ownership, but if they are forced to, they will point out that shooting guns is as much as a sport and hobby as anything else. In some part of the United States, including in the South and in the West, the opening day of deer or elk season is akin to a regional holiday. Hunting and shooting are passed down within families, as shotguns, rifles, and even handguns are often family heirlooms meant to bestow a sort of shared culture on the next generation. To restrict gun ownership would be to restrict a way of life in these places, which is an unacceptable restriction on the freedom of those individuals who desire little more than their Constitutional rights.
Lastly, those against gun control argue, in essence, that the tooth paste is out of the tube at this point in time. If America were starting from the beginning, and a police was being formed on guns, it might make some sense to restrict gun ownership. As it stands, though, there is proliferation of guns in America. Many guns have gotten onto the streets, and because people who seek to commit crimes have guns, it is only right and fair to allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves to protect from the potential of criminality. Those who oppose gun control would argue that the people who are likely to use guns for nefarious purposes are not respecting the law in the first place, so there is no guarantee they will respect gun control laws (Peters et al, 2015). As the old argument goes, the only people who will be without guns in a scenario under gun control are people who are law-abiding, leaving those people in potential harm from individuals who own guns illegally.
There are, of course, a number of arguments on the other side. Those in favor of gun control argue that the Second Amendment calls for a “well-regulated militia,” which calls into question both whether the Amendment was designed to protect the rights of average people to own guns as well as the question of what regulations can be applied to guns. For instance, many in the pro-gun-control group argue specifically that the loophole at gun shows should be closed (Jones & Stone, 2013). Currently, there is no waiting period if a person wants to purchase a gun at a show, and this has proven to be one of the ways that unstable or otherwise undesirable people have gotten their hands on dangerous weapons.
Gun control advocates note that not all guns are created equally. Shotguns and rifles, for instance, are often used for hunting, and they can do limited damage because of how they are constructed (Woldoff et al, 2016). Assault rifles and automatic weapons, though, are capable of inflicting mass carnage on a huge number of people at any given time. With this in mind, advocates of gun control suggest that a part of that well-regulated militia is making sure the type of guns on the street are safe and for the purpose of hunting and other legitimate uses. They argue specifically that assault weapons are made for one purpose—to kill human beings—and for that reason they should not be allowed to remain on the streets in the hands of average people.
Finally, gun control advocates argue that even though it is true that some criminals will not respect the law, having tighter gun control measures will make it easier to spot those who do own guns illegally. For instance, in a world where open carry is the law of the land, an officer has no reason to suspect any person for holding a gun. It is legal to carry, so the act of carrying should not raise any suspicion, no matter who the person might be. In a world where carrying guns is more difficult and regulated, having a gun would bring about more suspicion. After all, guns are somewhat large and bulky, these people argue, so they are going to be seen at some point by the people around the person carrying the weapon.
The debate on gun control is a hot topic in America today. It remains in the news as people attempt to blame every shooting on the NRA and other groups that attempt to support the Second Amendment. While there might be some logical arguments for restricting access to guns in some limited circumstances, the moral and legal arguments against gun control are more compelling. Those against gun control believe that gun control is something that restricts freedom in general and takes away from one of the things that can truly make a person free and in control. America has a long tradition of allowing a person the right to defend himself from harm, and with guns being regulated or restricted, it is perhaps true that individuals will have to depend too much on the government to protect them in these scenarios. Beyond that, if gun control is put into place, the only people in society who will have guns are the criminals, and this situation is unfair to people who are abiding by the law and would just like a gun to protect their property or life.
- Haynes, V. (2016). Gun Control in the United States. J Pol Sci Pub Aff, 4(206), 2332-0761.
- Jones, M. A., & Stone, G. W. (2015). The US Gun-Control Paradox: Gun Buyer Response To Congressional Gun-Control Initiatives. Journal of Business & Economics Research (Online), 13(4), 167.
- McGinty, E. E., Webster, D. W., & Barry, C. L. (2013). Effects of news media messages about mass shootings on attitudes toward persons with serious mental illness and public support for gun control policies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(5), 494-501.
- Peters, J. A., Cook, P. J., & Ludwig, J. (2015). Gun Crime and Gun Control: The Hawaiian Experience. In University of Chicago Legal Forum (Vol. 2005, No. 1, p. 3).
- Woldoff, R. A., Litchfield, R. C., & Sycafoose Matthews, A. (2016). Unpacking Heat: Dueling Identities and Complex Views on Gun Control among Rural Police. Rural Sociology.
