Gun Control in the United States - Coursework Example

Gun Control in the US

Gun control is a controversial and debatable issue in the United States and many other parts of the world. The laws that aim to regulate the ownership of semi-automatic weapons would play a significant role in reducing nearly 30,000 deaths caused by gunshots every year. The Congress continues to express a blind eye over the issues surrounding gun control; therefore, the country experiences a 6.9 times higher homicide rate compared to other developed nations. The scenario exposes American citizens to impending danger wherever they are within the state. In the U.S., nearly 4.5 million weapons (firearms) are sold. However, this is an unsurprising fact considering the number of deaths that have occurred due to gunshots in recent times (Diaz). By reducing the availability of firearms, the country would increase the safety of its millions of citizens. However, implementing regulations that would improve the safety of citizens would be quite challenging since the arms that are already owned by some citizens would be hard to get back. Many citizens in the country are against the selling of weapons to the public, and the outrage has escalated in regards to the recent killings taking place in different parts of the county. These weapons are not supposed to be sold to the public to ensure U.S. citizens are safe while conducting their daily activities.

In the American Constitution, the first ten amendments clearly state the rights of each citizen, referred to as the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment of this constitution supports the ownership of firearms (Kenny 36). With this, every citizen who is of age has the right to purchase and own firearms. In the same amendment, it is stated clearly that this right should not be denied or infringed (Fischman 1339). Gun advocate associations such as the NRA (National Rifle Association) focus on this clause to express the unconstitutional nature of banning firearms and assault weapons. However, many restrictions have been placed to regulate the purchase and possession of such weapons. In regards to the Parker v. District of Columbia in 2007, the ruling offered by the Supreme Court stated that the right to have arms is supposed to be regulated, in consideration of felons and mentally ill individuals. Additionally, the regulation should also be extended to carrying of arms in schools and other government location (Spitzer 23). According to the Supreme Court case (The District of Columbia vs. Heller) the judges concluded that the federal government can restrict the selling of firearms to civilians (Spitzer 24). However, a person cannot be denied the right to have a handgun in their home or business premise. With this, the Second Amendment does not limit the federal government from placing regulations on purchase and ownership of firearms. Therefore, the guns that are supported by the right are those that are crucial for sport or self-protection. Assault weapons do not satisfy these two fundamental prerequisites.

In many occasions the federal government has acted vigorously in ensuring restriction on bearing of arms and gun manufacturers adhere to the set guidelines. One of the instances is when they regulated machine guns and other automatic weapons in accordance with the 1934 National Firearms Act (Spitzer 33). A hefty tax is imposed on people selling the arms, and if the arms move from one state to another, the A.T.F. (Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) must be notified. The A.T.F. also monitors the transfer of weapons from one person to another and has the power to deny a person ownership of a machine gun as prescribed in their guidelines (Smith 26). Weapons that are dangerous and unusual are categorized as explosives and machine guns in regards to The District of Columbia vs. Heller case (Fischman 1339).

Assault weapons have widely been used in many tragedies that have happened recently in the country. A total of twenty-six people were brutally killed in Newtown Elementary School. The number comprised of twenty children (Finley 30). The victims of this massacre were shot with a Bushmaster rifle. The rifle was very effective and was meant to injure and kill the victims. The military attachments accentuating the weapon make it a severe killing machine as the transformation assumes a design equal to that of a military rifle. Despite the strict gun laws of Connecticut that make it hard to acquire assault weapons of that caliber, Lanza was still able to legally acquire the Bushmaster. Apart from this weapon, the accused had in his possession weapons and arms of an equal degree in his home. With the dangerous nature of assault weapons and the fact that the constitution makes it legal to own one, the chances of gun crimes occurring in the country are very high. After a similar scenario to that of Newtown Elementary massacre took place in the UK and Australia, the states established strict gun laws to ensure nothing of similar occurrence takes place again. In 1996, the UK adopted a rigorous background check system that ensures people who are not fit to own guns don’t get them. Concurrently, they banned the ownership of automatic firearms and handguns. When these laws were initially being implemented the results were not satisfying, but as time went by, the number of crimes linked to gun-shooting dropped considerably (Diaz). The strict laws are the main reason for the decrease of such crimes.

