Discussion: Management of Gun Regulations Essay

Introduction

The issue of gun carrying is always high on the political and public agenda in the United States because the number of school shootings is critically high compared to other countries. In the USA, it is legal to carry firearms freely in most states. Maine, Louisiana, and Alaska have the freest firearms regulations. Existing regulations regarding gun carrying and government control may seem weak and unreliable. In the context of gun regulation, researchers disagree, and in the eyes of Nicholas Kristof, the problem continues to grow. Kristof believes that security is the responsibility of policymakers and the legal segment. Proper regulation and management of gun regulations can increase public safety and reduce deaths.

Statements

Nicholas Kristof believes that countering the high death rate due to the prevalence of guns and the relative freedom to carry them is part of the system to protect ourselves. It means that society invents some valuable things, but without regulation and control, they can become dangerous. Policies can reduce these adverse effects and control the state of things in society. In this case, Kristof suggests looking at gun-carrying through the lens of how society has regulated car accidents. According to him, “We regulate cars quite sensibly by introducing evidence-based measures to reduce fatalities,” and this is indeed the case: society is committed to competent safety (Kristof, 2014). It is one of Kristof’s central claims, which points to the need for control.

Kristof also discusses the problems associated with gun regulations. First and foremost, he points out that “the gun lobby is too strong and our politicians are too cowardly” (Kristof, 2014). Kristof sees this as one factor that could hold back gun control. Second, he points to the legal difficulties of carrying guns: Kristof thinks the Second Amendment could worsen things. Under the Second Amendment, everyone can keep and bear arms because it can create a strong militia for one’s safety. Also, using cars as an example, Kristof shows how the right to drive has changed. At first, automobiles were combined with horse-drawn carriages, but gradually society saw the many dangers of this style of travel (Kristof, 2014). Eventually, by the 1920s, the courts adopted specific driver’s license requirements that created working conditions for safety. Kristof believes that society knew how to handle “drunk drivers and instituted differential licensing for young people, and improved road construction to reduce accidents” (Kristof, 2014). These are all safety conditions that politicians should strive for.

Finally, Kristof believes that security is the direct responsibility of civil society. If society has succeeded in driving cars, Kristof is disappointed that there are still no effective strategies to improve safety. He believes that current approvals of reasonable gun control are insufficient. Kristof suggests expanding restrictions and ways of controlling guns. Specifically, he points to technological and behavioral fixes, which could include background checks (Kristof, 2014). Kristof believes this would help reduce deaths by at least some fraction of the total. In particular, combining measures could change the statistics and save up to 10,000 lives each year (Kristof, 2014). To summarize, Kristof again turns to politicians, stating that it is unfair that society has only dealt with a fraction of car accidents so far. Work on gun control must continue, and there is a long way to go to achieve at least partial safety.

Response

In his essay, Christophe uses compelling arguments, pointing out the problem, the influencing factors, and the ways to change the gun-carrying situation. First, the argument that reasonable measures are part of a system to protect ourselves is vital because a society must evaluate its behavior sensibly. Driving is just as dangerous for all parties to accidents as carrying a gun, so it is a good argument that touches on notions of social responsibility. Second, Kristof speaks out about the legal aspects of the problem: the second amendment and another example about transportation. It is a strong argument but lacks justification and a link between cause and effect: it probably will not affect the reader. Third, the argument about increasing safety through collecting personal data is compelling but can also perplex the public. This is due cybersecurity is now an issue that forces people to worry about their data not being stolen and kept safe. Accordingly, Kristof’s arguments are generally compelling but probably need clarification and explanation.

Conclusion

Nicholas Kristof, in his essay, discusses the problems associated with regulating the carrying of guns and concludes that the current policy is not strong enough. The essay’s purpose was probably to convey the idea that objects that create danger do not necessarily have to result in high mortality. Existing strategies for countering danger from automobiles can also be applied to countering great gun danger, and Kristof’s goal is to demonstrate that this is critically necessary. Overall, his goal is achieved, although not all audiences can understand and accept Kristof’s arguments because they seem simple and incomprehensible to someone unfamiliar with public and political opinions on carrying guns. Nevertheless, the strategy of such coverage and allegories with other dangerous objects can be applied to any topical issue, so Kristof’s tactics are suitable for broad topics.

Reference

Kristof, N. (2014). Our blind spot about guns. The New York Times.