A ban on gun ownership What first comes to your mind when you hear the word gun? Do you feel happy, relieved and excited? If yes, then you had better seek help from a psychologist. A gun itself is not dangerous.
It becomes a disastrous weapon when it is carried and misused by human. Gun-related tragedies in the US have always incurred controversy on whether guns should be banned. The recent news titled “Man shot five because of way wife cooked his eggs” demonstrates the urgent need to revise current gun control laws. (Jackson, 2010) The man could use the destructive weapon to shoot whoever he wanted.
If the man didn’t carry a gun but a knife, the casualty would be much reduced as knifes are not as catastrophic as guns. The misuse of firearms can lead to dire consequences and endangers the lives of all citizens. Should the US government remain silent, showing no sign of sympathy towards the victims in these gun cases? Definitely not, the US government should abolish the right of gun ownership immediately. The right of gun ownership in the US was noted in the Second Amendment in 1791. The aim of this law was “to preserve and guarantee the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
(Kleck, 2010) It stated that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, bear arms, shall not be infringed. ” (FindLaw, 1997) From then on, peoples’ right of keeping and bearing arms was protected under the Second Amendment. By keeping arms, people can also defend against tyranny.
Whenever the government is dishonest, they can still protect themselves and fight against the government as to strive for their own right and fabricate a stable and prosperous society. However, the use of guns is counterproductive to the aim in protecting oneself and is mainly used for violence, putting citizen’s life into jeopardy.In April 1999, the Columbine high school massacre, which “resulted in the deaths of 14 students and a teacher”, has reflected on the destructiveness of guns. (OpenSecrets) It was believed that two murderers were psychopaths, heightening the degree of danger when carrying guns. So guns were actually a threat to the security of society as people did not mainly use them in self defense.
“A gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide, criminal assault or homicide, or unintentional shooting death or injury than to be used in a self-defense shooting. (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263). People are suffered from the permission of using guns as the majority uses guns in the sense of violence.
Moreover, from the California Health Interview Surveys in 2001, “5800 adolescents found that the typical California teen was 13 times more likely to be the victim of a gun threat than to have used a gun in self defense” (David, 2009) They are not mature enough to handle guns. But the fact that guns can be easily obtained has triggered the serious injuries of teenagers in California.Having read the news of firearm-related violence and survey conducted by various organizations, firearms are mainly used for violence instead of self defense which should be forbidden as to obey the original intention. Having a free gun control law, teen firearm-related deaths are recorded much higher in the US than in other countries. According to a research on the firearm deaths in 23 high-income countries in 2003, it shows that “87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children. ”(Lippincott, 2010) The death rate is almost 7 times higher than that of the combined 22 other countries.
This is due to the lenient gun law in the US. Children can have easy access to guns that may lead to a huge casualty. Also, though “the rates of assault with knives and with guns are similar, there are five times as many deaths from gun assaults as from knife assaults. ” (Zimring, 1997) Despite using another weapon, death is a more likely outcome if guns are used. So in order to eradicate tragedies, we should ban people from keeping firearms which can certainly reduce the number of deaths. Not only children are harmed by the misuse of guns, vulnerable people also suffer from it.They are more prone to committing suicide when having guns in their home, causing more serious deaths than using other weapons.
A research shows that “keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5”, showing that firearms are a catalyst to agitate vulnerable peoples’ emotion (Kellermann, p. 467, p. Wiebe, p. 771). They are stimulated to have an inclination to commit suicide by the presence of a fatal weapon.
“In the United States between 1965 and 1985, the rate of suicide involving firearms increased 36 percent, whereas the rate of suicide involving other methods remained constant.Among adolescents and young adults, rates of suicide by firearms doubled during the same period (Kellermann p. 467). ” The increase in the suicidal rate was alarming.
People were likely to use firearms as their tools to kill themselves. Having used guns for suicide, “more than 90 percent of suicide attempts with a gun are fatal” (Miller, 2004, p. 626). But with other attempts like drugs and cutting, “only 3 percent of [the attempts] are fatal. ” (Miller, 2004, p. 626) So the victims of suicide are likely to be dead if they use guns. But the chances of death are likely to be slimmer if they use knives or drugs.Therefore, a vulnerable person is more prone to committing suicide when they have easy access to guns, leading to a high gun-related suicide rate and death rate.
Suicide and violence are concerned about a small group of people. As for the collective benefit, people argue that citizens should have their own individual right in possessing a gun in order to prevent tyranny. With the sophisticated technology in the world, are guns effective in fighting against tyranny? Let me take the Iraq War as an example. This is a war between the US and Iraq which broke out in 2001 and ended in 2003.The weapons in this long-lasting war were not like the old days, using guns, swords and cannons. Soldiers in this battle used missiles and bombs for distanced shooting.
And for the ground war, they used battle tanks, armored vehicles and rifles. (Forces) These weapons were all destructive and powerful, killing people in a large scale. How are we supposed to fight against a tank by using a gun? Undoubtedly, guns had their value in the old days.
They were once the most powerful weapons, posing a great deal of threat towards the government.However, guns cannot have a very great influence in a war as there are many new and advanced weapons, like bombs and tanks. They are outdated and rather useless, comparing to the powerful weapons. Therefore, the reason for arming is not valid and applicable to today’s world, as the world is evolving. All in all, gun control issues have long been controversial not only in the US, but also in other countries. Many countries, like Britain, have already started to restrict the law about gun ownership.
Instead of putting your own benefit on the agenda, people should consider collective benefit as a whole.So, the US government should consider banning the use of firearm in order to reduce the suicide rate and number of gun-related deaths. I hope that gun issue can be discussed in a fair-minded and righteous way so as to benefit all US citizens.