United States Society: Against Gun Ownership Research (Essay Sample)

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Against Gun Ownership
The debate about gun ownership has remained controversial with the United States society. The legalization has existed in the American society for quite some time, following the second amendment. The United States, with a population of less than 5% of the world’s, owns about 35 to 50% of the civilian owned guns in the world (Masters). This is a clear indication of the prevalence of this society, and can explain the current turn of events. United States leads in terms of guns per 100 people, and firearm related homicides. Several mass shootings, such as Connecticut, Sandy Hook elementary (O’Brien, Forrest, Lynott, and Daly 1), and the most recent Orlando shooting reignite this long-existing debate. The fact that it was the worst ever shooting the US history makes it very important to revisit the debate and call for stricter regulations. Opponents would still argue that guns are important for self-defense, but a reflection into the recent turn of events helps bring a clearer picture as guns are indeed presenting a problem that the American society needs to address. All can converge that gun control will help reduce the number of mass shootings and deaths in the society. Worth noting is that the second amendment was not about people owning guns, but militia. Gun ownership has also been shown to be ineffective in protecting people against violent crimes. Another reason why this regulation is important is because of the social and economic implications of gun ownership. Thus, gun ownership should be regulated to reduce the number of associated deaths, because of the social and economic implications, and because it has been ineffective in protecting citizens against violent crimes.
One of the profound reasons against gun ownership is that it results into a considerable number of deaths among the Americans. The recent mass shootings, the Orlando incident in mind, project a clear image about the burden that gun ownership presents in the society, and make it vital to come up with an amicable solution. It presents a classical example of what a gun in the wrong hands can do. In year 2011, there were 32, 163 gun-related deaths in the United States. Of these deaths, 11, 101 were homicides, and 19, 776 were suicides (Bangalore and Messerli 876). The homicide rates in the United States, are sevenfold compared to similar nations. In the study “Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms,” Metzl and MacLeish argue that homicides are more common where household firearms is higher. This makes it important to come up with stricter regulations against gun ownership as it may not be the case with restircted access. Presence of a gun is also related with higher chances of deaths in conflicts. This is well justified upun reflecting on fatal shootings in Florida following the “Stand You Groud” Act in 2005. In this classic example, the rate of interpersonal conflicts that progressed to fatal shooting skyrocketed by 200% (Metzl and MacLeish). In a study on fiream legislation and mortality, the implementation fo background checks was projected to reduce related deaths by 56.9%. In the same study, background checks for ammunition purchasers could reduce by 80.7%, and gun identification by 82.5%. this clearly point out that gun control could be the only way to go about reduction of the increasing number of deaths in the United States. Most people would argue that guns are a source of security, but this argument is clearly out of context with the statistics about the number of attributable deaths. It is therefore in line with these statistics important to come up with stricter gun controls in the United States.
The second reason why gun control is important in America is because of economic and social implications associated with guns in the wrong hands. Guns are costly for America because a lot of finances have to be used in the aftermath of an incident. This can include costs related to nursing wounds, to even the time lost in catering for the affected. The cost can even be higher when a person ends up disabled because of an incident. According to Steve Lipman in the article “Guns: Dangerous, Especially for Suicide, and Costly for America,” guns present an economic implication in terms of deaths, disabilities, and injuries that significantly increase health care expenditure, insurance premiums, taxes, and criminal justice expenses. The author laments as to why regulation of guns has yet become popular among the legislators in the US. He further continues to argue that the economic implications extend beyond emergency care to include rehabilitation, chronic dysfunction, and long term disability. In this line, it is worth to note that the medical expenses outlay increases for everyone whom the government covers. Acute care costs for gun related cases in the United States is more than $100 billion annually (Lippmann 14). The use is also said to add to expenses for court processions, police work, legal procedures, and incarcerations. The costs are further added by loss of productivity, physical and emotional dysfunction, and disability costs. The social costs of guns in the society include the trauma and grief that victims of shootings or violence endure. Affected children have developmental challenges, which may compromise their future. Adults also experience person compromise because of the incidents. Further social cost includes the fear of living in communities where shootings/gun violence is common. These issues further escalate the costs, and put more questions on why gun ownership should not be regulated. In the light of social and economic costs, it is clearly important to control gun ownership in order to create an environment where one has the opportunity to explore their potential without fear of loss. Legislators need to thus reflect on these costs and come up with regulations that offer a ground where people can live without fear of economic or social losses because of guns.
Gun ownership should also be regulated because there are no proofs that it offers any protection against violence as proponents argue. Very few armed civilians manage to stop mass shooters, probing some intense questions about the validity of the arguments that owning a gun helps reduce the risk of violence. With the Orlando incident in mind, one cannot help but wonder whether there were no gun owners to let one person terrorize and take such a large number of lives. It took efforts of law enforcement officers to hunt down the man and prevent more casualties. Follman states that, “not one of 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way. More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more rarely (1)”. He goes through five incidences to justify the fact that arming civilians does not help avert mass shootings. In “Investigating the Link between Gun Possession and Gun Assault,”Branas et al. reveal that guns do not protect the owners from any instance of violence, rather they increase the likelihood of the confrontation escalating into a serious one. The authors appreciate that there may be some isolated cases of succesful gun use defense, but feel feel that the probability is very low, more so with the civilian population. In this case, it is important for one to understand that having a gun is different from being trained to handle it well in case of any emergency. In line with this study, the athors reiterate that gun owners need to understand that regular possession calls for careful safety strategies in order to avert further atrosities. Clealry, literature supports the assertion that having a gun is not a recipe for succesful confrontation, more so with an aggressive shooter. It would therefore be important to regulate gun ownership as the shooter always ends up leaving immense loss of lives.
Some proponents may counter these assertions with the provisions of the second Amendment. The amendment provides for a well-regulated militia as necessary for keeping security of the Free State. In line with this, they can argue that gun control would be an infringement of their rights to bear arms, which is protected by the constitution. However, this group should understand that each right has its limits, and that the right to own a gun...