Gun Control: Pros and Cons
“Laws that forbid owning weapon disarm only those who are not prone to commit crimes. Such laws are bad … for the victims and good for the criminals, because they provoke crimes instead of prevent them. A man without weapon can be attacked more easily that the one who has a gun…”
These words belong to Cesare Beccaria, famous Italian lawyer and philosopher of the XVIII century, one of the founders of modern law. And it is hard to disagree with them, though there are a lot of opponents of this view even in the USA, the most armed country in the world.
Is a citizen with a gun protected more from crime? And can he himself turn into a robber? There are many discussions on this issue all over the world. This question is discussed by countries that allow owning weapon and by those where the only way to protect yourself is your own fists and fast legs. But the most heated debates, which sometimes lead to the court, are in America.
Recently the United States courts of appeals revoke the ban on carrying a handgun in the District of Columbia, the law was adopted in 1976. In such a way the supporters of gun owning strengthen their positions. And now on the streets of Washington and its suburbs it is allowed to carry guns in bags and purses. The fact that saddens opponents of the militarization of society.
Let’s make it clear: no one was going to dispute the citizens’ right on owning weapon, including snub pistols and revolvers in the United States. If someone does it, the most of Americans would judge that person, because they become very irritated when someone tries to restrict their constitutional rights and freedoms.
But supporters of disarmament, who mostly belong to the Democratic Party, act in a very sly way. They do not argue against the second amendment of the Constitution adopted by the Founding Fathers, they try to interpret it in their own way. For example, they claim that the amendment applies only to military, police and militia (civic militia). Or it is not applied to the District of Columbia, because it is not a state. The most important is that they try by any means to forbid carrying firearms.
The things are quite simple: if your gun is in your house, you may not use it outside, where in fact you need it to protect yourself from robbers and rapists. In this case guns become useless and people stop buying them. Why should they do it? To hang it over the fireplace as a decoration? Thus the ban on carrying the firearms automatically nullifies the right on gun owning. For more details and information search for gun control essays, against gun control essays or anti gun control essays.
Anyway there are millions of members of various shooting clubs in the USA. They purchase the weapon, beginning with old musket and ending with the modern automatic guns, just for entertainment. They often go to shooting range with their own guns and some of them have shooting ranges in the yard or in the basement.
To restrict somehow those “shooters” in 1990s democrat Clinton administration imposed a moratorium on the sale of automatic weapons in the country. For 10 years, automatic firearms have disappeared from the shelves of the stores giving place to their non-automatic variants (single shooting guns). Citizens were outraged. So when in 2004 they tried to extend the moratorium, republican deputies simply annulled the law.
Republican government and its leader Jorge Bush is famous by its wars, and in general period when he was the president of the USA is called “Gun thaw”. The gun carrying restrictions were canceled not only on the federal level, but also on local, because every state and even city in the United States has the right to make their own laws and rules.
That is why they have their own “truth and will”, and gun legislation is very various there: for example, gun carrying is allowed in 32 states out of 50. And while in Chicago the most severe restrictions are imposed on the purchase, storage and carrying of firearms, in Kennesaw (GA) local legislation not only does not forbid, but on the contrary requires from the citizens to have at least one gun. Also Kennesaw authorities emphasize that from 1980 to 2000 there was committed only one murder with a firearm in the city.
Firearms carrying supporters
American supporters of the firearms carrying emphasize that in the cities and states where carrying of the handguns and owning of the automatic guns are allowed, the crime rate is much lower than in the “demilitarized” cities and states. Chicago, for example, is one of the leaders in the number of crimes.
At the same time in Washington after the ban of 1976 the level of robberies and murders was increasing twice faster that in the country in general. The same situation was in “against gun” Los-Angeles and New York. While in the “gun” states the level of murders is 33% lower, of robberies is 37% lower. And in the states where gun laws are not very strict, the general situation is getting better. Supporters of gun owning demonstrate Florida as an example: when in 1987 the weapon restriction were canceled, crime has fallen by 21%.
There are also example of other countries. The population of Russia is 2,5 times less that in the USA, but the murders happen 1,5 times more often. Murders own guns without any permission. While law-abiding citizens have to defend with their fists and gas aerosols only.
By the number of murders per 100 thousand people Russia surpasses the United States (the USA – 4,2; Ukraine – 9,4; Russia – 20,1). Despite the fact that Russia has the most strict gun legislation in the world!
So it is hard to disagree that a citizen who carries a gun is a problem for a criminal. As one of the initiators of gun legalization in Italy said: “From now criminals will fear more, and the victims of aggression will have less problems”.
Gun carrying opponents
But the gun control supporters have their own points of view on this issue and they demand to restrict citizens’ access to firearms. First of all, gun storage at home increases the risk of accidents, when gun can be used in quarrels between family members and even in committing a suicide. 58% of deaths from firearms in America is suicides.
Second of all, gun opponents rightly require increasing the efficiency of police work which should not only catch the murders, but also prevent crimes.
And the third argument is the particular mentality qualities of the population. The “coloured” districts of American cities the crime rate is the highest. But in Mormon state Utah it is the lowest. It is not very high in Canada, where gun shooting on the street is really rear phenomenon. But in the countries of the former Soviet Union the level of serious crimes is huge. So the stereotype that people of these countries should not be given firearms is fair enough.