Gun Control Debate: The Roots, Parameters, and Competing Perspectives

Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
Gun Control
Introduction/Background
Whenever the phrase gun control is mentioned, many questions are asked. What kinds of guns should be made available to the public? Who should be permitted to buy these guns and what criteria will be used to decide someone is fit to buy a gun? Where should these guns be carried? When is it okay to draw one’s weapon and shoot? Should laws be restricting or limiting access to guns? The questions are quite many, and as the debate rages on, more questions continue to surface. Today, the gun control debate is one of the most polarizing issues in the United States. Public opinion has been swaying from left to right, and it is not clear anymore whether the American public is content with keeping guns or not. Politicians, on the other hand, have not made things any easier or better as they continue to wage war on the proposed policies. At the moment, it is still not possible to predict what will happen with regards to the gun control debate. Much money (by lobbyists) and time has been invested in making sure that status quo is upheld and it remains to be seen whether the country will change its currently divided and toxic stance on the matter of gun control.
What is the root of the gun control debate?
The root or the thing that is often blamed for the current confusion is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment says, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Second Amendment). The above sentence has led to thousands of hours of debates as Americans try to find an interpretation that will suit everyone. However, this has proven to be a difficult endeavor as the country is still not able to find a common interpretation of this statement. On one side, there are those who believe that any legislation will infringe on their right to bear arms or their liberties while on the other hand, there are those who believe in the adoption of more regulations.
When did gun control start?
Schuppe (2018) notes that gun control is “as old as the United States,” and his statement could not be more accurate. The Second Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution in 1791, and from this point, it drew a line between those who supported gun ownership and those who did not. Schuppe goes on and takes his readers back to the time when the African Americans were not allowed to own guns. He notes that while still young, the United States did not allow African Americans as well as the Native Americans to own guns. For the African Americans, it took until late in the 19th century when new civil rights laws were passed.
The next phase that saw the introduction of modern gun control laws was in the 1930s. In this period, the U.S. passed several Acts which imposed taxes on firearms manufacturing, sale, and transportation. Additionally, the manufacturers, dealers, and importers were also required to obtain what was known as a federal firearms license. After the 1930s, it took the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy for President Lyndon B. Johnson to ensure the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Gray (2018) notes that “overall the bill banned importing guns that have “no sporting purpose,” imposed age restrictions for the purchase of handguns, prohibited felons, the mentally ill, and others from purchasing guns required that all manufactured or imported guns have serial numbers, etc.” This Act was considered the firmest to have ever been adopted in America and thus started the wave of gun control debates.
Parameters of the Gun Control Debate
Different parameters are used to further the understanding of the gun control debate. Parameters mainly denote the constants or the attributes that appear to remain constant or that do not change. In this particular debate, constants include gun deaths which happen annually and thus drive the discussion, the mass shootings that keep happening, and the sentiments and stances held by the pro-gun rights and pro-gun control groups.
Analysis of Competing Perspectives of the Gun Control Debate
The two major competing perspectives of the gun control debate are pro-gun rights and pro-gun control. The pro-gun rights group is the one that seeks to fewer gun laws. This group appears committed to their course of making guns available to more Americans. When asked whether more guns would help prevent the thousands of gun deaths in America, pro-gun rights individuals often argue that more armed citizens, as well as the relaxation of the conceal and carry laws, would indeed help reduce gun deaths. For example, in the event of a mass shooting, the presence of a person who is licensed to carry a gun would be of great help. In 2015, an Uber driver shot and wounded a man who “opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend” (Ziezulewicz, 2015). Such an occurrence often fuels the pro-gun rights individuals who believe that the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is to make sure that there is always a good person lurking around with a gun as well.
The other important point that appears to strengthen the pro-gun rights group is the fact that data on whether more gun laws reduce gun deaths is incomplete. Additionally, as noted by Kessler (2015) there are some states, for example, New Hampshire and Vermont which “have few gun restrictions but also have relatively low rates of gun deaths.” Additionally, when suicides are removed from the statistics of gun deaths, the results appear to change as Kessler notes. Mass shootings do not happen as frequent as they are purported to happen and thus for the pro-gun rights group, it makes little sense to limit gun access for the sins of a few people. This group does make a compelling argument, but are their arguments sufficient enough to sway the pro-gun control group?
No. The perspective provided above is not fit enough to change the minds of the pro-gun control group. From this perspective, the idea is that more guns would not in any way prevent gun deaths. Chalabi (2012) reports that the “U.S. has the highest gun ownership rate in the world – an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership.” Despite this fact, the Council on Foreign Relations (2017) reports that the U.S. is leading the world in homicides something which appears to undermine the idea that more guns would lead to fewer deaths. This strengthens the position of the pro-gun control group because the data appears to be clean and obvious and this thus sets the stage for the notion that more gun laws will help reduce gun deaths. From the position of pro-gun control enthusiasts, it makes sense to introduce certain laws that would help the country avoid more mass shootings. Clement (2013), for example, notes that “90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns.” This number includes Americans who already own guns but want to live in a safe country. From the perspective of a pro-gun control individual, more laws seem to make sense and appear to be the solution.
A stance that contributes a new perspective to the debate
In Japan, there are extremely very few gun deaths each year. According to CITATION Chr18 \l 1033 (Weller, 2018) ‘Japan, which has strict laws for obtaining firearms, seldom has more than ten shooting deaths a year in a population of 127 million people.’ This is very impressive considering that in the United States, there were over 11,000 deaths as a result of murder or manslaughter involving a firearm in 2016 which translate to over 30 deaths in a day CITATION BBC181 \l 1033 (BBC, 2018). Secondly, Australia can offer insights on how to reduce gun violence. In...