The Pros and Cons of the Second Amendment on Gun Control in the United States

Gun control is a phrase used to refer to the policies and laws that keep in check the manufacture, possession, transfer, sale, modification or the use of firearms. These laws and policies vary substantially across different nations. Some countries, for instance, the United Kingdom have very strict laws and policies governing possession of firearms. Other countries, on the other hand, like the United States, have fewer restrictions on possession of firearms as compared to other industrial democracies. These laws and policies differ across states.

Proposers of gun control reason that widespread of gun ownership heighten the danger of suicide and homicide. Opponents of gun control argue that some regulations are out to oppress individual liberties and that regulation of firearm ownership does not minimize incidences of gun-related murders, injuries or suicide. The second amendment states that a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This law was passed in 1791 as one of the ten amendments in the US constitution within the Bill of Rights.

The people who pushed for the ratification of the second amendment believed that ownership of firearms would come in handy whenever their country needed to defend itself. Every adult was expected to have a gun of their own and how to use it. The ownership of guns was in check in those days too. The founding fathers of the US had the right to track down people who owned guns and freely inspect them. This paper dwells on the pros and cons of the Second Amendment, with cases as evidence, and whether the law should remain as it is, or it needs changing.

Get quality help now

Sweet V

Verified

Proficient in: Second Amendment

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

There is a low chance of criminals attacking someone who is armed with a firearm. Statistically, armed victims are less likely to be injured by criminals in case of an attack. On the other hand, unarmed people are at the mercy of criminals whenever they are attacked. Being armed with a firearm provides more efficiency in defending oneself against criminals than defending one using other self-protection methods. Studies have gone further to prove that drawing out a gun against criminals often make them retreat and back down. At the same time, criminals are believed to be more tentative in attacking armed people. Citizens who are in possession of a firearm are prone to feel safer than those who don’t. The feeling of safety remains even if the gun owner will never use the gun on anyone. It is not possible for the government to ensure the safety of each and every person. In the end, the responsibility of protecting people falls squarely on all adults. Door locks, windows, and bars are necessary to keep intruders outside one’s home and premises. In the event that intruders use force and successfully make their way inside the house, other means of self-protection might fail. Pulling a firearm is likely to have the intruders retreat.

Every law abiding citizen should have a right to choose whether to possess a firearm or not. In case the citizen decides to own a gun, the gun control laws and policies should not come in their way of acquiring one. Violent criminals are out to prey on innocent citizens, and they always come with a gun. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens give the criminals an advantage as they always come with a gun. President Obama said that it is vital to use all means necessary to save a child’s life. There have been unfortunate cases whereby armed people have killed innocent children and adults in the US. Almost everyone is aware of the twenty year old Adam Lanza who shot and killed twenty children and six adults in a school in Connecticut, in 2012. Adam had mental issues and the gun he had with him belonged to his mother. Another equally unfortunate case is that of Seung Hui who shot and killed thirty three people at a public Polytechnic in Virginia in 2007. James Holmes, a twenty six year old opened fire in a movie theater in Colorado and left twelve people dead. It is evident from the above cases that the people using the guns had bad intentions and they used them for all the wrong reasons. Guns are important for self-defense but then again the intentions of gun holders might sway either way.

Every time legally owned guns are used to kill innocent people, the voice of the citizens’ echo that guns should be taken away from the citizens. It is a pain to every good person to see innocent lives being taken for no reason at all. People in support of civilians turning over their guns to the states have suggested a couple of incentives to encourage people to give up their guns. The government can mobilize people through the media to turn over their weapons and in turn motivate them by offering incentives such as free tuition for their children. The purpose of the incentives is to encourage civilians to give back their firearms to the government voluntarily.

People in possession of firearms are at a higher risk of being shot in incidences of crime than those who do not have guns. There is an inadequacy in the training provided to citizens before they are issued with guns. The inadequate skills in using a firearm and self-defense with one during a shootout increase the chances of the user being shot. Studies have shown that people who carry guns for self-defense have a four percent more chance of being shot than those victims who are not armed with a gun. This happening can also be attributed to the fact that armed criminals will concentrate more on taking out an opponent who has a gun. As such, possessing a gun is not as reliable as many people might think. The Second Amendment can be considered a contributing factor in increased crime incidences. Many citizens who are in possession of private guns are believed to be responsible citizens. There is a small portion of these populations that are not as responsible as the majority. Some private gun owners are into crime, and they use the guns licensed to them by the government to execute their crimes amidst innocent citizens. In some areas in the United States, the increase in the number of crimes in there is a result of the Second Amendment.

Armed people make other people nervous and very anxious. Guns are associated with looming danger and a shootout after that. Citizens who are allowed to carry concealed guns to public places can mess the mood of the public when their guns are seen. Citizens who have own guns are bound to make the ones who don’t feel less safe. During one study in the US, about sixty percent of the participants confessed to feeling less safe after knowledge of the presence of concealed guns in a public event. At the same time, it is challenging to differentiate between criminals and armed citizens. Criminals, especially the ones with licensed guns can talk their way out of an arrest by simply stating that they were responsible citizens helping out. There are cases whereby the police admitted having been unable to tell the criminals from citizen gun owners. Arming the citizens with a firearm is an encouragement to criminals who do not have guns to make plans for acquiring one. The more people own and move around with guns, the more criminals will acquire more guns to balance the lever. The criminals will show up to people carrying guns, more armed as a way of discouraging citizens from defying the criminals’ orders.

The norm of the system is that the safety of the people is the responsibility of the government. The government has set up military schools and has set aside enough funds to train the police so that the borders of the nation and the citizens are kept safe. The training provided to private gun holders can never match that one given to the police. There are sad cases in some states whereby one does not even receive any form of training before being provided with a gun for self-defense. In some states, one does not even need a permit to carry a concealed gun. unprofessional manner in which such guns are handed over to the public can lead to deadly results. The holder of the gun might misuse it or even get shot amid a shootout. The checks carried on a person wishing to acquire a gun are not adequate to prevent unsuitable people from acquiring a gun. The possession of a concealed firearm in the public or any other place can easily. This turn a normal confrontation into a lethal outcome. In cases where arguments turn into a physical fight, the person carrying a gun might think to use it, and the results can be an unnecessary death.

In conclusion, the Second Amendment brings forth benefits and shortcomings. Personally, I would rather the Second Amendment was changed in light of the cons that it comes with. The general feeling in the world is that guns should be taken back by the government from the civilians. Before someone is given a permit to possess a firearm and even take it home, appropriate measures should be taken. There should be enough background check on the person with regards to their personality, anger, and mental health issues as well as what they do for a living. This background check should see a reduction in incidences where bad people hold guns lawfully, gun holders killing innocent people in a fit of rage or mental breakdown and lawfully given guns being used to execute crimes among other citizens. In addition to the background checks, citizens wishing to possess firearms should go through vigorous training on how to handle a firearm and use it. The government should stipulate the duration that the training should happen. The issue of issuing a permit to private gun holders should also be emphasized on. Those states whereby one does not need to have a permit to possess a gun need to consider the cons of their policy and its impact on the welfare of the citizens. There should also be a list of circumstances and events after which the gun can be confiscated by the government. The list should include pulling out the gun to people out of a mere argument and using the gun to threaten fellow citizens.