Last Name 1

Student Name

Name of Professor

Name of Class

Date

Gun Control in United States

Introduction:

Guns give the impression that it has a strange authority over people: most of the times

passion takes over the mind. The journal of criminology and criminal law must be highly praised

for squaring off some of the finest scholars on both sides of the argument over gun control in the

United States. Gun control strategy in the America has sporadically entered the strategy planning

for nearly a century (Lindgren, 712). Though national legislation enacted in the year 1968

emerged to forecast a swing away from a laissez-faire viewpoint on firearms policy, the next half

century has observed a swift boost in the influence of gun control challengers, a rollback of

policies, and the appearance of a personal rights explanation of the Second Amendment.

Upcoming limitations look improbable in the face of political and constitutional limitations, but a

few unpretentious proposals might prove achievable (Lindgren, 715).

While concerns over gun control in the United States have engrossed scholars from

several diverse disciplinary backgrounds, criminal law scholars haven’t been represented very

well in this rising literature. Guns and gun control has not been a significant subject in criminal

law scholarship, although firearms are being utilized in a lot of vicious offenses and the criminal

law is the key method used to control ownership and use of guns in the United States. There are

signs that the less importance of gun control concerns in scholastic criminal law might be

shifting. The constant argument over gun control has created more academic significance in the
 Last Name 2

past ten years as compared to the 20th century in various fields as assorted as public policy,

public health, economics, criminology, and medicine. By looking at the severity of gun control

issue in the United States, very soon the scholars of criminal law will be paying serious

consideration to this gun control issues legislation.

A Legacy of Disregard:

It isn’t clear to me that what the most attention-grabbing question is: explaining why

scholars of United States now pay special consideration to guns control or knowing why the

scholars ignored the part of guns in violent crimes for such a long period. For several years, guns

were a significant part of the realistic world of law enforcement and legislation but not of

criminal law scholarship or theory. Making use of guns in assault and theft was an important part

that provoked the significance of the crime in the majority jurisdictions and frequently invoked a

compulsory minimum sentence (Lindgren, 717).

One of the most important reasons why instrumentalities didn’t emerge big in criminal

law scholarship was the stress on personal acts in legal scrutiny. While the criminologist may

inspect the nature of murder by investigating samples of different objects, the criminal lawyer

reflects on every act alone. In this logic, the cases with which the criminal law deals only by

retail, and the frequent themes and the patterns that appear from the investigation of acts that are

against the law in wholesale numbers will be missed. The industry of the criminal law was

reviewing responsibility, not looking at the risks, and the component of an investigation was the

individual case (Zimring, 282).

Gun control in the United States wasn’t the only issue to go through unjustifiable

obscurity in the scholastic criminal law of former times. There was a time when intoxicated

drivers were the reason for 50% deaths as all sorts of intended murders, acts such as driving
 Last Name 3

while being intoxicated or drunk that risk damage devoid of any intention of doing it were

considered as insignificant to the scholarship of criminal law (Zimring, 287).

The Need of Scholarship on Gun Control:

Will criminal law scholarship reflect the rising interest in guns and hostility in their

scholarship? My presumption is going to be positive on this question, and my grounds relate to

the evident sources of attention to other scholastic fields like criminology and public health.

Mr. Zimring (290) differs with the viewpoints of scholars who read the foreword to the

Amendment as limiting the individual right to carry guns. Take it or leave it, he wrote, the

history shows that the Framers shaped the amendment to permit residents to defend against the

government if required. By this analysis, armed forces denote the entire population, not a formal

army.

Gun Control Laws and the Rights of Citizens:

In the United States, there have been different opinions on the topic of the gun control

where some citizens think that rules and regulations on gun control must be improved whereas

other citizens supported the thought that the guns must be not be banned and there must be no

laws governing gun control in America. The significance of control of firearms laws was

highlighted due to the boost in insecurity whose major aspect is gun violence rose by the citizens

who are owners of firearms. The 2nd amendment permits people to have the right to own guns

and can make use of them for self-protection. As a result, when there are movements against

citizens owing guns, it shows that citizens are trying to overcome the idea that originated the

second amendment (Celinska & Katarzyna, 229). On the other hand, there is an argument that

violent behavior will increase if the guns are going to get banned. Some other types of weapons

that could be utilized to commit a crime and other aspects must be considered in controlling
 Last Name 4

brutality despite impounding guns and implicating other rules that control possession of firearms.

For example, there was a case reported where a juvenile stabbed his class mate with a knife in a

school. He didn't need a firearm for this type of conduct; however, there was a crime in the

school. Furthermore, the citizens denied independence of several activities like hunting. For a lot

of citizens, hunting is a leisure pursuit, and of course, the wild animals hunted by guns. When

gun control rules are applied, it is quite evident that some people are destitute of their interest in

their leisure pursuit. Due to these factors, there mustn't be any laws of gun control, as citizens

must be permitted to own guns at their carefulness (Celinska & Katarzyna, 244).

