Evaluation Essay on an Anti Gun Control Article

Free essays 0 Comments

EvaluationEssay on an Anti Gun Control Article


EvaluationEssay on an Anti Gun Control Article

Recently,there have been heated debates concerning gun control policies in theU.S. Some citizens support the formulation of policies for the guncontrol while others are against the possession of firearms asprovided in the second amendment. According to Olusola (2015), theintroduction of gun control policies was attributed by the seriousinsecurities caused by people who owned guns. The second amendmentgives the provision for the possession of the firearm that can beused for self-defense. Therefore, the introduction of any policycurtailing the right of citizens to the ownership of guns is theviolation of the second amendment. It is arguably that even withoutguns violence will still exist using other weapons. It is, therefore,appropriate for other factors to be considered before theintroduction of tight policies for ownership of guns. This paperevaluates the reasons why gun control is not effective as a way ofcurbing criminal activities as well as benefits that come along withownership of a gun.

Themajority of the Americans attribute the ownership of guns to thesecond amendment which provides for the possession for own safety.According to the majority of the citizens, the second amendment wasintroduced to protect people from the dictatorial administration thatmay seem to keep citizens in fear (Carolyn &amp Jamie, 2015). Theguns are necessary as they can be used by rebel in case thegovernment introduces authoritarian policies. However, although itwas not the primary reason for the issuance of guns, it helped toregulate the power of the administration and also give citizens achance to have a say in their government. Undeniably, the ownershipof the gun would give the citizens ability to rebel whenever theyfeel that their rights are unconstitutionally violated.

Thesecond amendment also provides for the right of citizens to own gunsand should not be interfered with in any way. It gives the provisionof a well-maintained militia, a group of people trained to form thearmy. The importance of security in a free state is also emphasized.In the second amendment, it is explicitly stated that the militarywill be in the frontline to protect the countries interest. Givingrise to another purpose of allowing citizens to possess guns toprotect the administration from foreign interference. Therefore,regulating or denying citizens the right to own guns would beexposing the government to the external threats (Olusola, 2015).

Usually,when a person kills another using the gun, the gun is blamed for thekilling as opposed to other weapons. However, the initiative to killlies on individual whether to get involved in the criminal activityor not. For someone to use the gun in a crime, he or she does notrequire to possess a gun. In any case such a gun may be acquiredthrough illegal means. The majority of the deaths that are executedusing a gun would still take place even in the absence of legallyacquired guns. Undoubtedly, there are other weapons known to kill inany case, the gun only fastens the rate of killing and this explainswhy it is highly blamed for many crimes and death occurrences.Therefore, before enacting more policies concerning the gun controlto curb crimes, thorough research should be conducted on ways toreduce crime rather than just introducing gun controls’ policies(William, 2015).

Ithas been proved that the introduced gun laws do not work effectively.For instance, the gun laws introduced between 1994 and 2004 whichrequired no one to carry a gun apart from the army officers did notbear any fruit. The criminal activities rate did not reduce this isa clear indication that there is no or minimal relation betweenfirearms violations and introductions of gun laws in the U.S. Olusola (2015) posits that the failure of gun laws to reduce criminalactivities calls for other factors to be put into consideration asthe regulations themselves had loopholes for criminals to holdfirearms illegally. Even if the administration put all the necessaryeffort to confiscate guns with the aim of reducing the illegalholding of firearms, it will lose track, and the violence willcontinue to rise. The government should concentrate on other measuresand embark on gun control when such measures are already in place.

Allowingindividuals to possess guns freely has been proved to be significantas the administration is given the chance to use safe and securemeans to curb violence. For example, if the government concentrateson rehabilitating individual who are mentally ill and drug addicts,there would be a permanent health solution to the citizens and at thesame time lead to the creation of a positive relation between firearmviolence and drug abuse. Carolyn &amp Jamie (2015) argue that someof the illegal use of firearms is as a result of ill healthconditions that can only be solved using the necessary concretemeasures. Regulation of gun possession by mentally ill individualsand drug addicts should be regulated until they are back to theirnormal sense.

