The US has maintained a liberal approach to issues touching on the lives of its citizens. Gun use by the public is not exempt from the many instances in America. Presently, there are over 224 million registered guns in the US. It is worth noting that there are high possibilities of countless unregistered arms in the hands of the public.
Thus, most Americans, approximately 80 million citizens, keep guns in their homes; the situation has raised outrageous debates on the benefits of the move versus the serious drawbacks that accompany gun ownership. The liberal approaches that the US has taken in handling its affairs have received approvals and criticisms of equal measure. Factually, American citizens have more handguns than other civilians of other industrialized nations do.
The American society also has divided opinions on the issue of gun ownership and use in the continent. Issues of real self-defense or sense of security, increased accidents at home, as well as across the streets have been raised as possible pros and cons of gun use in the US.
Even though it can be a frightening move for some people when one purchases a gun, the firearms are perfect self-defense tools (Cosmano par. 2). For example, criminals and burglars may opt not to raid a premise or a home if they believe that the occupants have guns. Nonetheless, in case of raids, the owner can use the pistol for security purposes. It is common knowledge that criminals possess arms in theft and robbery cases. As a rejoinder, if the victims are also armed, chances of invasion reduce tremendously.
Consequently, guns are effective tools for home security. According to the National Survey of Criminal Victimization, about 100,000 cases of gun-use per year were involved in self-defense cases against criminals and robberies. Possessing a gun can dissuade criminals from executing their intentions or plans. From this point of view, gun use among American citizens can assist in reducing crimes.
In addition, gun ownership helps in protecting personal properties. According to a 1995 publication, United States’ citizens use firearms 2.5 million times annually for self-defense. From the in depth elaboration, gun-right supporters have valid arguments for the need to allow all citizens to own handguns for self-protection. Another aspect of self-protection is evident in instances of sexual abuses of women; female citizens have greatly benefited from the use of guns to avert rape cases and other unwilling sexual encounters.
Statistically, approximately 200,000 American females have used guns to defend themselves against sexual molestations (Cosmano par. 7). A latest publication in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy summed up that gun possessions is inversely proportional to violent crimes in nations globally. That is, increasing public’s access to guns reduces crime rates. A
close study of nine European countries with strict regulations on gun use shows that those countries experience murder rate three times that of nine European countries with flexible gun ownership policies.
Even with the great benefits of gun-use in the US, the situation also drawbacks in the society. Having a gun poses great risk to the lives of all family members. For instance, in case of domestic problems, people may resort to using guns to stop their anger. Murder cases have also been rampant both at homes at in the streets. People use there firearms to intimidate their colleagues or enemies.
Children are not left behind on the negatives of gun ownership; they are always at risk of harming themselves, or their friends when they can access the guns in their homes (Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use par. 6). There are several instances where spouses killed their partners using the licensed guns after heated arguments. Even though proponents argue that guns help in self-defense, one in three users uses it for intimidation. The advocates for gun ownership also argue that hunting is an important hobby for American culture (Wilson 64).
Thus, elimination of guns would be inconsistent with promotion of this noble activity. However, hunting as it is cannot be the excuse for allowing guns since proliferation of guns would have other far-reaching consequences associated with general misuse.
An example of this misuse is mass shooting and killings. Through cost benefit analysis, it is true that the benefit of avoiding mass losses of lives and injuries through gun violence are more than facilitating hunting. Besides, the ban on guns does not include those weapons used for hunting. Further, other gadgets than guns can be used for hunting purposes.
The issue of guns do not kill, it people who do, is anchored on the principle that there are thorough checks to ensure that those licensed have the ability to handle guns. It is ensured that such individuals possess high integrity, have sound mental status and have no tarnished record (no criminal behavior in past). However, there is no guarantee that such “proven” individuals will maintain the status that was confirmed when licensing. Ideally, these individuals may turn to be tyranny.
They may develop psychological problems whilst with the gun – a condition that would have disqualified them from acquiring the permit. Such individuals, based on the newly acquired status are likely to misuse the guns. In addition, there would be no control concerning enforcing the regulations that accompany gun ownership. Thus, individuals are more likely to use and carry guns while under the influence of alcohol or other substances. As a result, misuse of the guns is a likely phenomenon.
The government would also be well off if guns were banned. The cost that the federal and state governments incur in gun crimes and violence are insurmountable. According to Hammaker and Tomlinson (80), “… gun violence cost the US approximately $100 billion annually.” Essentially, police officers are legally allowed to carry guns and use them whenever the need arises.
Thus, allowing the civilians to own guns is akin to equalizing the populace with the police. In such a case, the capacity of the police to function effectively will be reduced since they would have no extra power over the population other than the formal mandate.
Gun use in the US has also resulted in numerous assassinations and shootings. There is no clear policy to deny an applicant a gun, as it is difficult to control its use once the firearm leaves the licensing point. Gun use requires in depth counseling to enable the users to use it effectively. Gun violence in the US is statistically high as compared to countries such as the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.
In essence, gun ownership increases the tendency to misuse firearms and commit murder that would have otherwise been averted (Wilson 72). It is conceivable that many incidences of gun violence can be avoided if individuals committing them are deprived of guns. The presence of the gun makes individuals react the way they would not react if they did not have guns. Thus, when people own guns, there are high chances of engaging in gun violence.
This assertion is of both theoretical and practical nature. Practically, studies have shown that strict gun laws lead to low levels of murder. Loose gun laws facilitate mass murders and shootings in education institutions, entertainment areas, shopping malls and other premises.
The United States has for instance high number of such incidence and this could be accounted for by failure to ban guns. In 1999, the height of gun violence was marked by massacre in Columbine that claimed the lives of 12 students and a teacher (Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use par. 8). Twenty-one additional students and civilians were injured.
The US has the highest number of gun violence worldwide with shootings and murders witnessed in the latest murder in schools. Among the developed countries, the US has the highest proliferation of guns among civilians. It is conceivable that high rate of gun violence is attributed to the tendency to have loose gun laws. Allowing guns does not always ensure safety and security since those killed do also have guns. Further, taking guns from civilians creates a difference between them and police, thus enabling the police to work effectively.
Issuing guns is riddled with loopholes since previously fit persons to hold guns can develop complications that render them unsuitable for that and may misuse them. Eliminating guns from civilians does not mean that they will be deprived of security since other people (attackers) will be free of guns too. There are other limitations associated with guns such as facilitating suicide and domestic violence.
Works Cited
Cosmano, Joshua. The advantages and disadvantages of Gun Ownership. 2012. Web.
Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use. 2005. Web.
Hammaker, Donna, and Sarah Tomlinson. Health Care Management and the Law: Principles and Applications. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar/Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.
Wilson, Harry. Guns, gun control, and elections: The politics and policy of firearms. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Print.