Banning the Possession of Guns Research Paper

Introduction

Proponents of gun control have advocated for abolishment of gun possession in the public since 1934. For almost 8 decades now, they have enacted several federal laws to restrict the possession (Primm, Regoli, and Hewitt 65).

Although the proponents’ argument is for the ‘common good’ of the US public, there exist thick partisan lines on this issue. The opponents argue that gun control would make the public vulnerable to the attack by the ‘high risk individuals’. Because of these differences, this paper aims to analyze to establish why the federal government should ban the possession of guns.

Pro-Gun Control

Gun possession poses threat to the security of the public. Proponents argue that the more uncontrollably the government continues to allow firearms’ possession to the public, the higher the chances of acquisition by the ‘high risks groups’ and hence threatening the public security. In effect, there will be increased crime in the US public. Reports at Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) “show that about 60% to 70% of the homicides in US are committed through guns” (Cook and Ludwig 45).

This figure is alarming and the government, through proper legislation, should ban the public possession of guns. The reports further indicate that prior to 1980s; the numbers of killings were higher than 1990s. The proponents attribute the decrease to enactment of several firearms’ control laws. According to Cook and Ludwig between 1993 and 1999, “the FBI recorded a decrease of 11% in firearm-related homicides…

In 1999, out of the 6.3m crimes committed, 1.6m crimes were gun-related…out of 12,943 homicides committed in 2000, guns committed 8,493, which accounts for 66%” (67). These statistics evidence the threats posed by the increased gun possession to the security.

Crime investigators, such as FBI, have established that most of these criminals obtain these weapons from legitimate owners, majorly through theft. Security agencies have reported massive destruction and loss of property during the execution of these crimes. Therefore, abolishment of possession would reduce these security issues.

The increase in public violence in the US is due to increase in possession of the firearms, particularly guns. Proponents impute the increase of violence among the youth to possession of the guns (Snide, Ovens, Drummond, and Kapur, 67). Statistics by the Bureau of Justice reveal that the number of violent activities among the people aged between 14 to 25 years drastically rose between the years, 1985, and 1993. The firearm-related deaths committed by these groups of people increased by 294% between 1985 and 1993.

Recent survey by the Justice department indicated that more than 12.7% of students in US possess guns. Amazingly, they carry them to schools. The increase in violent content within the media broadcasts in US has influenced the psychology of these students to believe that the world is violent (Cornell 23). In fact, to the youth, violence is the resolution to their conflicts.

With this mentality, youth increasingly use their readily available guns, to resolve their conflicts. This sad phenomenon has therefore resulted into increase in public violence. Although the government continues to tighten the broadcasting rules, the abolishment of gun possession is the permanent solution to public violence.

Conclusion

The US policymakers need to set aside their ideological differences in order to realize a violent-free nation. However, as long the boundary between the proponents and opponents widens, the states will continue to record high gun-related crimes and violence in the public domain.

Based on the statistics presented in the discussion above, it is evident that a handgun, almost common in every US family, executes most of the crimes in US. The increased possession of the guns among the youth indeed threatens the stability of the entire country. It is therefore justifiable that the government should ban the possession of these firearms.

Works Cited

Snide, Carolyn, Ovens, Howard, Drummond, Alan, and Kapur, Atul. “CAEP Position Statement on Gun Control.” CJEM, CAEP update, 11.1 (2009): 64-72.

The article is about the CAEP update on gun ownership in Canada. The article exposes the effects of gun ownership in Canada: Suicide, homicides and injuries to the public. Based on its analysis, the article provides a wider perspective of the effects of gun possession to the security of the public in any other country. The article also describes the international gun control policies and recommends that the Canadian government should adopt these policies. The article acts as a model to the rest of the world to adopt strict rules on gun control.

Cook, Philip, and Ludwig, Jens. Evaluating gun policy: effects on crime and violence. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2003. Print

The book evaluates the effects of gun possession to the security of the public. It basis its argument on statistics obtained from Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice. It provides insights into effects of political differences on the policies of gun control to the security of the US public. The book is useful for research on the firearm-related crimes and violence.

Cornell, Saul. A well-regulated militia – the Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print

With the experience in History of US policies, particularly in Gun control, the author provides informative arguments for existence in proponents and opponents of the gun control. The book evaluates how the increase in enactment of gun control policies has influenced the morality of the US public over the years.

Primm, Eric, Regoli, Robert, and Hewitt, John. “Race, Fear, and Firearms: The Roles of Demographics and Guilt Assuagement in the Creation of a Political Partition.” Springer Science + Business Media 13.2 (2008): 63-73.

The Journal discusses the reasons for existence of the two different groups in the issue of gun control. It also describes the historical background of the gun control. It further highlights the arguments for and against the ban of gun possession. As experienced Professors of sociology, the authors offer in-depth information of the subject to other researchers.