Tothe majority of the law-abiding citizens, gun control is meant todeny them the chance to possess guns. They argue that those usingfirearms for criminal activities can hardly register them becausethey acquire them illegally and they fear being arrested. It evenirritates some for the government to use the term gun control becauseregulations cannot control illegal activities using guns. The bestmeasure to curb illegal possession and use of guns is to pass harshpenalties for those violating rights to own them. Such measures willachieve a lot of success since only those who indulge in illegalactivities will be punished. Complicating the procedure or number offirearms one is supposed to hold will just generate an ill-feelingbetween the government and citizens. As a result, there will beincreased the rate of illegal firearms possession making gun controlineffective.

Inmost instances, the criminal activities are not only caused by thepresence of guns but also due to the combination of other factors. Tominimize the criminal activities rates in the U.S, the reason of suchacts should be established. For example, poor economic strength canbe said to be the cause of some criminal activities. According toWilliam (2015), such activities can only be solved by empowering morepeople economically. Similarly, sensitizing the public on theexisting gun laws will serve a purpose of impacting responsible gunownership and utilization. If the public is aware of the availablegun regulation then introduction and implementation of more laws willbe made more easily.

Insome instances gun control can be effective. Allowing guns to be inany hands would be a threat to security since even those planning touse them for criminal activities will acquire them in quick and easymanner. If tighter laws about the regulation of guns are enacted,more lives would be saved. The necessary background check before theacquisition of guns is required in order to permit only the suitableones to possess guns. Also, if anyone who was legally eligible to owngun become mentally sick, there should be formulated a procedure todeny him or her that right. The continuation possession of the gun bymentally ill people is a threat to the security. If anybody isallowed to walk around with gun anyhow, even at the slightestprovocation, some people may be using guns leading to deaths(Appelbaum&amp Swanson, 2010).

Morethan 50% of the citizens wants to acquire guns for personalprotection which is readily available than the state security.However, the firearm is also a weapon which if not properly handledcan result in deaths which could be avoided in its absence (Appelbaumet al., 2010). At some instances, innocent persons are harmedunwillingly. Regulating the availability of guns will reduce suchcases. It can be argued that the availability of the gun is notresponsible for killing or harm, but is caused by an individualaction. The argument is right, but the gun may have heightened theextent of the damage. According to Jones &amp Stone (2015), themajority of the people when armed seem not to advocate for diplomacywhen handling differences and hence over-reacting which can eveninvolve the use of guns hence, gun control deems necessary.

Inmy opinion I strongly believe that the arms control serves more harmthan good and should be avoided. The second amendment being the basisof gun possession provides for free ownership of guns for variousreasons like controlling dictatorial regime and protecting thecountry from the external threats among others. Also, the researchconducted indicated the ineffectiveness of arms controls since theyprovided loopholes for criminal activities. However, lack of the armsregulation may heighten the rate of due crime lack of backgroundcheck before the issuance of the gun. Also, free possession of thegun might raise the violence at all level. Therefore, for thegovernment to be able to introduce arms control, other factors shouldbe considered first. Otherwise, the arms control will remainineffective.


Appelbaum,P., &amp Swanson, J. (2010). Law &amp Psychiatry: Gun Laws andMental Illness: How Sensible Are the Current Restrictions?PsychiatricServices,61(7).

Carolyn,R &amp Jamie, A., (2015). Gun Control is not the Cure for What Ailsthe U.S. Mental Health System. TheJournal of Criminal Law &amp Criminology,104(4).

Jones,M., &amp Stone, G. (2015). The U.S. Gun-Control Paradox: Gun BuyerResponse ToInitiatives. Journalof Business &amp Economics Research (JBER),13(4).

Olusola,O. (2015). The Two Sides of Gun Legislation and Control Debate inUnited State of America. EuropeanScientific Journal, 11(7).

William,J., (2015).The Current and Future State of Gun Policy in the UnitedStates.The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,104(4).