During the same year, Australia also formed strict laws in regards to gun ownership. The country confiscated over 700,000 firearms through a buyback program aimed at reducing the number of guns in the hands of civilians. The types of arms targeted by the program included semiautomatic and automatic weapons (Diaz). The government played an active role in taking weapons and paying the owners. This was a bold move by the government and the U.S. should adopt legislation or programs similar to those in Australia. By doing so, the number of deaths and crimes of such nature would decrease. Buying of the guns and placing strict laws in Australia and the UK proved to be a helpful move in the long run as homicide-related crimes reduced to 59-percent. Additionally, suicide cases involving guns reduced too. A notable scenario is the fact that since 1996 when the strict gun laws were set in Australia, there have never been mass shootings in the country. The U.S. states cannot say the same as the number of tragedies and mass shootings taking place in the country has increased proving to be as dangerous as terrorist attacks. Instead of finding ways around the second amendment to own assault weapons, the country should be focused on how to reduce the manufacturing and selling of such weapons. Already a majority of people in the country are not happy with the fact that people can own dangerous weapons and move with them freely as they please.

The US has made several attempts to control gun ownership since the 1990s. In 1994, the bill to ban assault weapons was passed under the House and Senate which was controlled by the Democrats under the rule of President Clinton who lobbied the same. The act restricted the manufacture of arms such as the AR-15 among other assault weapons. Following the A.W.B’s (Federal Assault Weapons Ban) restricted the use of attachments including magazines and pistol grips (Lott 25). These kinds of attachments are the same that contributed to the dangerous nature of the weapons used to cause deaths in the recent shootings in the country. The success of A.W.B cannot be compared to the English or the Australian legislation; however, it significantly contributed to the aim to control arms in the country. In 2004, the legislation was no more; therefore, giving way for civilians to attain the weapons.

Eliminating the massacres completely is an impossible attempt, even when strict regulations are embraced; it would still be hard to end the same. However, the number of crimes relating to guns can be decreased. If civilians could not access dangerous weapons such as semiautomatic guns, many of the massacres occurring could have been prevented. Fifty-eight individuals were injured while much more were killed in Aurora, Colorado. The accused took advantage of three assault weapons to injure and kill his victims. The weapons included deadly kind of pistol, shotgun, and rifle. In regards to the military design of the guns used in the massacre, the A.W.B would have played a critical role in restricting the ownership of these weapons. However, the rule expired in 2004, thus, allowing the shooter to purchase and own the guns legally (Smith 26).

The arms that are used in the massacres happening all over the country have very limited use in the day-to-day activities of a typical civilian. Many people argue that these guns are useful for self-protection. The notion was strongly protected following the Supreme Court case of Columbia v. Heller; however, it only mentioned the use of handguns. But civilians do not need such guns for self-protection or hunting. These weapons are dangerous, and they can easily be transformed into military grade weapons with just simple procedures. Weapons falling into the category of AR-15s’ including the Bushmaster, which is widely used in mass killings, is a much too powerful weapon to be used for self-protection in homes. Various weapons have the .223 caliber ammo, but these kinds of arms lack the required fire-power to take down large game in many states in the U.S. instead these guns are used for hunting small game; also they are used for recreational purposes. As simple as they may seem these guns are severely dangerous and can be manipulated with just simple knowledge to match weapons boasting military design. Hunting guns are easy to use and master. This makes it easy for the owners to dismantle the parts and replace them with parts that would have been illegal between 1994 and 2004 (Lott 37).

In the United States, it is not necessary for civilians to own assault weapons. These weapons need to be banned to ensure the country is safe. It is impractical to consider such weapons as tools that can facilitate hunting and self-protection since these weapons are dangerous and with just a little knowledge they can be transformed into deadly arms that can injure and kill easily. Countries such as the England and Australia have implemented such bans, and the rates of crime and deaths related to the guns as mentioned earlier have reduced tremendously. A similar ban was adopted in the United States at the time Clinton was president. However, it expired in 2004; therefore, allowing civilians to acquire dangerous weapons and gun parts. However, implementing such legislation would constitutional since several cases heard at the supreme court have established that the federal government has the ability to control firearms if they are “unusual or dangerous” as stipulated by the Second Amendment. Assault weapons fall under the mentioned description. These weapons are not safe for civilian handling as they are used wrongly.

Recent tragedies have proved that it is not safe to allow civilians to own assault weapons. Massacres that took place in Connecticut, Newtown, and Aurora, CO clearly display the wrong use of assault weapons and the pain it brings to other civilians. With just a simple ban on dangerous and unusual weapons in many countries, the number of massacres and tragedies can drop tremendously. It is time that the U.S. Congress would look at this issue with sober minds and leave no stone unturned in relation to the tragedies that have led to the loss of a considerable number of innocent lives. What the U.S. needs is to establish a ban on the purchase and ownership of such weapons to ensure mass murder of the sort do not occur in future. Many innocent lives would be saved, and the country will be much safer.