The government exists for its people. It is in this regard that confidence must be afforded by the government to the citizens it serves as evident in the laws it implements and otherwise. Thomas Jefferson was once quoted in saying that by the constitutions of their land, men are generally divided into two different parties (Kopel, 1988). One of which is composed of individuals who doubt and apprehend the citizens. The other party is composed of individuals who connect themselves with the rest of the citizenry, believe in them, respect and consider them as honest and dependable depositories of public interest.
Gun control is focused on the faulty notion that the average American citizen is quite inept and ill-tempered to be responsible of handling the gun (Kopel, 1988). Noticeably, only through the calculated abrogation of indisputable human rights is gun control ever possible. It should be forced with certain violation to human rights as invasive search and seizure. Primarily, it is critically aimed at those people who are most in need to be armed for self-defense (Kopel, 1988).
The issue of gun control communicates the crucial concern as to who is more worthy to be trusted, is it the United States government or the American citizens? The problem of gun control is one of the foremost issues dealt with the public lawmakers up until this day (Braman and Kahan, 2006). Few issues have polarized the crowded and reemerged on the political program regarding the subject of what to do concerning gun-related crimes counting as well its victims. The subject of gun control laws is as thriving at present as it had been in the past, and for positive reasons.
There has yet to be certain set of policies which could be regarded as a significant success. Gun control was supposed to help the citizens. Unfortunately, variably, it could be positioning them in a much greater danger. Similarly, gun control in the country is not likely to be an obvious achievement due to the Constitutional limitations as well as to the unique social atmosphere. Moreover, it is convincing as it will be eventually verifying that any person as stipulated by the Constitution has the constitutional right to keep as well as to bear arms.
It may be supposed that on the condition that earlier gun control measures continue as they had done so in the past, heinous crimes would continue to decline as a result of the supposition that gun control laws certainly reduce such crimes (Moorhouse and Wanner, 2006). However, not all citizens regard this supposition as true. There are corresponding findings which imply that in reality, what actually transpires is the opposite (Braman and Kahan, 2006). In the United States, the issue of gun control will not likely be an obvious success.
Rather, due to the Constitutional limitations and to the unique social atmosphere, gun control at its best will resemble a “muddling through” approach which is a series of minor yet noticeable treads, gradually utilized over a vague yet comparatively extensive time period, to lessen the alarming rates of gun- related fatalities and costs in the country at present (Braman and Kahan, 2006). This is due to the unique social atmosphere of the United States and to the incremental approach of policy making in the country.
A complete ban on firearms would not be advantageous to the country at all. Firearms would in that case be found on the black market and it would generate more criminal behavior from law offenders to secure these illegal weapons increasing the danger of numerous innocent fatalities. Instead of forming a safe environment for the people, it fashioned an environment where law-abiding Americans do not have guns which they can use for self-defense against criminals who does not really care about gun control regulations.
The history of federal gun laws gives perspectives on the types of gun firearms regulation which are in the scope of the feasible for the United States. It is possible that upcoming federal firearms regulation laws will build upon the groundwork which has been founded over time. Thus far, the main federal rule is that law-abiding adults should be permitted to buy as well as own firearms, at least in their homes (Braman & Kahan, 2006). However, such dangerous classes of people should not be given access to firearms and should be charged for owing them.
Moreover, state as well as federal laws give quite severe penalty for crimes committed through the use of the gun (Braman & Kahan, 2006). The United States Congress continues to question the constitutionality and effectiveness of the federal directive concerning ammunition and firearms. Ever since 1934, several federal laws have been ratified to support such regulation (Braman & Kahan, 2006). Supporters of gun control contend that they limit access to high-risk people, juveniles, and criminals alike.
They further argue that only federal actions can effectively minimize the availability of firearms. There are those who wanted to pursue comprehensive policy amendments, for instance, the registration of all firearms and firearm owners or the near- ban of non-police handgun possession. Supporters of gun control also claim that there is no considerable social detriment and constitutional obstruction to certain actions. Still, there are those who are in favor of some less broad regulations that they insist would not hamper legal transfer of firearms and its ownership (Kopel, 1988).
There is a strong resistance to federal jurisdictions. Critics of gun control contest the idea that federal laws keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals. Instead, they contend that restrictions usually generate inconveniences to law-abiding citizens and violate the constitutional right to bear arms as stipulated by the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution (Braman & Kahan, 2006). There are those who further contend that widespread gun possession can effectively prevent possible tyranny by the administration or by gangs.
They also argue that it can deter crimes. In addition, critics of gun control similarly condemn the idea of advancing federal rather than police and state powers (Ludwig & Cook, 2003). In the United States, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934 are two of the most notable federal statutes regulating firearms in the civilian population (Braman & Kahan, 2006). Stringent directives have been established by the 1934 Act. Moreover, it also established a transfer tax on short-barreled long guns as well as on machine guns.
On the other hand, the transfer of firearms to minors, its interstate and mail-order sales have been forbidden by the 1968 Act. Furthermore, the aforementioned act laid out licensing requirements and penalties for the dealers, importers, and manufacturers of firearms. It likewise restricts access to new assault weapons (True, 1994). For the majority of the population as well as for many opinion leaders, what renders gun control such a compelling priority is the idea that heinous crime is caused by the widespread availability of guns and could be lessened by restricting or eradicating gun availability.
