An Advocacy for Gun Control (Research Paper Sample)

An Advocacy for Gun Control
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Advocacy for Gun Control
A majority of the people agree to the fact that guns have continually fallen into the wrong hands resulting in unprecedented deaths. Gun violence in the U.S dates back and continues to be the greatest drive behind those who push for more controls and regulations on the ownership of firearms. The debate that ensues from this proposition often becomes lengthy and rarely do they reach a conclusive solution to the gun violence issue. The recent cases of gun violence have brought the debate back, especially after the president signed 23 executive orders regarding gun regulation (Dixon 2013). The move by the president to hand to the congress a list of legislative proposals is by far the best move towards arriving at a solution to the gun violence menace in the country. In advocating for gun control, it is imperative to consider the various issues that make it crucial, which involves pointing out the need to consider controlling gun ownership in the country.
Most pro-gun enthusiasts allude to the second amendment arguing that it gives Americans the right to own arms. While it is true that the Second Amendment indicates that this right should not be infringed, it is important to note that gun ownership is causing an infringement of other people’s rights to life. This means that there is a need for some kind of regulations in order to protect the rights of the greater fraction of the society. An interpretation of the Second Amendment by Dixon (2013) highlights some of its weak points. Contrary to what Weiss (1974) points out about the amendment, Dixon refutes the purpose of the armed militia that the amendment sought to protect; rather, he suggests that the amendment may have been enacted to ensure that the southerners were able to maintain slavery.
Dixon (2013) also refutes the popular belief that the amendment was intended to empower the people to be able to overthrow the government in case it became tyrannical. The founding fathers had no intention of enabling the citizens to overthrow the government, but rather to protect it in the best interests of the country. In line with this, it is not justifiable to trash efforts aimed at achieving more conclusive gun regulations. Anti-gun control critics argue that it is not gun ownership that prompts gun violence, but rather the personality and/or mental stability of those who own the guns (Weiss, 1974). In view of this, both advocates of and those opposed to gun controls should then agree on regulations that ensure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands. This, as was seen in the conservatives’ outburst following the president’s executive orders, rarely happens (Dixon, 2013).
The other justification for gun controls is based on the various judicial rulings that have shown that the Second Amendment should not be viewed as absolute. The rulings, like the 20th century Miller Case shows that there are limits to the classification of arms that an individual can possess. Another judicial ruling was by the US court of appeal, Sixth Circuit, where it was established that the right to own arms was based on the state’s aim of maintaining a militia, as is referred to by the Second Amendment, and does not include an individual’s right to own firearms (Nickitas, 2012) This implies that there exist limitations to an individual’s right to own firearms only that they are not clearly defined. Establishing a well defined gun control system will be a significant step towards achieving a better legislation regarding possession of firearms.
Proponents of anti-gun control claim that consideration of other more important issues, like mental health, should be the prerequisite of the solution to gun violence. They point out to the fact that the firearms should not be owned by the wrong kind of people. What they fail to acknowledge is the ...