Type: Research
Pages: 6 | Words: 1536
Reading Time: 7 Minutes

Many people believe that the availability of guns in a society is a social problem and the society should make efforts to get rid of guns. On the other side, some believe that gun use should be permitted is the person handling the gun is responsible and is properly trained (Francis, 34). They believe that guns do not cause violence; therefore, people decide to cause violence regardless of what weapons are available at their vicinity. Guns have been part of human society for many years. Hence, there is no likelihood that guns can cause danger or be lethal to the society. Globally, there are many deaths which are related to guns. For instance, in the US, almost half of the house holds own guns, which are mainly used fore recreation activities, such as, sports or hunting. However, there is lots of debate on how people can use guns without causing injury or harm to other people.

Gun control is a legislation which had been put in place to regulate ownership of guns through registration. In most nations, there is pressure between gun control laws and the right to bear firearms. However, certain laws states that gun ownership negatively influence the constitutional rights of the law abiding citizens. Therefore, governments should put a restriction or ban the sale of guns in order to reduce crime. The issue of gun control emerged due to the outcry of public safety, in order to, to provide answers on whether preventing or reducing gun violence should be a personal responsibility or should the wider society design rules to enhance public policy (Lester, 3). This debate led to a debate between the gun control supporters and gun control opponents. In most nations, gun control has been a responsibility of governments, which provides limitations on the purchase and ownership of guns in order to reduce violence or criminal acts caused by the guns. Sports or in hunting activities had been cited as the main ways through which many people have illegal and unnecessary gun ownership to ordinary citizens.

Gun control is regarded as an emotional and factual issue (Korwin, 4). The emotional part of gun control is an issue which is strongly felt by both proponents and opponents of gun control. For instance those in favor of gun control consider the casualties and deaths which are related to gun use. These groups of people feel that many lives could be saved and injuries prevented with adherence to gun control legislations. In most societies, guns are considered as dangerous weapons, which should not be regarded as a necessity. Consequently, the proponents of gun control would want to understand why individuals may want to own a gun. They believe that reducing the number of guns which are produced and restricting the conditions in which an individual may own a gun can be a blessing to the society.

There are two different groups of gun control debate and they constantly influence every piece of gum control debate. However, the main idea behind gun control is to eradicate or reduce violence, with the main intention of owning a gun is not to cause violence in the society. In order to make a society safe, guns should be eliminated, since they are not a solution of crime prevention but may increase it. Other people claim that gun ownership is an effective way of self defense. Gun control would be a blessing to a society in general because of the fact that guns are lethal weapons and are mainly produced to cause harm or to kill others. Therefore, gun control will ensure that fewer people own the guns and this will enhance safety among society members. Gun control will ensure that the chance of criminals to own guns will be greatly minimized; hence, leading to a reduction in likelihood of gun possession by criminals. Consequently, teenagers will also not access these lethal weapons, which have been seen a major problem to the society.

It has also been observed that gun control will a step forward, in increasing safety to the neighborhood. However, there are some people who argue that guns do not commit violence alone but the problem occurs as a result of irresponsibility and ignorance on the part of the gun owners, since, guns are immortal and do not have minds. However, the paper does not focus on target gun and hunting weapons, but the benefits of gun control to owners. These are categories of guns which are not used for criminal purposes. First, considering the hand guns, many people use hand guns for many purposes, such as, sports and self defense. This is also similar to the main reason why police officers use guns. Defensive hand guns may be carried easily when concealed, and they do not interfere with the movement of the owner, especially when it is used in doors.

The opponents of gun control believe gun control legislations are unfair gun owners who use them responsibly. Another important argument is that people should not support or oppose gun control, but should be involved in decision making on who can own which gun and under which circumstances. The most important question to ask is that do the public or ordinary citizens have the right to gun ownership. This is a very normal question but not constitutional in nature. The point to drive home is that even if the constitution allowed for private gun ownership, it is important to determine if it is a sufficiently compelling argument against individuals who own guns privately. Quigley observed that if gun ownership was a constitutional right, then it is important to understand why the state cannot control the use of guns (12). If gun ownership was considered as a fundamental right this would indicate that the society would be in a position to reap benefits from controlling access to private guns. On the other hand, it is vital to note that it would be a heavy burden to claim this is a fundamental human right. However, some proponents of gun control support the notion that, to own guns should be a fundamental human right, since gun ownership is the best way to protect fundamental interest in self defense. Consequently, other people argue that guns are not valuable items, and are only beneficial only as a means of self defense; hence, there is no way that it can be regarded as a fundamental human right.

Some people who support the idea of gun control believe that causing restrictions on the sale or purchase of private guns will not cause any change or reduce the threat they present to the society. Therefore, people need weapons in order to protect themselves and the entire family members, which make it a legitimate right of a citizen to a private gun. Consequently, the society may not become safer than before, under gun control legislations or through restrictions on gun ownership since guns don not cause death. However, whereas some portion of the national laws guarantees individuals the right to own a private gun, there are some clauses which make it difficult to own a private gun. Moreover, if law abiding citizens were allowed the right to gun ownership, they are in a better position to handle their situations better if they come face to face with criminals; hence, may lead to a reduction in crime rate.

According to Halbrook, there are other arguments that gun ownership is an important element that can be used by ordinary citizens to prosper. Those in support of this view believe that although citizens may not have a fundamental right to own guns, gun control may not be suitable since it will be considered as a derivative right or a bad public policy. Although people do not have a fundamental right to own guns, gun control might be wrong because it violates some derivative right or simply because it is bad public policy.

There are some sensitive questions to ask concerning private gun ownership. The most important question is the extent to which gun control may be a blessing or a curse to the society. The other question is the implications of gun ownership to the society, and the last question is whether gun control is a good or bad policy. These questions are enough to justify whether gun ownership may undermine the interest of the gun owners. This should form the basis of abolishing or providing restrictions to private ownership of guns without any tentative reason. On the other hand, it is clear that guns cause death because they are used by agents to cause violence or kill people, or they may be used in ways that may cause people to kill one another.

In conclusion, guns are weapons which are potentially dangerous to the society. The main purpose of the invention of the guns was that they were to be used by the military in times of war, and designed to kill or cause harm. However, in the contemporary world, gun ownership is seen as a safety issue, political issue, as well as, an educational issue, withy all the issues ranging from moderate to low; hence, it is not possible to understand whether the issue of gun control is a blessing or a curse to the society.

Copy-pasting equals plagiarizing!

Mind that anyone can use our samples, which may result in plagiarism. Want to maintain academic integrity? Order a tailored paper from our experts.

Get my custom paper
3 hours
the shortest deadline
original, no AI
300 words
1 page = 300 words
This is a sample essay that should not be submitted as an actual assignment
Need an essay with no plagiarism?
Grab your 15% discount
with code: writers15
Related essays
1 (888) 456 - 4855