Several citizens consider that putting a complete ban on firearms would work because

when no one possesses a gun, then no violence related to guns will occur. One instance that

evidently gains the attention is the Prohibition Act of 1920, we witness how good that worked,

and it most definitely did not prevent citizens from drinking. It simply made citizens that would

sell it illegitimately wealthier. Furthermore, what about prohibited drugs, simply because it is

prohibited does not mean that individuals are doing it. Juveniles these days can easily get illicit

drugs. Therefore, putting a complete ban on firearms wouldn't signify that citizens would not

own them (Celinska & Katarzyna, 246).

One statistic that I found in a research paper written by (Collier & Charles, 81), they

state in their research," that cops had been called to the home six or more times prior to the

killings. Certainly, in the majority of the cases in which such killings happen have histories of

violence and abuse in the past years or even decades"(Collier & Charles, 83). This implies that

most killings that occurred aren't just because of the availability of a gun but depicts that why

they did these killings is because history has to repeat itself. Consequently, they are going to kill

with anything they can obtain at the time of the killing. One more question that (Collier &
 Last Name 5

Charles, 85) rose was a lot of vicious acts occur since a firearm was accessible, or was it since

they were going through a moment of anger? Only approach to discover is to understand the

psychology of the murderers. "Information like this doesn't support conclusions regarding

motivations of homicides or regarding the amount of killing that may be prevented if there were

fewer guns"(Collier & Charles, 86).

Every day it has been argued that strict laws on gun control would facilitate in decreasing

the rate of crimes. Though, previous research has shown that strict laws on gun control have the

contradictory influence. New York City approved a shotgun and rifle registration law in 1970

(Boylan, 17). Following the approval of the law, there was a subsequent rise in the crime rate of

New York City. In 1976, Washington DC passed a gun ban, and after that, the rate of murders

rose by 150% in Washington DC (Boylan, 19). A report from 1994 demonstrated that 302 of

city's 310 firearm murders were committed with small arms although the local government had

put a ban on all sorts of gums (Boylan, 23). However at the moment, the rate of murders in

Washington DC is a lot more than the countrywide rate at 75 per 100,000; though, the

nationwide rate is merely 10 per 10,000 (Boylan, 24). Texas also has a murder rate which is 40%

more than the other states of United States--although in 1989 the state put a ban on guns (Boylan,

19). In South Carolina, vicious crime increased more than 100% following the limitations on the

trade of firearms to 1 per individual on a monthly basis (Boylan, 26).

One more concern of gun control is whether the citizens have the right to carry a

concealed weapon? By interpreting the essay by Swasey, I established that several state

administrations support the right of the citizens to utilize a gun to protect her or himself at home

(Farchaus Stein, 8). However, does anybody else think that home is the only place where one

will want protection? What if you were in the similar circumstances as Suzanna in the cafe? Isn't
 Last Name 6

it that you would like to have the right to possess a hidden handgun? "Florida passed a concealed

carry law in 1987. Prior to the law, the homicide rate in Florida was only 12 for every hundred

thousand crimes. During 1991, it decreased down from 21 percent to 10 per 100,000"(Farchaus

Stein, 9). After looking at these stats, it shows that guns kill more people due to murder than they

do trying to protect themselves or somebody else's life. I believe that previous research signifies

that there are numerous unwise people on the planet but if I were in a dreadful position I would

simply pray to God that I would have a pistol and anybody that says unlike would have to spend

the rest of their life knowing that they could have changed the situation but didn't.

Second Amendment:

The majority Americans adhere to the second amendment that permits residents of the

state to carry concealed weapons anywhere they go for their protection. The majority of the

citizens also think that the second amendment was positioned so that the residents would be

protected from the oppressive government that appeared to keep citizens in fear. Residents would

have the authority to rise if the government is going to introduce tyrannical strategies for the

citizens of their country. Though this wasn't the core objective why citizens were provided guns;

it served as an intention as the supremacy of the government would be regulated in a manner that

the citizens are going to be provided with a chance to create their personal viewpoints and

furthermore be granted a say in the government. This is due to the authority they were supposed

to have following the rules that allowed possessing guns (Stell, 38).

The second amendment declares that the legal entitlement of people to have possession of

their firearms should not be violated in any way. The phrase well-regulated militia is quoted in

the amendment; this refers to the unit of citizens that function in a similar way as that of an army.

