According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997. The statistics show the bigger picture from each Side of the argument. The pro argument is that gun control will save lives. The con of the argument is that gun controls will not save lives. The evaluation of ethical, moral, and legal issues is identified in relation to gun controls. The team identifies the more persuasive argument along with a reflection of team consensus.
The weaker and stronger arguments are established to determine the awareness of gun control and allow audience to make an educated decision on choosing which argument to side with. Tighter gun control laws are not a guarantee that lives will be saved. As mentioned earlier, Washington, DC. And the United Kingdom adopted stringent gun control laws and it literally increased crime. If laws become too tough to handle, people will work their way around the laws. Owning or not owning a gun will not make people less susceptible to experiencing crime.
In 2010, across four counties, 444 domestic homicides relating to guns were recorded. In only eight of these instances, the gun involved had been kept in the home. Furthermore, the instances when the UN in the home had been used, it is safe to say that it was used in self- defense. Most homicide victims are killed by weapons carried by the intruder (Lott, pig. 26, 2010). “In reality, the English approach has not reduced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them.
Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States” (Malcolm, 2002). This simply states that criminals believe it to be a free-for-all because they know that they will have no obstructions. Why not break into a mom or business; even if there is someone there, he or she will not have the means to even attempt to protect themselves. Even if guns are not available, people who want to commit a crime will find another tool to do so (Skates & Amuser, 2007). If a person is in that state-of-mind to perform an act of violence, they do not need a gun.
They just need whatever is readily available. Just think of how many crimes where kitchen knives are used. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Even if it is not a gun, it will be another tool. In 2003, the Center for Disease Control did a report on the efficacy of firearm ND ammunition bans. The report concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed in regard to violent outcomes (Levy, 2008).
Guns are simply too accessible that can lead to more deaths. Society has free reign on acquiring guns for personal use. Many guns start out legal and end up in criminal hands. An article posted on the National Rifle Association’s website stated, “Since 1 991, the number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million. Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame alone” (NEAR). With the rising number of weapons purchases, a citizen cannot help but speculate how all of these firearms were acquired.
Another article posted on the Nark’s website stated, “FORAY made clear no license is required to make occasional sales, exchanges or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby,” or to “[sell] all or part of [a] personal collection of firearms”” (NEAR). The article simply states that a member of society can obtain a gun without going through a criminal background check or registering the gun. A third article from the Nark’s website quoted, “According to the Government Accountability Office, over the past five years people on the terrorist watch list bought guns or explosives more than 850 times” (NEAR).
If a person has been suspected enough to make a suspected terrorist list, he or she should not be allowed to acquire a gun. The country needs tougher laws to help impede terrorist, criminals, or people in general, from acquiring guns without going through a thorough background check and registering the gun. This cannot only make a safer environment but also will hold people accountable for their weapons and their intentions with them. In regards to the statistics of gun-related deaths, we need to consider how fast paced the trend of gun ownership is increasing in the United States.
One article states that “Gun sales actually increased at a faster pace than the increase in the U. S. Population” (NEAR). So we are buying guns faster than we are having children. The Center for Disease Control Department Of Injury Prevention and Control Data & Statistics, tracks all of this information. According to the CDC, the number of total Deaths from guns in 2007 was “31 ,224 with a population of 301 ,579,895” (CDC). They also state that, “In 2007, 5,764 young people ages 10 to 24 were ordered-?an average of 16 each day’ (CDC, AAA).
Among homicide victims ages 10 to 24 years-old, 84% were killed with a firearm” (CDC, AAA). It is obvious that 84% of homicide deaths, of those 1 0-rays of age, involved firearms. Stricter laws need to be enforced to help cut back on the number of deaths involving firearms. The Brady campaign is a huge advocate for passing stronger gun laws to help prevent deaths. They quoted, “In its June 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the U. S. Supreme Court; reaffirmed that the Second Amendment right allows for reasonable gun laws” (BC). They re fully aware that the Second Amendment is there.
No one is asking for laws that completely ban firearms. There just needs to be laws that ensure that weapons are acquired honestly by law-abiding citizens, and registered to keep people accountable for their firearms. These, by definition, are reasonable gun laws. Another thing to consider is that there were several sites, including the NEAR, which stated the number of gun-related crimes has dropped significantly over the past several years. In regard to stronger gun laws, special considerations need to be made to ensure adherence to ethical, oral and legal issues.
It is a given that people will always jump back to the Bill of Rights, particularly the Second Amendment when referencing the right to bear arms. All cases that come up have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Everyone has different ethical, moral, and legal standards, especially if they come from different countries. This inherent diversity is what makes America the melting pot, and it is our duty to hear both sides of the story. Ethical arguments will usually fall on the anti-gun side. The ethical argument boils down to the “Harm Theory’, which simply states that it is obvious that omen can do more harm with a gun than without one.
With this theory in mind, the ethical thing to do would be restrict gun ownership. Considering our morality, it is hard for an individual to certify whether or not another individual has the right to own a gun. This is why directives have to be put into motion to address who can legally own a gun. Furthermore, it should not be on one individual’s shoulders to either accept or deny a gun ownership claim; it should be a collective consensus from a group that has looked at the individuals past and possible wrongdoings. Basic human morals of preserving unman life should be the top of any ethical debate.
Only a courtroom can declare whether or not the passing of these laws will indeed save lives. Firearms have been a part of the United States for hundreds of years and are use for both good and bad. Firearms are used for good when used for security within a home or business through obtaining legal permits to have a firearm. Firearms are used for bad when the firearms does harm to an individual. Currently, many rules are in place to try to keep the guns out of the hands of people who have been declared a danger to themselves or others. Different states require extensive background checks before issue a permit to obtain a gun.
Unfortunately, there is no way to keep criminals from obtaining guns and using them in crimes. Thus criminals can obtain a gun on the black market which usually is a illegal firearm. Illegal firearm meaning, stolen. Tighter guns laws will not accomplish this, especially considering the number of firearms used in crimes that started out with a legal purchase and found a way into the hands of the criminals that used them. If someone really wants a firearm they will do what they have to obtain one. Thus gun controls as no variance in obtaining a gun.
When considering whether or not tighter gun control laws will save lives, both sides can make solid arguments. Guns are used in murders and suicides every day, and the argument that tighter controls on guns would prevent just does not hold water. What the debate boils down to is that people who want to kill (either another person or commit suicide) do not decide to do so because they have a gun. The decision is made regardless of the ownership of a gun, and if there were no guns present the person would just find alternate means of committing the act of violence.
The argument in favor of tighter gun control laws is usually an appeal to emotions. The statistics are presented with the intention of getting the audience to feel pity and feel that “something has to be done. ” This emotion usually leads the audience to attack common denominator of the deaths and that is the firearm. The second emotional argument is the amount of harm someone can do with a gun versus the amount done without a gun. This is purely an emotional argument as well. The same could be said about hammers, a perpetrator can do more damage with a hammer than without one. Should we consider tighter laws on hammers?