Introduction
The debate about gun control and limitation in America recently took a sharp turn when the U.S. president attempted to push for the legislation of a more restrictive firearm law without success.
The failure to enact legislation for more restrictive gun laws present more challenges. It means that dangerous gun owners may still endanger the lives of Americans. The recent violence and unselective killing of American citizens may probably continue.
Advocacy for or against gun control in the country has divided Americans in terms of thoughts. The supporters of gun limitation are concerned about escalating cases of violence associated with firearms. For example, the inhumane killing of “twenty children and seven staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School” by one America gun owner was a traumatizing experience (The White House).
However, opponents of gun limitation and control appear untroubled by such occurrences. Instead, their concern normally relates to the notion that gun control can deny them their constitutional rights pertaining to self-defense. This paper presents the concerns of both proponents and opponents of gun control.
Arguments against Gun Control and Limitation
The opponents of gun control and limitation normally argue that the Second Amendment explicitly offer them an opportunity to own firearms. Particularly, they own firearms for self-protection against criminals and a tyrannical government (Gischler 7). The interpretation of Second Amendment is still work in progress towards attaining a consensus. However, there is no consensus about the interpretation of the clause.
Opponents of gun control believe that the Second Amendment aimed at protecting Americans against a government that intends to take away their rights to own guns (Gischler 7). The opponents seek to continue enjoying their gun ownership rights because the constitution provides for the regulated militia. They argue that it was the intention of the Second Amendment to keep the firearms and contribute to the promotion of security (Gold18).
Opponents of gun regulation have also suggested that controlling firearm ownership and use usurps the rights of law abiding Americans. They have presented strong cases regarding the notion that gun limitation present more challenges associated with unnecessary stringent laws (Gold19).
In addition, the Americans observe that they do not need more regulations because they are already adhering to the minimum laws on gun ownership. The people who use guns for recreation and leisure activities also fear that gun control and limitation initiatives might take away their rights for such engagements (Crooker 45).
Finally, the opponents reject gun control and limitation initiatives because they are highly ineffective. They criticize gun control for failing to stop or reduce firearm violence. The Chicago State has featured extensively in the opponents arguments seeking to show the ineffectiveness of the original gun control legislations (Tushnet 6).
Their main argument has revolved around the statistics that emerged indicating that in a single year five hundred people died because of gun violence and gun wounds in Chicago. For them, the control and limitation initiatives aimed at regulating firearm ownership and use cannot generate positive results (Goss 117).
They also observe that guns are not responsible for killing people. Instead, people are responsible for the death of others. People who are killers can murder others using any weapon and guns. Therefore, they declare that targeting guns through legislations indicates mischief.
Arguments for Gun Control and Limitation
The proponents of gun control and limitation have advanced different arguments in support of such initiatives. The supporters argue that Americans should collaborate in efforts aimed at reducing or stopping unnecessary murder cases similar to the killings that occurred recently (Gold18). The recent firearm violence and haphazard killing of innocent Americans should be brought under control through legislating more restrictive gun laws to control ownership and use of the deadly weapons (The White House).
Furthermore, the proponents suggest that gun limitation is crucial to reducing homicide cases in the country. Therefore, gun control and limitation is simply concerned with ensuring that dangerous people do not access guns (Gischler 7). The proponents have also promised that gun control initiatives are not focused on taking away the rights of Americans to own and use firearms.
The proponents also argue that gun limitation initiatives seek to offer law enforcement departments more tools to check and prosecute shotgun violence (The White House).
The apparatus that gun control and limitation intend to apply include the integration of background checks on all activities associated with gun sales or exchange among individuals. Background checks are crucial to ensuring that dangerous Americans do not access firearms (Magoon 55). Gun control initiatives seek to close firearm loopholes particularly to dangerous Americans interested in purchasing guns.
Furthermore, gun control is not about taking away the rights of Americans to own and use guns. The initiatives aim at ensuring that people do not own stronger attack rifles (Magoon 54). The strong weapons include assault firearms that can kill many people at a go. Gun control also seeks to allow government agencies to conduct robust research into the key issues that cause deaths associated with firearms and suggest appropriate ways of averting further killings (The White House).
Works Cited
Crooker, Constance E. Historic Guide to Gun Control. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003. Print.
Gischler, Katrin. Why Has Gun Control Become Such a Contentious Issue in American Politics? München: GRIN Verlag GmbH, 2007. Print.
Gold, Susan D. Gun Control. New York: Benchmark Books, 2004. Print.
Goss, Kristin A. Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print.
Magoon, Kekla. Gun Control. Edina, Minn: ABDO Pub, 2008. Print.
The White House. Now is the time to do something about gun violence. 2013. Web.
Tushnet, Mark. Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle Over Guns. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.