Introduction
The current violent acts and indiscriminate killings of Americans have shocked the nation and left many people traumatized. The country has suffered because of dangerous individuals who use firearms to commit horrendous acts of violence. There is the need to regulate gun ownership and use in the country.
Proponents of gun laws are concerned that public safety is increasingly diminishing. An instance of this is manifested in the escalating firearm related crimes. On the contrary, the opponents of gun laws are concerned that more restrictive regulations take away their rights for self-defense.
Individuals who use firearms for recreational purposes have also protested against the proposed gun laws. Much as the opponents of firearm regulations have raised strong arguments for the need to continue owning guns, this paper states that the dangerous individuals should be stopped from handling guns in order to stop the unnecessary loss of lives associated with gun violence shows the need to have a more restrictive gun laws.
Arguments for or against Gun Laws
Americans are divided over the proposal to enact a more restrictive gun laws. Many people have challenged the proposal to legislate stringent firearm regulations. The opponents have argued that Americans must defend themselves against criminals.
They have argued that allowing augmented firearm possession and use for self-protection is the most effective approach to control firearm violence and murder (The White House, 2013). However, the opponents should appreciate that more restrictive gun laws does not take away their self-defense rights. The proposed gun regulations only seek to give law enforcement agencies more apparatus to avert and prosecute firearm violence.
The opponents of gun laws also argue that the Second Amendment expressly allow individuals to own guns for protection purposes. They suggest that an attempt by the government to institute a new legislation on more restrictive firearm use shall take away their civil rights.
They believe that the government shall have acted in a tyrannical manner by restricting their liberty to own firearms. However, it appears that opponents of the restrictive gun regulations do not understand the proposals made proponents of the new gun laws (The White House, 2013). The proposals for restrictive gun laws seek to integrate background checks for firearms sales. This can stop potentially dangerous people from accessing firearms.
The proponents of new gun laws propose to seal gun show loopholes. Promoting more stringent background checks is crucial to shutting all the loopholes (Peters, 2013). Background checks apply to people interested in purchasing firearms. Furthermore, the proposed regulations seek to institute a stronger ban on attack weapons (The White House, 2013).
This seeks to prohibit ownership of dangerous firearms that can kill many people in a short time. The proposals also suggest a robust research on the notable causes of firearm violence in America. The research does not amount to advocacy.
It is a way of generating information on how the government can provide more protection to Americans particularly concerning firearm ownership (The White House, 2013). The new proposal also seeks to make American schools safe by employing more resource personnel to promote emergency response in case of future attacks. Evidently, the proposals have no effect on the rights of Americans to own firearms. Therefore, Americans ought to support the proposed gun laws.
Conclusion
In summary, the recent wave of gun violence in America has affected many families. Opponents have cited diverse reasons for rejecting laws that are more restrictive. However, the proposals advanced by proponents do not present radical effects on the rights of Americans to own guns.
References
The White House. (2013). Now is the Time to do something about Gun Violence. Web.
Peters, J. (2013). Senators Quietly Seeking New Path on Gun Control. The New York Times. Web.