Against Gun Control

  Why Gun Control is Not the Right Response to the Recent Shooting at the Hockey Tournament in the State Introduction As an officer of the local government, I feel disturbed by the most unfortunate act of violence so far committed against our innocent children and the general citizenry in the state. Indeed, this act represents the highest point of anarchy we ever observed here, and I cannot condemn it more. In response to this heinous act, the state legislature has come up with a legislative agenda that the proponents believe should end this kind of violence. But while we have to consider every possible measures to stop furtherance of such an act, we also need toreflect upon the benefits that any such proposals have brought to other jurisdictions in which similar versions of legislation were effected. Equally, we need to conduct a constitutional re-evaluation before we can conclusively settle for any proposal. Arguments and Statistics The Second Amendment to the US Constitution clearly protects the rights of individuals to own guns. This legal provision is safeguarded within the Bill of Rights. This has been translated as the right of the individual to defend themselves, and the right to resist oppression. Further, every individual bears the civic duty to “act in concert in defence of the state”. These statements obtained from the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v Chicago(2010) underline the critical role that guns play in our modern society (Legal Information Institute par5). They are not only trusted to protect individuals, but they are also expected to help bring order and counter acts of terror in society. Clearly, the ruling presented by the Supreme Court in the case mentioned above affirms that the rights of Americans to safety are deeply intertwined in their ability to individually defend themselves. This constitutional requirement/ expectation for individuals to adequately defend themselves cannot be achieved with the proposed limitations to gun ownership.The ruling further made it clear that the state legislatures cannot make legislation that contravenes provisions of the federal constitution. Therefore, the state is bound by the same standards applicable to the federation with regard to legalization and regulation of guns. In a nutshell, the proposed regulations are partly in violation of the state’s residents to own guns for personal safety. Consequently, they are not enforceable in law. In the event that the state succeeds in regulating legally owned guns, it may not be easy to control illegal acquisition of firearms. The problem of illegal acquisition of firearms, including some high-velocity machine guns has been in existence for centuries now, and technology has made it even simpler for unscrupulous individuals to own their own guns.The hard fact is that regulation of guns is much more targeted at the legal owners of firearms than the illegal ones. As such, gun regulation will not help us reduce the rates of violent crime. Hypothetically, many of the people who own illegal firearms have ill motives behind their acquisitions (McGarrell par11). As such, we can conveniently regard them as security threats since we do not know the real reasons why they opted for underhand methods to acquire their guns. This can further be projected to mean that, by implementing the proposed gun control laws, the state will in effect be exposing the population that legally owns firearms to the wicked aims of the illegal owners. This, by extension, will only result in more crime, since the illegal owners will be certain that the legal owners possess inferior firearms, which cannot match their underhandedly acquired superior guns. In effect, the rates of crime in the state will escalate, and possibly force reconsideration of the currently proposed legislation. The state’s legislature needs to consider its actions to save itself from the likely unpleasant event of having to repeal a law it only recently passed. We also need to inquire into the possibility that after enacting laws to strictly regulate gun ownership as proposed in the state parliament, what will happen of the people’s will to defend themselves? The response to increased overpowering gun attacks may lead the locals to purchasing more illegal superior guns in an effort to match up the lethal power presented by the superior weapons of their attackers. As a result, the state will only end up having more illegal firearms than we currently have. The unregulated use may subsequently expose the state residents to higher rates of gun violence and crime. The offered legislative clauses are hardly reasonable, going by the various findings of academic and policy researchers. According to Flamehorse (par 1), increased gun control does not equate to increased security/ reduced crime. Statistics obtained through one decade in the United Kingdom from the period slightly before a mass shooting and after the shooting indicate that gun violence is not related to crime rates, as much as gun ownership is not. The rates of homicide in the United Kingdom rose significantly to reach a peak five years after the anti-gun regulations were enacted, painting a picture of failed legislation and inappropriateness of the measures. In fact, the rates of homicide doubled in society within the first five years of the legislation coming into place (Flamehorse par4). This is the likely journeythe state is about to start in the event that the proposed legislation is enacted into law. It is not only expensive for the taxpayer, it also presents wasted time by our legislature and lobby groups. McGarrell (par 5) further noted the general findings of several research studies, which have collectively distanced gun-ownership rates form gun-related crimes.His point is that reducing the number of guns owned by the population by any means, including regulation, is not a deterrent factor for crime. In essence, the existing crime rates are hardly attributable to guns. A complementary suggestion to that of McGarrell was voiced by Flamehorse (par 6) where he noted that though the United Kingdom has reduced levels of gun violence, it also has increased rates of homicide. The two authors indicate that the general rates of violence are not a result of gun ownership. Conclusion Apparently, the assessment presented here is just one of the many that support progressive legislation in support of gun ownership as opposed to the more retrogressive proposals to enact strict rules to control the same. While statistics are clearly against adopting gun control regulations, it is also the legal mandate of the state’s leadership to show respect for the people, including honouring their constitutionally granted rights. Gun ownership is an extension of the right to self-defence, and, therefore, cannot be taken away from the people. As researchers have noted, ownership of guns is not related to gun violence. In face of the recent shooting in this state, it is the role of our leadership to address underlying societal grievances and help to prevent recurrence of such regrettable occurrences.