For the security and protection of a free state, the amendment describes it as an essential
 Last Name 7

requirement. The meaning of this phrase is that the aims and concerns of the citizen army will be

fulfilled by the groups by being in the front line. Protection of the government from overseas

involvement and best interests of the country is the core aim of this citizen army. The citizen

army is obligated in the last part of the amendment to keep their guns for the security of

America. The core purpose of the introduction of the second amendment is being assumed when

the gun control laws begin to be put forward. This means that the citizen army would be rid of

their power and solely military would be left to protect the country (Stell, 42).

The controlling of slaves in the south was also the reason that the second amendment was

created. Arms would make the controlling of slaves relatively easy. Consequently, the state

militia was given the authorization and obligation to keep firearms to control the slaves. The

rebellions in the country were also one of the causes of the creation of the second amendment.

For instance, the amendment was reversed as a result of the whiskey rebellion to control the

militia in aiding to stop the rebellion. The farmers rebelled as the government introduced a new

tax. At the time when the amendment was drawn up, the possibility of rebels was not created by

the government. Nevertheless, at times when the government couldn't meet the necessities of its

citizen or worked in a way that was perceived as selfish by the people, these rebellions would

sprout up all over the country. The democratic right in a state exists because of these rebellions

because the government fully acknowledges the power within the people. Revolts and protests in

the fight for human rights and freedom wouldn't have been a possibility in the USA if such

power wasn't given to the people. The people will lose the control and voice that they previously

possessed if gun laws are imposed; this is seen as a way of restricting the freedom in the USA

(Stell, 44).
 Last Name 8

Prediction:

I have a firm belief in the notion that if things aren't used carefully they can prove to be

quite dangerous, like scissors, cars or heavy machinery, but my question is, why aren't these

things the major causes of murder? One answer that I could come up with is that the people

realize the importance of these things and are well aware of the problem they are going to face if

these get banned by the Government. People are well aware of how to use these things safely and

as a result know how to keep themselves away from harm's way during their use. Firearms are a

part of countless people's everyday life. Due to the fact that a lot of people own firearms, these

can sometimes make their way into wrong hands like children. If children are taught early on not

to play with firearms or point it at themselves or other, or if the parents can ensure that the

firearms aren't loaded, accidents and unwanted killings wouldn't happen. If children are taught to

respect the firearms they will grow up to become relatively more responsible gun owners.

Conclusion:

Firearms laws are seen not to work in any way. This refers to all the previous legislation

that was passed in the hopes that the gun violation would cease to exist or it would be able to

regulate it. For example, during 1994 - 2004 a law existed that didn't allow the citizens to carry

firearms. It badly failed as the firearms violence didn't reduce. This proves that there is no link

between the arms violence and the imposing of a ban on carrying of firearms in the USA, as

there are a lot of contributing factors that should be looked into by a country if it wants to control

arm violence (Lancet, 200). The legislation had plenty of flaws, or I should say loopholes, which

were spotted by the criminals and enabled them to keep the guns and use it in a wrong way.
 Last Name 9

Mental illnesses and drug abuse are the factors that are more pressing reasons for the arms

violence. Violence is going to keep climbing as long as the Government is more focused on the

seizing of arms, it will eventually lose its track, and there will be no control over the issue. The

government should direct its resources and focus on other solutions and only when the other

measures start to work it should then focus on arms control.

Hence, the importance of enabling people to hold arms and the reason why arms

legislation shouldn't be put into effect has been clearly and openly pointed out. If the

Government adopts other measures to control arms violence, it would be essential for the safety

and protection of the state. Arms legislation and arms violence are proved to have a negative co-

relativity by the US researchers. Nevertheless, when the government starts researching into other

solutions like rehabilitating people with drug abuse history and mental illnesses, a long term

solution would be found for the citizens and arms violence rates are going to go down since

mental illness and drug abuse is positively correlated to arms violence.

 Last Name 10

Works Cited

Boylan, Michael. “Gun Control in the United States: Ethical Perspectives for the Twenty-First

Century.” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 408. (2003): 17–27. Web.

Celinska, Katarzyna. “Individualism and Collectivism in America: The Case of Gun Ownership

and Attitudes toward Gun Control.” Sociological Perspectives 50.2 (2007): 229–247.

Web.

Collier, Charles W. “Gun Control in America: An Autopsy Report.” Dissent 60.3 (2013): 81–86.

Web.

Farchaus Stein, K. “An Unanticipated Journey: Barriers to Effective Gun Control in the United

States.” Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association 19.1 (2013): 8–9. Web.

Lindgren, James. “The Past and Future of Guns.” Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology 104.4 (2015): 712–717. Print.

Lancet, The. “Gun Violence in America: A National Crisis.” The Lancet 387.10015 (2016): 200.

Web.

Stell, Lance K. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the

Solution?” The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32.1 (2004): 38–46. Web.

Zimring, Franklin. “Reflections on Firearms and the Criminal Law.” Journal of Criminal Law

and Criminology 86.1 (1995): 280–296. Print.