Gun Ownership Debate in the United States

Introduction

The yearly death rates contributed by firearms in the United States are about 32,000, and these rates are still rising at an alarming rate. The trend is taking place even though the general rate of crime in the country has reduced by 40 percent from that of the 1980s. The situation should qualify for intervention by the United Nations and other international bodies.

Each state in the United States implements an arms control policy. Some of the states have strict policies than others. However, despite all these, the crime rates and deaths contributed to by firearms are still rising. Even though most people advocate for gun ownership for self-defense, the statistics on the rates of crimes that gun ownership has contributed is worrying. The paper cites various grounds why the USA ought to ban guns.

The Main Body

In the USA, the debate on gun ownership has been propelled by the worrying rates of crimes and insecurity. In fact, people have different opinions on whether guns should be banned or not (Kirszner and Mandell 354). In this paper, it appears that the USA should ban guns. The usage of guns should be banned in the United States based on its contribution to the rise in the rate of crime. Many people justify the ownership of guns for self-defense, but statistics show many cases of irresponsible usage of guns that result in the killing of spouses, children, and even suicidal cases. In most cases, children have always found guns that are not properly kept by their parents (Wuest 44). As a result, they mistakenly kill or wound themselves or others using both registered and unregistered firearms. The Centre for Disease Control has statistics showing that more than two-thirds of homicide cases in the United States involve guns (Martelle 5).

On the other hand, there are more than two million instances yearly in which guns are used for self-defense (Kirszner and Mandell 354). The occurrences, however, have led to many cases of attempted crimes that in the process lead to complicated investigations by the police. If the American civilians were not in possession of such reported guns, the investigations by the police would have been very easy. In fact, the crime investigation department should not involve civilians, but the exercise should be left to the police or investigative forces that are better equipped and trained to carry out the processes.

In most cases, the legalization of gun ownership promotes criminal migration. There are high rates of violent crimes in states with tough laws against the usage of guns as reported in Washington. In fact, such a scenario occurs based on the fact that criminals migrate from areas that are more lenient on gun usage like Virginia where the households are in possession of guns and can defend themselves. The migration patterns end in areas where most citizens are mostly unarmed and helpless. Such cases adversely affect areas with tough arms control policies. A universal ban on firearms must be implemented in all states found in the USA.

Reports indicate that drug dealers and inner city gangs carry out high rates of violent crimes involving guns. The reported cases occur in areas that are geographically small while the groups occupying such areas seem restricted. The crime rates usually rise at times when wars occur due to changes in drug wars. Thus, to control such cases, the possession of firearms should be denied to all law-abiding citizens.

The American citizens reported to be of female gender should be assured of police protection from cases of murder, assault, or rape. The group will then be forced not to own guns to protect themselves. The police will have all the tasks related to the investigation of crimes and the preparation of paperwork to ensure security. If security is guaranteed to all Americans and foreigners, there will be hardly any grounds cited for gun ownership (Hasselstrom 356).

Most of those in possession of guns do not show respect to the authorities. Good citizenship entails reliance and respecting the authorities. Those who are disrespectful develop attitudes of excess independence and improper conducts including questioning several actions taken by the authorities. The occurrence leads to a breakdown in the orders set in place by the authorities. The resulting effect is a complete failure to depend on and trust the authorities that give a bad message to the younger generation (Gold par. 3-5).

The owners of guns in several instances take the law into their hands. The task should be completely left to the law enforcement agencies. Taking the law into one’s hands is considered criminal, and law-abiding citizens should not engage in such acts. To ensure that individuals do not break up the laws, they should be denied the ownership of the guns. Such restrictions ensure that nobody is threatened, and everyone is at peace. Besides, guns should be banned founded on the fact that once an item is illegalized, it becomes impossible to own it. The case has been proven on many occasions, and there is a high probability that it would also apply in the gun case. When nobody owns a gun, none would be a threat to another.

The states with tough restrictions on the usage of guns have seen high decreases in the cases of crime. Reports show evidence in states like Washington D.C. and Chicago. The cases of gun violence are almost non-existent, and those that occur are just based on the fact that there is no nationwide ban on guns. That is what has allowed some of the guns to trickle into the states.

There are also cases of misuse of guns by those who do not have the knowledge on how to use them. Some of these usually lead to accidental deaths or wounding of the person using the firearm or those around them. Gun ownership and usage should be a reserve of the law agencies that have personnel with the required training and expertise to use the firearms. Mass murder will also become a past tense once tough laws are passed on gun ownership. There have been several cases of mass shootings using assault guns. If guns are banned, individuals will not be able to get the assault weapons hence a solution to mass shootings would have been found (Mike 2).

Conclusion

The laws to be implemented on banning guns could allow hunters to own shotguns or riffles in cases where the states allow them to hunt. However, guns and their owners have to be registered, and a course set up for individuals to go through and pass before being allowed to own such guns or given the license for hunting. Such individuals would need the license to acquire a gun for hunting. The resale of guns and the purchase of ammunition should also be monitored to ensure that people not qualified do not access or use the weapons.

The use of assault weapons, handguns, and other types of firearms should be banned to ensure that the rate crime reduces. There are no major ethical reasons for owning such weapons, and their existence is mainly for one purpose, which is killing. The case is unacceptable and suicidal. Thus, measures have to be found to try to fix the situation.

Works Cited

Gold, Bruce. Ten Reasons to Ban Guns. Web.

Hasselstrom, Linda. A Peaceful Woman Explains Why She Carries A Gun. New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 2014. Print.

Kirszner, Laurie and P. Mandell. Patterns for College Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide. USA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. Print.

Martelle, Scott. “You Say Gun Control Doesn’t Work? Fine. Let’s Ban Guns Altogether”. Los Angeles Times, 2014: 5-6. Print.

Mike, Liberal. “Top 5 Reasons to Ban Guns Nationwide”. Addicting If No, 2014: 1-2. Print.

Wuest, Michael. The Great American Gun Control Debate (Not!). Oviedo, Florida: AuthorHouse, 2010. Print.