The subject on Gun Control is considered as one of the most controversial matters in the 21st century. There are increasing cases of mass shooting incidents, especially in the American community. It is still clear that the regulation of arms remains to be a constant worry with an enormously detrimental impact on the populace. As a result of the rising cases of shootings, stricter measures ought to be implemented regarding individuals that should retain and carry ammunition to profit every member of society
The need for gun control policies is an aspect that cannot be overlooked with the surging indications of gun violence. According to Stark, in 2017, there were 55,090 cases of weapon violence, with 13,884 deaths and 28,280 injured citizens (84). Gun violence results in lots of unsolicited terror and agony across numerous societies that arise when the nation has comparatively insufficient gun control mechanisms. According to Cook et al., when it comes to people possessing weapons, some weapons are suitable for protection as well as sporting events (257). Weapons like the AR-15 attack rifle are projected for the quick and successful execution of human beings. The query is why the ordinary citizen should necessitate this kind of arming or armories that can maintain thirty or around one hundred rounds of ammo. The best key agenda that approves the regulation of firearm ownership is a ban on weapons used for warfare purposes. In general, this simply means that a ban will limit the ability to use various types of firearms that are deemed to pose a danger to the population by an individual possessing the weapons. Moreover, the dynamic National Instant Criminal Background Check System makes it mandatory for those carrying out the business of selling weapons ought to institute a thorough background check before proceeding with any transaction (Sen 346). This will greatly assist in the reduction of homicide and suicide cases. An assault weapon is not mandatory for any sporting activities; therefore, utilizing such rifles is inessential to individuals’ lifestyle. Fresh and constricted regulations need to be sanctioned avert of any form of gun violence.
Legislation of regulations governing possession of weapons such as compulsory security aspects would result in the reduction of unintended death related to firearms. About 50% of unintended murders were self-inflicted, and several unplanned weapon killings were as a result of close associates or members of a family. According to Butts et al., the utmost concentration of weapons contributes to nine times the total figure of unintentional firearm deaths, and 89% of the inadvertent killing of kids occurs at home (52). Moreover, a huge percentage of these killings happen when kids play with guns loaded with ammo in the absence of their parents. The Butts et al., 31% of over-all inadvertent deaths related to shooting may have been averted through the installation of safety devices on weapons (53). Moreover, 100% of killings every year that involve an underage kid shooting and killing him or herself may be averted by automatic child-proof security gadgets. The curious and unwary nature of children makes them vulnerable to the negative aspects of gun possession. Therefore, since individuals have indicated over and over again that it is difficult to ‘gun-proof’ kids with instructions, citizens have a duty to restrict the reach of guns from children.
The Second Amendment is not an unrestricted privilege to possess a weapon. The main purpose of the Second Amendment was to safeguard the militias’ entitlement to possess weapons and individuals’ rights. According to Rosenthal, The Second Amendment of the United States Statute indicates that a properly controlled territorial army is important for the safety of an unrestricted nation and that the public’s civil rights to retain weapons should not be infringed (1147). However, others trust that the Amendment’s expression, “public’s civil rights to retain weapons,” which creates a discrete legitimate right for the United States population. Conversely, several scholars refer to the prefatory dialect “a properly controlled Militia” to contend that the Framers only envisioned to limit Legislature from enacting away the right of every state to self-defense. According to Bannon, Michael Waldman, JD, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School, indicates that no aspect is entrenched in the second amendment concerning a person’s privileges to own firearms (12). Between 1876 and 1939, the United States federal court refused to provide a verdict that favored the individual right on four occasions. In addition, every law article based on the Second Amendment between 1888 and 1959 indicated that the citizen’s rights to own a firearm are not guaranteed. Therefore, the researchers refer to this theory as “the collective rights theory. The rights of the Second Amendment declares that populations are not entitled to own weapons and that every administrative body has the power to regulate firearm possession without the implication of civil rights.
According to Bourne, although the positive effects of these recommendations are evident, resentment in America is endless (143). Inversely, the differing side sees these policies as going overboard. For instance, gun rights advocates are against assessments because of the impending development of the illegitimate trade areas. Gun rights proponents argue that a sanction on aggressive arms would also be an intrusion of legitimate civil liberties since if a military assault became apparent, assault armaments would be an individual’s last line of defense. To the gun advocates, injunction on arms expose many individuals to security threats. The perception of gun rights terms the phrase “assault weapons” as a prejudiced hoax intended to ignite confusion amongst the citizens. The confusion surrounding regulations entails the kind of firearms that may fundamentally adhere to the standards of assault firearms. The kind of ammunition banned is incessantly being enhanced every year; nonetheless, the fact is that robot-like armaments are not safeguarded and that weapons are not prohibited based on how swiftly the fire or supremacy.
There is no doubt that armaments are significant in American lives. Conversely, the question is whether a part of American’s lifestyle should lead to the loss of innocent lives. Every United States national has been adversely affected by the unreliable use of weapons either due to misfortune, obstinacies, or murder. The key consequence is that armaments may have a positive impact on every person as they may be an instrument of defense, but may also be a destructive machine if destructive individuals possess it. The important mandate is determining a way of attaining the crucial goal of enforcing stringent measures on gun control.