Importance of Gun Control - Essay Example

Gun control position analysis Introduction The federal Firearms Act of 1968, unequivocally prohibits licensing and knowing transfer of ammunition or a gun to: minors, felons, fugitives, and defendants who are under indictment, which is covered by the Federal Firearms Act. The Act also prohibits the ownership of a gun by any individual who has ever been committed to an institution of mental health and the adjudicated mental defectives (Agresti and Reid, n.p). Importance of gun control Gun control laws are important because if Americans were allowed to carry unlicensed guns, crimes would be on the increase. For instance, most people who kill each other commit crime of passion in that they murder people they know. In addition, when children get access to guns, it is dangerous in that during their playtime, and they might end up killing others thinking that they are just playing Effectiveness of gun control laws Gun control is ineffective in reducing crime. Research has countless times revealed through their historical, econometric, and criminological studies that gun control does not reduce crime, yet the advocates of gun control fail to recognize these results. The relationship of gun laws and mental illness There is need for stricter confinements for minors and particularly with minors with mental incapacities. Major factors, trends, and prevention approaches with regard to youth violence in US Instances of youth brutality utilizing weapons were pointedly expanding. This exploration presumed that between 1985-1998 instances of youth brutality expanded by 154%. Weapon control by age is very important since people in this age tend to be very violent and aggressive. This is attributed to early onset of forceful youth practices and poor child rearing as a percentage of the explanations behind expanded youth wrongdoings. Specifically, the events of the Aurora, Colorado Theater shooting alongside the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre have galvanized public opinion on both sides of the issue (Agresti and Reid, n.p). Second amendment and gun ownership The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution sought to convey individual gun rights to the citizen. Although the law has long been interpreted to mean just this, the fact of the matter is that when one reads the Second Amendment from a literalist perspective. It is quite clear that the Second Amendment is speaking to the needs of the states and individual regions of the newly formed United States to form a militia as a means of protecting the Republic. In such a way, the Second Amendment can and should be interpreted as little more than admission from the Federal government that it promises not to infringe upon the rights of the militias (National Guard and Army Reserves) to maintain a stock of weaponry for the purpose of defense and securing the borders of the new nation. This particular argument hinges upon interpretation of the Constitution; one of the most contested documents within the political spectrum. However, from a rhetorically honest standpoint, the text of the bill specifies specifically what it denotes; i.e. the right of the states and by extension the militias under their control to retain weapons. In short, such argument is valid; however, it cannot be used to effectively engage those members of the pro-gun persuasion because they have almost invariably chosen to interpret the document by a wholly different standard (Agresti and Reid, n.p). There have always been cases of extreme violence, even massacres, within American society; however, the fact of the matter is that almost all of these hideous crimes have a single factor in common. The widespread and pervasive use of semi-automatic weapons, readily obtained by individuals who can easily be described as unstable, as well as the implementation and usage of high capacity magazines. Whether or not guns should be allowed is not the central issue that is up for debate; rather, the issue at hand is the ease and availability that is unilaterally shared by almost all of the purveyors of these massacres. As such, a correct level of gun control could at least attempt to lessen the availability of certain aspects of these instruments of destruction. Naturally, the issue that is up for discussion hinges not upon whether these deaths may have occurred regardless; but rather upon the question of to what level the bloodletting would have happened if proper societal and governmental constraints were in place to restrict the availability of certain aspects of weapons, high capacity magazines, and the means by which they could be procured (Agresti and Reid, n.p). When one examines the rate at which laws and governance has grown and evolved since the time of the founding fathers, it is easy to note that key differences in the means by which the citizen integrates with concepts of property taxes, public education, and emergency services (not to mention a whole host of others). The reader can quickly come to the realization that the means by which government interacts with the citizen is undeniably far distant from the means that originally existed. However, with respect to gun laws, hardly anything has changed. Certainly, there have been a few exceptions concerning the way that the federal government has sought to limit automatic weapons from the markets or the existence of sawn off shotguns. However, speaking broadly, there has been little change to the way in which the government has sought to regulate the use and procurement of weapons among its citizens in the past 280 plus years. This naturally represents a definite shortcoming. As such, the reader should consider the fact that at the time the Second Amendment was written, pistols were invariably non rifled and used a lead ball that had an accuracy of no more than 25 yards. Alternatively, the long guns or rifles of that era were also single shot; requiring priming of approximately 30 seconds prior to even the fastest shooter being able to reload. When one considers these facts, it becomes nothing short of shocking that the government has not sought further regulation of the different types of advanced weaponry that is now available to the public (Agresti and Reid, n.p). Conclusion It is significant to control guns among teenagers because they are known for aggressive behaviors and can quickly use them to cause harm if they are allowed to own guns. If young Americans are controlled on how to own guns, insistences of crime will decrease. Reference Agresti, James, and Reid, Smith. Gun Control Facts. Just Facts. 22 Jan. 2012. Web. 7 December 2014. Read More