The Case for Gun Controls in Civil Society, Article Review Example

Public opinion is sharply divided on the question of legislative processes geared at increasing gun controls in civilian communities. In the midst of the debate raging and prying questions such as the degree of constitutional permissibility required to sustain anti-gun possession legislation; whether or not gun control legislations will be useful in the overall fight against crime? Be that as it may, will a gun control regime be the first step towards a steady denial of the rights of citizens to self-defense?

It is against this background that this essay will fundamentally be arguing in favor of strict gun controls citing uncontested facts to prove that it is in the best interest of the nation to come out with such a policy measure. My argument will be structured in the pattern of analogical framework highlighting all the pros and cons of the need to implement strict gun control measures. It is my sincere believe that doing so, will add to the strength and credibility of my argument thus insulating it against any criticism of being lopsided.

To begin with it is worth extending the premise of the opening paragraph by looking at the contentions swelling around the debate. First and foremost, it is worth looking at the tentative role gun proliferation plays in the crime combat process to be complemented by the degree of constitutionality of any attempt to either stifle or relax firearm circulation in our societies. What is of critical interest to me on the question of the constitutionality or otherwise of firearm controls has to do with the incessant interpretation given to the Second Amendment by both proponents and opponents of gun control alike. In the heat of the debate about the Second Amendment and its fundamental application to the issue in question, the debate sadly gets clouded by the failure to identify the ethical base of striking a comprehensive balance between the individual right to self-defense against the collective public safety stemming from a near zero arms circulation.

It is this failure that has fuelled the misconstrued attempt to question the legitimacy of government to regulate the proliferation of firearms. A common source of reference to back the argument of non-control advocates is the clause in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that states that: “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.”[1] The public interest is downplayed by advocates who cite this provision in articulating the absurd argument that the Second Amendment like each of the other Amendments places premium on the individual’s right against the collective right. Surprisingly, I am left wondering why the proponents are failing to acknowledge that it is individual’s who ultimately become a collective whole. For that matter, a collective whole is a representation of individual shreds who wield equal if not higher rights than the single individual and whatever right such an individual touts. The Federal government in representing the public collective interest is in effect representing the individual rights of people in a community which does not in any amount to travesty of the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the right enshrined in the Second Amendment is clearly not intended to be absolute but fundamentally wrought with the capacity to be regulated along the principles of justice.

I never cease to be surprised by the indifference of gun rights advocates to the staggering statistics about the lethal effects of gun possession on American societies. Take for instance, the 1998 study and publication of the International Journal of Epidemiology, which ranked the United States as the leading nation in the industrialized world with the highest level of gun related homicides. Does that not tell us as a nation that we are moving too fast in the wrong direction in our failure to exercise moderation in our gun laws? Decreasing gun possession is no doubt a potent source of decreasing corresponding gun violence in the streets of our cities.

Assuming the opponents of gun controls are held captive of their own fear of insecurity, then there is enough reason to cite examples of best practice of gun control policies in other jurisdictions to prove that society is better served without the mass circulation of firearms. In a 2007 article on the Washington Post, author Mary Jordan refers to the success of gun control legislations in rolling back gun related violence and murder in the United Kingdom. Indeed, there is no better way to agree with Mary Jordan as she seeks to prove that civilized contemporary societies thrive on rule based moderation.

Another important dimension of the gun control debate that opponents feel uncomfortable talking about has to do with the capacity to limit the accessibility of firearms by unscrupulous elements and juveniles with both groups identified as “high-risk” social segments. As long as guns are in circulation, the chances of high-risk groups laying hands on them either by purpose or accident is still very dangerously high enough to call for a control mechanism. A few facts and figures will definitely help drive home my argument. Persons within the high-risk group, particularly juveniles are reported to be committing more crimes with firearms than previously thought. Between 1985 and 1993 this group is alleged to have committed violent crimes and homicides at an incremental rate of 173 per cent (Mulloy 2004, Pp 96). It is for this reason and many others that there is an urgent need to come out with federal legislations that will ensure a near zero proliferation of firearms in civil society. Strict ownership rules can also be brought unto the table and implemented since doing so does not in any constitute any constitutional contravention.

In a related sense, it is imperative to approach gun legislations from a federal level for the simple reason that failure to do so will reduce the effort to a zero sum game. Taking it at the state level poses the same degree of risk of proliferation because, states with relaxed ownership regulations will inadvertently become sources of transmission of illegal firearms into states with tough ant-gun possession legislations thus defeating the entire purpose of arms control. It also calls for comprehensive review of some of the existing obsolete laws regulating firearm possession. For instance, the legal possession of some category of firearms potential go beyond self-defense into very sensitive areas of public order; machine guns, short guns and short-barreled rifles being the prominent ones on the contentious list.

Meanwhile, there is a lack of consensus within the circles of the gun freedom community as to which specific forms of control should be made admissible and which ones should not. They are however united in claiming that intended purposes of gun regulations are not just only unconstitutional but also not feasible. They have real trouble in proving the possibility of possessing guns as a right for self-defense whilst safeguarding legally acquired firearms from the reach of high-risk groups. To say so and walk away with it certainly holds no water. Doesn’t it? Another grey spot in the argument of anti-gun control groups is a weak assertion that it would ultimately undermine the capacity of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. This is also neither here nor there, given the fact that the federal government has the constitutional mandate to provide security through law enforcement institutions. Until the day they are able to prove the incompetence of federal government in providing law enforcement and security, then the need for gun control in our societies must remain supreme.

Works Cited

“Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle income countries“, International Journal of Epidemiology (1998) Vol 27, pages 214-221

Jordan, Mary. Britain‘s Gun Laws Seen as Curbing Attacks. Accessed on April 24, 2007 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301794.html

Mulloy, D. J. American extremism: history, politics and the militia movement. New York: Routledge, 2004. Pp 96.

[1]  Accessed from http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentii