Gun Control to Reduce Crime, Domestic Abuse, and Gun Violence

Name:
Professor:
Course Title:
Date:
Gun Control
Introduction
Human beings are undoubtedly the most complex societies among all known living organisms today. They are born with the innate nature to build lasting relationships, form communities, interact with each other and generate norms meant to serve their goals. Nonetheless, many human societies have found themselves generating policies and ideals that in turn create dilemmas and confusions, with sub-categories of those populations pushing for specific policies and the other half doing all they can to get rid of them. That is arguably the nature of human beings, in as much as the ultimate goal is the betterment of societies, human civilization often goes through transitive changes in an attempt to find universal norms; one particular policy is the gun control debate which has been making headlines in news stories, social and political discussions for years. Specifically, in the USA, people have been debating on firearms ownership, majorly revolving around the ethical and social implications of the practice. While some believe that owning a firearm should be a personal right, others believe that it goes against the very nature of protecting human lives and ensuring the species' longevity. Nonetheless, the counterarguments also state similar reasons why people should own firearms.
Thesis Statement: Access to weapons makes murdering simple, swift, and insensitive, increasing the severity of the crime; as a result, gun control reduces crime, domestic abuse, and gun violence.
In a broad sense, gun control refers to a system of standards and procedures that regulate the manufacture, distribution, ownership, and use of firearms. Most nations throughout the world have tight gun control laws. Most laws restrict gun ownership and usage, making it a privilege for just a few groups of individuals. However, several nations still have lax firearms laws. One of them is the USA (Miller). Because of the country's colonial past and strong gun heritage, most Americans can own guns. That's why gun regulation is such a significant issue in America. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution now guarantees citizen firearm ownership, which is commonly used to argue against gun restrictions in this nation. According to pro-gun control advocates, the freedom to own and use weapons is not infinite, who argue that certain limitations and procedures should be enacted to restrict specified categories of persons and locations. Most nations have stringent gun laws, with just a handful being lenient. Most jurisdictions that control weapon access limit access to specific types of guns and then restrict who may get a license to own one. Like the USA, gun control laws are enacted at the federal or state level in other nations.
Counterarguments
The greatest method to ensure self-defense is to own a gun. In a violent society, guns are a vital tool. They defend against muggings, house invasions, terrorist attacks, and mass killings. Moreover, an armed society is the last resort to protection against dictatorship. If insurgency were to occur, the people would rise in armed rebellion against the rulers and topple them. Even though it never gets to that, the prospect of armed revolt will aid in the preservation of governance against oppression. The authorities are unable to safeguard everyone at all times. If gun rules were tightened, people would find it tough to defend their property and family. The right to self-defense and the means of self-defense is a fundamental natural right that arises from the right to life, and many gun control laws limit law-abiding persons' capacity to protect themselves against dangerous offenders (Spitzer). In an ideal world, every person has the right to keep and carry weapons to protect himself and the country; in other words, criminals may refrain from committing crimes if they knew their target was armed. Individuals who possess guns to feel safer, and a large percentage of persons who live in a household where somebody owns a gun feel more comfortable. On the other hand, education on firearms safety will be more successful than increasing gun control.
Gun regulation will not alter anything; it will just boost the illegal market's supply of firearms. Guns, in theory, should not murder people; instead, people should kill people. Armed weapons are a tool that may be utilized for good or bad. It is undeniably true that weapons may be used in robberies, murders, and acts of terrorism. On the other hand, Guns have valid purposes in sporting, hunting, and personal defense. Taking away a specific instrument will not prevent individuals from attacking innocent people. Instead, society must address the core factors that lead individuals to commit acts of violence, including examining if the psychosocial system is functioning properly (Rood). Individuals always react the same way after a mass shooting: they want more gun-control regulations to make it more difficult for people to get lethal weapons. But what about the assailant who pulled the trigger? Is it possible that the issue has less to do with firearms and more with people? Also, taking someone's gun away won't stop them if they're lonely, angry, or psychologically disturbed enough to believe that killing others is their best choice.
Refutations
The first counterargument against gun control is that guns are necessary for self-protection and protecting one's family and home. Needless to say, everyone needs to protect their families and themselves; however, if there were no guns or weapons to commit such atrocities, crime rates would reduce. Understandably, regulating gun laws does not apply to criminals, and no matter how the government restricts the use, sale, and transfer of guns, criminals would always find ways to attain them and commit crimes. Still, it is counterintuitive to fight violence with violence. Criminals will not use excessive force or firearms if they are sure their victims are unarmed. This would also call for better surveillance systems and police vigilance to fight crime. Secondly, regardless of how hard society attempts to stop egregious behaviors such as rape, violence, and murder, they are still rampant (Rood). Does this imply that the government should not enact any legislation against rape cases? Most individuals would agree that such regulations should never be put on hold. They operate as a deterrent to criminal behavior and offer a legal foundation for punishing individuals who break the law. The same is true when it comes to gun policy. Suppose an unlawful activity is carried out, either explicitly or implicitly, with an illegal firearm in the vicinity. In tha...