Why We Should Have Gun Control, Essay Example

The recent massacre of Connecticut school children has once again created a massive debate on gun control, just as similar tragedies in the past trigger controversy. On each occasion, supporters point to the accessibility of automatic firearms as providing violent and/or psychotic individuals the easy means to commit mass murder, just as opponents of gun control invariably argue that restrictions violate constitutional rights and do not actually address the societal issues underlying the violence. The latter component is, of course, valid to an extent; no ban on weapons may effectively prevent a person from finding another means of killing. Then, it is certainly true that the right to bears arms is a component of the Constitution. When, however, the issue is examined in a clear and dispassionate manner, it is seen that gun control is both a necessary adjustment required for modern life, and by no means a violation of anyone’s civil liberties.

First and foremost, it is essential to note that gun control does not translate to an outright prohibition on guns, or a widespread denial of ownership to Americans. The Constitution asserts the right to bear arms, but many elements in the Constitution affirm rights that require legislation, or degrees of exercise as determined fit by the law. To employ a classic example, free speech is a right, but it does not extend to a person’s dangerously alerting others in a crowded arena of a fire that does not exist. Rights are not absolute things in any society, as they must be tempered by the needs of that society. Then, it is extraordinary that most people fully accept that driving is a privilege that must be licensed, even as many still assert that owning a gun is more a personal right not subject to the same restrictions. Gun control, judiciously applied, means only that certain parameters must be observed before any individual may own and/or carry what is always a deadly weapon. Consequently, it merely – and responsibly – sets reasonable boundaries on gun ownership, rather than negating it.

As to the argument that gun control will not prevent murder by those intent on performing it, the reasoning is simply inappropriate. Few supporters of gun control actually believe that laws will eliminate tragic violence. Rather, it is matter of restricting one form of capability that may be restricted. Certainly, someone desiring to kill a number of strangers may devise a bomb or other means to carry out the goal. Guns, however, render such ambitions far more easy, so it is likely that the widespread access to guns, and particularly to automatic weapons, may in fact further encourage such desires. Even if the access to guns is no incentive, however, increased control is equally validated; if less access to guns does not curb violence, it also cannot possibly encourage, as it also does not in any way impede the lives of ordinary people.

This last point, in fact, greatly supports the presence of gun control. The question must arise: who is hampered or denied in a reasonable way by such control? Hunters may still go through licensing processes to indulge in their sport legally and, as is widely noted, hunters do not require automatic weapons. Ordinary citizens under gun control may still obtain ownership, provided they adhere to the new laws; all that changes is that the owner’s reasons and skills are first evaluated by the state, a circumstance that applies to driving. No one actually suffers from gun control save those who desire the guns as accessible with no restrictions, and this is a highly suspect platform in itself. The famous right to bear arms was composed in an era when the nation was fighting to establish its own being, and against a powerful, military enemy. While there is urban crime to consider and protect against, American society has long been free of any need to have an “armed citizenry.”

Lastly, and in regard to that aspect of urban crime, there is an inescapable fact to consider: the more guns there are within the population, the more likely it is that gun injuries and deaths will occur. The United States today is a vastly complex nation, and hardly the rough frontier of its earliest days. Those concerned with protecting themselves and their families from violent crime are not alone, and an elaborate legal and police system exists to address this. Rather than demand open access to firearms, those genuinely interested in ending violence must pursue those avenues, restructuring them as needed. This is evident, simply because the other avenue, that of more citizens carrying guns, must promote a culture that actually embraces violence. Ultimately,gun control is both a necessary adjustment required for life today, as it is by no means a violation