The scope and nature of the gun problem cannot be properly evaluated without taking into consideration the offsetting benefits of firearms. The majority of gun control advocates stress that firearms, particularly handguns, give no benefit at all, and that persons who deem that firearms make them safer are mistaken (Lott, 2003). Largely relying on suicide figures, they claim to prove that having a firearm in possession is more likely to lead to the death or harm to the owner or a member of his or her family as opposed to the death or harm to an assailant or intruder (Lott, 2003).
Supporters of gun rights oppose that the number of felons killed or injured by citizens using their guns for the purpose of self-defense is not the proper measure of the self-defensive value of guns. A homeowner can fight off a mugger, thief, rapist or intruder without anybody being wounded, hence, without firing a gun. Other than the defensive value of firearms, gun owners argue that firearms give a social benefit through the subjective sense of security that gun owner obtain from having their firearms available. In evaluating the benefits as well as costs of guns, it is pointless to combine all guns together.
Shotguns as well as rifles are rarely used in crimes (Braman & Kahan, 2006). However, they are generally used in recreational and competitive shooting as well as in hunting activities. There would appear to be no grounds for disregarding or rejecting the social as well as individual benefits, of gun collecting, target shooting, and hunting. People engage in many sports and activities which produce certain risks for themselves and to a certain extent, to other people as well. Even though shotguns and rifles can likewise offer self-defense, lightweight handguns are particularly helpful for this purpose.
Handguns are not commonly used in hunting activities. Nonetheless, there are some hunters who make use of them. Some handguns are used in recreational and competitive shooting. Still, most handguns are obtained for purposes of self-defense. Most handguns owners maintain that they gain a feeling of security from being armed (Jacobs, 2000). Majority of other writers and researches have investigated and written about whether and if so, to what particular extent did the widespread private ownership of guns become a problem (Jacobs, 2000).
The scale as well as the nature of the gun problem in the United States is controversial not just theoretically but also empirically. Accidents and gun-inflicted suicides are not the ones which produced petitions for more gun controls. Besides, suicide is perhaps not best conceptualized as a gun problem. By contrast, injuries as well as deaths from gun accidents are certainly a gun problem. However, the figures are insignificant and the cost of certain accidents is due almost entirely from gun-owning household that could be assumed to estimate the risk.
Heinous crime is what makes firearms a serious social concern and accelerate the drive for gun control. The United States is noticeably different from most other nations in permitting widespread and comparatively lightly controlled private access to firearms. Nonetheless, it is not alone in policy dilemmas or gun massacres. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the number of handguns in circulation actually increased rather than decreased following the year the handgun ban was enacted (Braman & Kahan, 2006).
Nevertheless, the United States of America definitely remains unique in five essential aspects. Initially, the American battle regarding guns is intensely controversial at the same time as it is highly charged. With gun rights groups depicting government agents as jack-booted thugs aiming at seizing weapons and gun control groups insisting that the so-called killing machines be taken away from the American streets, policy making based on reason withholds from view whenever political rivals devote majority of their time shouting political obscenities to one another.
Secondly, the pro-gun rights appeal is general, influential, and deliberately and well adept, not like the narrower, parochial, and less refined gun petitions in most European countries. Thirdly, while party politics strongly supported the enactment of particularly restraining firearms laws in the United Kingdom, the sole distinction between the Conservative, Labor, and Liberal Democrat parties was whether to forbid most of all handguns, gun control has rather slowly yet relentlessly polarized the major American political groups beginning in the year 1968 (Braman & Kahan, 2006).
Furthermore, with neither party competent in providing a broad as well as a comprehensible nationwide agenda of transformation within the framework of a codified Constitution, federalism, as well as a divided system of administration, and with separated party control of the White House and Congress the standard beginning in the year 1968, potential changes at the federal level are moderate.
Fourthly, particular concerns like gun control and abortion hardly ever determine American presidential or congressional elections, restricting their salience to elected officials notwithstanding the inclination of most Americans for more stringent restrictions. Lastly, the mass media is split and confined to a small area, making sure that nationwide attention to gun violence is episodic rather than enduring. In point of fact, both the New York Times as well as the Washington Post constantly supports gun control issues modestly in places such as Alaska and Alabama.
As a whole, the effect is that in the United States, the window of opportunity for gun control advocates had on average been fleeting. References Braman, D. & Kahan, D. (2006). Overcoming the fear of guns, the fear of gun control, and the fear of cultural politics: Constructing a better gun debate. Emory Law 554, 569-607. Jacobs, J. (2000). Can gun control work? New York: Oxford University Press. Kopel, D. (1988). Trust the people: The case against Gun Control. Policy Analysis 109, 1-52. Lott, J. (2003). The bias against guns: Why almost everything you’ve heard about gun
control is wrong? Washington, D. C. : Regnery Publishing. Ludwig, J. & Cook, P. (2003). Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence. Washington, D. C. : Brookings Institution Press. Moorhouse, J. & Wanner, B. (2006). Does gun control reduce crime or does crime increase gun control? The Cato Journal 26,103-125. True, E. (1994). For the defense of themselves and the state: The original intent and judicial interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms. New York: Praeger. Vizzard, W. (2000). Shots in the dark. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, Publishers Inc.