The Issues of Gun Control and the Practicality Behind the Law, Research Paper Example

Guns are primarily made to be used as ammos for war; only during the entrant of the new era that guns have become more attractive to civilians allowing its status to change from being controlled to becoming more acceptable as private property for local civilians. This thought creates a distinct impact on how guns ought to be viewed depending on the relative value they have as they are being used by civilians for the aspect of improving personal security measures. The change in perceiving the real worth of guns to civilians is rather considered a turning point on how the modern society views the importance of security and how much they are willing to do to protect themselves from the increasing rate of crime in their communities.

Liberal and democratic nations such as the United States were one among the countries that defined their laws with regards gun control. The outlining of such laws have allowed such countries to become more specific about their requirements regarding the manufacture of such ammos and how individuals might acquire such properties. It could be understood that with such laws, the administrators intend to give the people as much freedom as they need or as necessary. The legal sanctions and limitations that are set to insist on the need of the government and its people to follow through a clear line of indication on how guns are supposed to be treated as part of the security tools that are allowed by the law to be accepted and used by the local civilians (Krug, et al, 1998). Practical measures on how guns are to be treated and how they are to be used are strictly outlined on such legal sanctions and documentations handed over to owners of such ammos.

While the law insists on its power to control the situation, it is quite interesting to know how much real control the said law has especially in consideration with the way individuals handle their responsibility towards owning a gun and keeping such a dangerous tool within their reach; or at times within the reach of young children. To understand the real value of the law, a closer look on the clauses or principles that define it shall be given attention to in the discussion that follows.

First to note is the fact that the law on owning firearms recognize so much that there is a huge difference between owning a gun and actually using it. For instance, guns owned by police officers are expected to be of use or always on the ready. However, for guns owned by civilians, such properties are expected to be kept and be taken out only during emergency situations when the use of the said firearms becomes highly necessary for the sake of imposing protection for the owner. In the documentation for licensing that is provided to buyers of basic guns, it is clearly stipulated how they are not supposed to be seen to be carrying such firearms around within the necessary dangers of being assaulted or attacked by anyone rather proven suspicious (LaPierre, 1994).  Relatively, it is also noted in this particular documentation that before anyone is given the authority to own a gun, he must first be tested for psychological capacities of handling the responsibility of owning such a tool.

Another sanction placed upon the documentation handed over for licensing of gun ownership is dedicated towards the presentation of bylaws of giving the owner the rightful ideal to note about the responsibility he has towards owning such firearm (Lott, 2012). After answering important questionnaires within the said documents, it could be understood that the concept of insisting on how the law tries to make sure that the guns are placed within the right hands and responsible individuals is serious enough to impose on the gravity of the punishments and disciplinary measures that accompany such authority to own a gun.

Basing from these points of concern, it could be analyzed that the law in itself is strong, however the application of its clauses may not be as effective as the results of such guiding points may not be fully recognizable, especially when it comes to giving attention to the rising rates of homicide and murder that occurs among civilians [with a relative number of such cases involving children gaining accidental access to guns and incurring unforeseen crimes that are most often than not considered shocking for most people]. Does this mean that the law in itself does not have fangs? Does it mean that the sanctions of the legal matters surrounding gun control are not strong enough to mandate the ways by which the individuals concerned in the situation are guided with their actions accordingly? Does this imply that gun control guidelines ought to be adjusted according to the current needs of the society especially in the way they perceive and understand the law behind gun ownership?

Based on the rate of crimes in the society incurred by owners and accidental handlers of such firearms, gun control laws are having a huge problem in controlling the most important aspect of gun ownership among civilians which includes the scope behind increased considered on the level of responsible behavior that the owners apply especially in keeping their properties within secured sanctions allowing them to have full control on how and when the said property is going to be used (Lott, 2010). Consistency on the ways by which such owners are guided and given the opportunity to prove their responsible behavior is something that is defined as the relative concept that identifies the overall principles that surround the law behind gun control and ownership.

How well are government administrators able to impose such laws? Notably, such laws are defined as legal limits. However, the psychological aspect of identifying the capacity of the people to own and take care of such properties creates a definite impact on how the law could be applied accordingly. The government could only impose the rules, the ways by which the individuals in the society respond to such sanctions would depend so much on how much the individuals know about how they are supposed to respond to particular intense situations that often challenge their capacity to control their anger.

What makes such insistence on development more effective is the ways by which the government does not only give sanctions and outline the laws. Their desire to make each individual owner of guns be responsible enough accounts for the idea of determining how well the people would be able to make a distinct point of response decision to tensed situations and apply self-control in using their guns as measures of protection. Using guns for assault is a huge issue in relation to the application of the gun control laws (Lott, 2010). It could be observed that while the law insists on how much the owners of guns ought to be assisted accordingly, their decision to use the gun to assault others often become entangled with the idea of not being able to control how they are to face the different aspects of anger management while they respond to sudden emotional outbursts every now and then.

Owners of guns should be guided accordingly; perhaps even required to attend regular anger management seminars that are designed to help them develop self –control; a character that is most often than not considered as somewhat reflective of how the government [both the national and local units] is able to impose directive assistance on how gun owners are guided and how the people surrounding them are protected accordingly.

True, while it is the right of each person to protect himself, to give attention to his personal security, it is also the right of others to be protected from sudden outbursts that might put the capacity of an individual to think and act responsibly in question. Specifically giving careful attendance to the being of the individual hoping to own a gun is a determinable course of insistence on how the modern society and the administrators governing it are able to cooperate between each other and give high concern for the value of development that each individual hopes to operate with especially in increasing the concept of security that the community highly depends upon.

References

Krug, E.; Powell, K. E.; Dahlberg, L. L. (1998). “Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries“. International Journal of Epidemiology 27 (2): 214–221.

LaPierre, W. (1994). Guns, crime, and freedom. Washington, D.C: Regnery.

Lott, J. R. (2010). More guns, less crime understanding crime and gun-control laws (3rd. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lott, J. R. (2012). “What a Balancing Test Will Show for Right-to-Carry Laws”. University of Maryland Law Review 71 (4): 1205–1218.