Introduction
Possessing a gun for personal security reasons is not a problem, but sometimes the ownership poses a threat to other residents. Therefore, it is not clear whether the act promotes safety or compromises it. Rifle gun possession and control are among the most challenging matters in the American government. Several debates have been held to discuss an appropriate way of controlling gun ownership but reaching the consensus has not been easy. When there is an occurrence of a mass shooting, a significant number of people are killed. Hence, the event intensifies the antagonistic debates between the gun ownership and control argument sides.
The increasing number of gun-owning individuals and its massive distribution presents substantial problems in formulating national regulations to curb the situation. In the USA, the implementation of policies to regulate gun ownership has remained essential amidst continuously heated debates on the issue (Vizzard 893). Assault rifles guns should be illegal nationally for all the residents to prevent mass shootings and homicides and provide a safer environment for all the residents.
Mass Shooting Prevention
A number of arguments have been raised on the type of guns resulting in the numerous killings and their implications. Assault rifle is amongst the military firearms designed with a chamber carrying ammunitions of propellant charge and reduced in size. It has the ability to change from semiautomatic to automatic during firing (Jacobs 3). The existence of such kind of guns poses a security threat to the residents and the security officers. It is time to use a different approach to prevent the mass killings of innocent people. If the spread of assault rifles and the increasing habit of carrying them results in innocent people’s deaths, they should not be legalized in the nation.
Regardless of the gun types being used in a particular state or rather nation, it is sound to consider the fatal consequences when residents are allowed to own and walk around with guns. For instance, the United States tops in the list of the nations with the highest number of residents possessing guns privately (Pandit et al. 11). According to statistics, there is a distribution of approximately 101 guns amongst 100 residents, resulting in large number of deaths whenever such violence happens (Pandit et al. 11). Therefore, to lose fewer victims in such violence, private ownership of guns should be banned.
Apart from the reduction of mass killings when assault rifles are banned in a nation, there will also be a reduction of injuries. Even after losing large number of people in gun-oriented combat, incidents result in another bunch of individuals sustaining severe injuries Pandit et al. 11). During gunshots, the scenario always creates tension and causes distress and mental problems to some victims. Such significant misery when residents carry guns need sound consideration during legislative debates (Rostron 303). Therefore, reducing unnecessary tension and deaths will require assault rifles to be illegal in a nation.
Prevention of Homicide
The existence of assault rifles has resulted in several ill practices across various countries. For instance, previous research has confirmed a positive correlation between guns and the high rates of homicides (Chicoine 21). However, many arguments have been based on the prevalence of specific types of guns related to homicides. For example, Time series data on the existence of violence links Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) with rampant homicide cases (Chicoine 2). From the year 1990 up to 1994, there was an alarming increase in the rates of homicide in Mexico by approximately 23% (17 homicides in every 100,000 individuals) (Chicoine 3). When the government prohibits possessing, and the existence of assault rifles within the nation, the incidents of homicides will vastly reduce.
Apart from homicides, assault rifles have propagated firearms trafficking by a larger margin in Mexico. Mexican firearms cartels are known for dealing with a large number of firearms in their illegal transactions across the southwest margin (Chicoine 4). When such deadly weapons land on reckless unauthorized hands, the safety of residents will be at great risk. For example, armed cartels are responsible for bank robberies, human trafficking, amongst other illegal businesses fuelled by possession of assault rifles. Therefore, when the nation declares such guns illegal nationally, incidents of firearm trafficking will reduce by a larger percentage.
Possession and usage of assault rifles in Mexico have resulted in drug trafficking since drug cartels use them for self-defense when confronted. There is a fact revealing tens of thousands of illegal and unregistered guns being found in Mexico. It is clear how the country’s drug trafficking cartels access their firearms in the United States to propagate their businesses in Mexico (Chicoine 9). Regardless of such stern criminal practices and continuous grievances from the residents, there has been limited control mechanism and legislative measures to curb the situation (Pandit et al. 12). Therefore, it is a requirement for the government to illegalize the possession and existence of assault rifles in the nation to reduce both drug and firearms trafficking.
Safer Residential Environment
One of the key functions of the government is to maintain law and order by guaranteeing maximum security to its residents. However, safety cannot be assured when some residents are allowed to carry and move around with assault rifles. It has been argued on the issuance of guns together with permits to regulate ownership, but the system has been faced with challenges. Typically, the licenses are given by police officers who use their own discretion in deciding who should own a gun. It is a sensitive practice since their judgment can be compromised in one way or another hence, posing a risk to the residents (Vizzard 884). Maintaining a safer environment calls for the government to prohibit the existence of assault rifle guns.
On the contrary, some debates have encouraged specific residents to possess guns for security purposes. For example, from the report of the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victims Survey (NCVS), 30% of residents reported having saved a life using a gun. It translated to approximately 600,000 lives, which were saved. Hence, they recommended some residents be allowed to possess and walk with guns (Vizzard 889). In some countries, some individuals are permitted to carry a gun and use them when confronted with a life and death scenario. It is a sound move, but stringent precautions have to be followed to avoid unnecessary shooting.
Conclusion
Several challenges have been encountered in recent years due to allowing some residents to possess assault rifles. Most of them have used guns in illegal practices posing a threat to the safety of other people who do not own guns. In some countries such as Mexico, possession of guns has fuelled drug and firearms trafficking creating violence and an unsafe environment for the residents. Therefore, assault rifles should be considered illegal nationwide for the safety of all residents. There is no point in allowing few individuals to own guns and eventually resulting in more damage than the intended purpose.
Works Cited
Chicoine, Luke. “Exporting the Second Amendment: US Assault Weapons and the Homicide Rate in Mexico.”Versión electronica, vol 3, no.10, 2013, pp.1-42, Web.
Jacobs, James. Why Ban “Assault Weapons”? Thomson Reuter, 2017, pp. 1-28.
Pandit, Viraj et al. “The Burden of Firearm Violence in The United States: Stricter Laws Result In Safer States”. Journal Of The American College Of Surgeons, vol 10, no. 1, 2018, pp. 11-16. Elsevier BV, Web.
Rostron, Allen. “Style, Substance, and the Right to Keep and Bear Assault Weapons”. Campbell Law Review, vol 40, no. 2, 2018, pp. 301-344. Web.
Vizzard, William. “The Current and Future State of Gun Policy in The United States”. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol 104, no. 4, 2015, pp. 879-904., Web.