Teacher/Student Memorandum

            The purpose of the paper is to explore on the two sides of a debatable issue. I would like people to critically think of what is the best for each of us for the topic concerned all of us. It is interesting to really take on a often neglected topic that is of high concern and writing an interesting paper about it. I learned a lot of views and perceptions on the topic.

            It is difficult to write the paper in a way that the readers will not be bored reading or listening on the written work. I try to make the introduction very interesting and made my point, so that people will see my purpose in writing the paper. The paper is very critical in gathering both sides of the issue and at the end taking a stand on the matter at hand. It must be subjected first on critical analysis and criticisms for improvement.

            The paper is lacking somehow of more research that may greatly help the readers in understanding the issue better. I would like readers to have an open mind on things that we have a say but often left on the authorities to decide. In some way, I wish that this will pave way in being vigilant and participating in the society. I want my readers to be also critical in viewing the issue as they hear both sides of the matter.

Imposing Gun Control

Introduction

            It is important that we protect ourselves from the possible harm that other people or animals might cause us. Self-defense is never an issue for people; we all have the right to defend ourselves against wrongdoings that can be committed against us.

            The Americans have always been fond of firearms. In the conventional society, every household keeps a gun for the protection of the members of family. Americans are also born as hunters. The United States holds numerous forests that protect wild flora and fauna. As such, Americans have grown fond of hunting for animals for food and for excitement.

            Recently, there is an alarming increase in the rate of violence involving the use of firearms. Crimes involving guns are increasing in toll. A number of people had fallen victims and were gunned down because of personal grudges. But still, the prevalent use of firearms causes considerable concern for policy makers and established it as a threat in the society.

Guns may be used to protect oneself, but it can also be a strong weapon to hurt others. This is the main point of the argument for imposing a gun control in the public. It has long been debated if gun control can make a difference or not in the society.

Pros and Cons of Gun Control

            Gun control aims to regulate sales and use of guns and other firearms. Gun control is a topic for debate as opposing forces disagree with the provision for regulating the use of firearms. The use of guns may make us feel safer, for we know that we will always be ready whenever we encounter an attack from a burglar or a wild animal. But due to the escalating crime rates involving firearms, policy makers are now looking at the other side of the coin and are considering on imposing control on the use and acquisition or ownership of firearms.

            The Congress debated on the efficacy and constitutionality of the government in control and regulation of ammunitions and firearms. There are numerous federal laws enacted that promote such regulation on guns (Almanac of Policy Issues).

            The gun control advocates claimed that only the federal measures can reduce the availability of guns. They argue that they can watch the access of criminals, juveniles and every individual over firearms. Some people seek to broaden the policy in prohibiting the acquisition and ownership of non-police handguns and strict registration of all firearms and their respective owners (Almanac of Policy Issues). This aims to keep in track of the owners of guns and keep a track record of all the non-police handguns.

            Proponents of gun control said that federal laws can only be effective in the United States. Some states with fewer restrictions and gun control will always be the source of guns that will eventually flow illegally in the restricted states. The Second Amendment to the Constitution 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.” The proponents of gun control believe that the amendment is already obsolete and is only intended to guard oneself against the suppression of state militias by the central government. The right is not absolute, one can be limited under reasonable restrictions and requirements (Almanac of Policy Issues).

            Proponents of the firearms regulation advocated on changing some governing policies on specific types of firearms or components that may appear to be useful in protection against criminals and those types of firearms that may pose risks to the public. Automatic firearms like machine gun, short-barreled rifles and shotguns are subjected to strict restrictions since the inception of gun control (Almanac of Policy Issues).

            Gun control will also ensure that people who do not represent threat on the society will be given license and registration to own firearms. This may require a pertinent background check of a person requesting for license that he or she is not mentally unstable and has not been convicted for any violent crime (McCarthy).

            The motive of gun control is clear, with the enormity of America’s population; most of the members of the society own a gun. This may pose unusual risk in the society. We can never tell when we will trigger people to click on the trigger.

            On the other hand, opponents of the provision for firearms regulation claimed that federal policies will not take away the guns from high-risk individuals. They argue that the law will make it difficult for law-abiding citizens to adhere on the strict laws. The passage of the law is also claimed as an infringement on the constitutional rights of a person as stated in the Second Amendment (Almanac of Policy Issues).

            The opponents of firearms regulation claimed that the gun control does not accomplish its intention and do not serve its purpose. They argue that it is quite difficult to keep track on the acquisition of firearms by the high risk individuals, even under the strict prohibition of federal laws and enforcement. They see the firearm regulatory system will just bring chaos and difficulties for law-abiding citizens may pose greater risks for the civil society (Almanac of Policy Issues).

            The opposition side also said that countries with incredibly low crime rate have nothing to do with gun control. There are other things that may be used as a weapon to hurt other people. Gun control will not be able to lower the existing crime rate that is continually increasing for in the end, it still depends on the judgment of the people if they will commit a crime or not even without the use of a firearm (J.R. Whipple.com).

            Gun control opponents also believed that people are permitted to own a gun for recreational activities only such as hunting and trouble shooting. For them, the need for effective means to defend someone and property should remain as the main priority. Some studies also showed that gun possession lowers the incidence of crime pointing that the criminal and justice system of the United States has not been fully effective in performing their utmost duty in ensuring public safety (Almanac of Policy Issues).

            In the opposition side, greater restrictions will just sicken the public and have difficulty in abiding the laws. It is just like prohibiting liquor drinking but we can see that law is not totally adhered by the public.

Conclusion

            Gun possession has been a big part of Americans. It is considered important and a must in every household as a form for protection against criminals and wild animals. It is also used to hunt animals for food. But due to the increasing crime rates in the contemporary society, policy makers considered imposing a gun control or regulating the use and acquisition of firearms.

            In my personal opinion, gun control is important and necessary not only to ensure public safety but also to reduce such risks in the society. They may say that it will always depend on the judgment of people if he or she will commit a crime, but reducing the possible weapons at hand will also reduce the execution of possible crimes.

            Gun control will render benefits to the public. The strict regulatory measures that will be imposed by the government will pave the way for the captivity of the true criminals since they will be exposed as gun holders. Violence will also be reduced as people will not easily avail and acquire firearms and ammunitions.

Works Cited

Almanac of Policy Issues. 2002. Gun Control. 26 January 2009 <http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/crs_gun_control.shtml>. The article examines the Congress debate on imposing a gun control on the country as it presented the pros and cons of the proposal.

J.R. Whipple.com. n.d. Guns in America, The Facts. 26 January 2009 <http://www.jrwhipple.com/guns/firearm_facts.html>. The article explore on the possible outcomes of gun control as it states the disadvantages of imposing gun control.

McCarthy, Arlene. “Importance of Gun Control”. Liverpool Daily Post. 26 September 2008. 26 January 2009 <http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/letters-to-editor/2008/09/26/importance-of-gun-control-64375-21905059/>. The article shows the advantages of imposing a gun control in minimizing firearm-related crimes.