Question in concerning gun violence: Should we bark at the rock, or the person who threw the rock?
If firearms increase domestic violence, does that mean firearms could increase street violence too? If these two ideas correlate with the ownership of firearms, what then could be said about police possessing fire arms? These are valid points that should be studied, but the discussion of removing firearms from lawful peoples to reduce crime should not ever become a validated argument. The reason lies in natural law and the constitutions. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States state that the right of the people to possess and carry fire arms will not be perpetrated against it (2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 1791). This issue raises too many questions, but it does not affect the real issue at hand. The issue at hand is criminal behavior, not fire arms. The focus of the legislators should not be how to control fire arms and violate the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, but how to reduce criminal behavior overall.
Will firearm laws decrease their use by criminals? The answer to this question has to be a no. No, laws will not decrease the use of fire arms by criminals because the criminals are the ones that illegally traffic weapons in and out of the states of the union (Mehalko, 2012). According to Mehalko (2012), drug trafficking activities inside and outside the states of the union rely on the export and import of weapons. In addition, the need for the drug business in the states of the union have triggered a need for more weapons by the drug cartels in Mexico and other South American countries (Mehalko, 2012). According to Mehalko (2012) these cartels need the illegal weapons to protect their interest (drugs) and their businesses in the states of then union. It seems the war against drugs would be over by now if not for the illegal weapons trafficking. These facts support the need to regulate the manufacturers and distributors in the states of the union, not to fringe on people’s right to bear fire arms for their own defense.
The other arguments against fire arms have been in relation to the irregular occasion where a hunter or sportsman shoots a bystander (Sunday Evening Post, 1960). People with ludicrous ideas fed by hysteria encompass those who have pushed the emotional buttons of legislators. These ideas then become unreasonable bills on the federal senate floor, only to become a historic attempt to destroy a natural right imposed against the government through an amendment to their pact (constitutions) (Sunday Evening Post, 1960). Illusions of controlling crime and accidental shooting have caved in numerous times, but that has not stopped the communist and socialist groups from having their voice heard.
According to the Sunday Evening Post (1960) the problem arisen against firearm possession correlates with the overpopulation of metropolitan areas. It seems sportsmen neglectfully practice shooting in their experimental-shooting venues where it would be otherwise illegal or dangerous to others. Their need to satiate the need to pull triggers have in-fact become valid arguments with which legislators have armed themselves with to either dispose of the 2nd Amendment or legislate firearm control laws (Sunday Evening Post, 1960). However, the statistics do not support these legislators or public outcry for more control because usually automobile deaths, fatal falls outnumber the fatalities by fire arms (Sunday Evening Post, 1960). The statistics may have changed drastically since 1960, because of newer weapons allowed into the firearm market. However, the problem may not be newer weapons or more powerful weapons, but the facility in which people acquire them.
After the Columbine, Colorado incident in 1999, where a couple of minor-aged children had acquired or stolen certain weapons from one of their parents and had shot numerous other children, legislators have since recognized the well-defended ambiguous rule of no federal background checks at gun shows across the states of the union (Goldberg, 2012). According to Goldberg (2012), gun control activist had thought they had a reasonable opportunity to push for legislation controlling gun shows. The new laws would have forced the gun shows to conduct federal background checks on individuals purchasing guns (Goldberg, 2012). However, the contra-argument existed and stopped the bills. The fact that the Columbine child criminals wanted to hurt someone would not have stopped them from acquiring the necessary weapons to do their bidding (Goldberg, 2012). The opportunity for people to attend gun shows across America and purchase fire arms could not be infringed. According to Goldberg (2012) the statistics in 2010 showed that about 30,000 deaths in America occurred from fire arms, and “more than half of those” fatalities were suicides with fire arms (p. 70). Even this statistic is reveling and could instill the need for stricter firearm possession laws, but not their removal.
Other measures to of control should be implemented without the removal of fire arms from law abiding people because it is not the firearm that is the overall problem in society, but criminal mindset. According to Zigmond (2013) mentally ill individuals have been behind the trigger of most recent massacres – 23-year-old Seung-Hui Cho who shot others on the Virginia Tech University campus in 2007. Mental health services should be part of these gun control laws as a remedial element in the fight against gun related incidents (Zigmond, 2013). According to Flannery (2011), gun shows sell the most of their stocked guns when the media or the government starts discussing gun control law legislation. Perhaps a possible firearm control measure is not to put emphasis on what does not contribute to the initial element of gun related crimes, but what precedes the use of a firearm in a crime – behavior.
In conclusion, firearm laws should not be aimed at removing fire arms from the hands of the people, but at the gun distribution points. Manufactures and distributors of guns should be regulated further because it seems that most of the guns used in the so-called war against illegal drugs pass from the states of the union to other countries (Mehalko, 2012). According to Goldberg (2012), stricter methods of firearm control could be forcing gun shows to do federal background checks. This measure could expose criminals. In addition, prolonging the acquisition of fire arms so as to help the suicidal-thinking individuals have more time to think about what he is about to do with the weapon (Goldberg, 2012). The possession of fire arms via gun shows breads a haven for those individuals who have records and that should not possess fire arms at all (Ngcobo, 2011). Reasonable measure can be implemented where life can be protected from falling prey to immature, criminal minded individuals with fire arms. While these reasonable measures can help the suicidal-minded individual more time to seek help, or restrict negligent individuals from possessing guns and allowing others to be hurt, it might be impossible to control criminals from ever getting their hands on fire arms. The effort of disarming would have to be a global effort, where the manufacturing and distributing companies would be hurt – total closure of these corporations, globally. However, the measure of disarming would have to occur at the law enforcement level too or not at all.
2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (1791). Retrieved February 17, 2013, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment
Flannery, W. (2011). Talk of gun control spurs fire arms sales.
Goldberg, J. (2012). The case for more guns (and more gun control).
Mehalko, L. (2012). This is gun country: The international implications of U.S. gun control policy. Boston College International & Comparative Law Review: Boston, MA
Ngcobo, S. (2011). Fire arms increase domestic violence.
Sunday Evening Post (1960). Gun laws shouldn’t be aimed wildly at all sportsmen.
Zigmond, J. (2013). We’re not doing enough: Advocates want more from gun control plan.