Guns and Violence in US Essay Example

of the largest majorities. This demonstrates the desire of some Americans to maintain gun laws. Despite its failure in the Senate, there is significant public support for the opinion that all gun owners should undergo comprehensive background checks. Gun rights advocates commonly argue that if gun ownership is criminalized, only existing criminals would possess guns.

The assumption is that only individuals deemed 'bad' will possess firearms, while law-abiding or virtuous citizens will face significant disadvantages. Critics have raised various responses to this issue, including questioning who has the authority to determine someone's societal classification as 'good' or 'bad'. The argument maintains that even if innocent civilians, or what some consider 'good' people, have guns, unnecessary crime situations can still arise. This is demonstrated by the prevalence of gun-related crimes in the United States. According to statistics from 2015, there were over two thousand victims of mass shootings, resulting in three hundred and seventy-two deaths and an estimated one thousand eight hundred injuries.

Non-criminals, also known as "good" people in society, are frequently victimized by violent gun owners. This vulnerability highlights the need to consider whether regulating or eliminating guns would be more effective. Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and author, opposes a world without firearms because he believes that those who support this idea fail to understand violence. According to Harris, in a society without guns, the most aggressive individuals would have unrestricted freedom to act as they wish. As a result, even someone armed with a knife could commit rape and murder in front of numerous witnesses while no one intervenes due to feelings of helplessness—similar to the infamous "Kitty Genovese case." This situation raises the question:

could having a gun potentially saved her? Advocates for gun control often imagine worst-case scenarios involving untrained psychopaths randomly shooting into crowds.

Harris suggests that America could benefit from enhanced training, legislation that does not exclusively focus on gun ownership, and improved laws. However, opponents contend that the data reveals an elevated risk of fatality with firearms, regardless of whether they are stored at home or not (Spitzer). The main idea conveyed is that the danger persists. Although guns are created for lethal purposes while knives are not, this does not eliminate knife attacks. Reports of crimes involving knives have been documented both in the United States and globally.

According to Winkler, if women possess firearms, it would equalize the situation when it comes to knife attacks because women are often both the main perpetrators and victims of such assaults. Self-liberty refers to the freedom to willingly harm oneself without interference or judgment from others, including activities like smoking, drinking, or suicide. While some individuals may think that owning a gun would enable their harmful intentions towards themselves or others, it is important to acknowledge that there are still various other ways one can cause harm to oneself. However, having access to guns may not necessarily serve as an additional motivation for doing so. Ultimately, respecting autonomy in a civilized society means recognizing the potential usefulness of firearms for self-defense situations.

When it comes to freedom of speech, individuals have the right to express themselves freely, even if their language is offensive. They should not face legal consequences or mere offense for exercising this right. However, there are concerns about the potential harm that may result from such

expression, which could justify imposing restrictions. If the government starts dictating what is considered acceptable or unacceptable behavior for individuals, it can be seen as acting in a paternalistic manner. This raises concerns because true freedom exists when people have the ability to behave as they wish, even if their actions seem foolish, as long as they are fully expressing themselves.

In an article for the New York Times, Firmin DeBrabander argues that allowing citizens to possess guns undermines individual liberty and poses a significant challenge to freedom - particularly regarding one of democracy's core principles: freedom of speech.

Haerens suggests that the use of guns conflicts with the principles of free speech. Proponents of universal gun ownership argue that it would encourage a respectful society by discouraging threatening behavior. They believe it would lead people to act cautiously and considerate, avoiding any actions or words that may offend others. However, genuine freedom of speech and expression can only flourish if violence is not used as a response, which would be altered entirely with the presence of firearms. DeBrabander invites us to envision how things would have unfolded if the unarmed Zuccotti Park protesters were armed during the police assault.

The situation would be worse, as argued by gun control advocates, if we weaken our ability to arm ourselves, we risk allowing the government to exercise complete tyranny. However, enabling individuals to bear arms would promote individualism rather than fostering a cohesive community that benefits everyone, regardless of their armament status. This stance advocates for granting gun-bearing rights not solely to an elite or select group of trained individuals, but to everyone.

The distrust of the community arises from

the belief of gun control advocates that only select groups, such as the police and army, should have the right to bear arms. This limited access to guns exposes the rest of society to subordination under their control, with the government as their ultimate authority. In Bruce and Wilcox's words, extreme individualism serves power well. This fragmentation of opposing forces makes it easier for a powerful state to establish dominance, rather than promoting liberty against such a state. In 1791, the USA introduced the famous '2nd Amendment' as part of its constitution, granting citizens the right to own firearms. This provision originally aimed to protect against unlawful entry and treason due to a lack of widespread police presence at the time. Allowing unrestricted gun trade to the general public can be seen as aiding criminals, as they are only left with the act of actually committing violence. (Beck, Glenn Balfe and Beck).

Using an automated weapon is unnecessary to intimidate or eliminate an intruder; a basic pistol would suffice. Incidents of groups or gangs burglarizing homes for money are rare. Some argue that if guns are banned, then other activities such as smoking cigarettes, having abortions, consuming soda, and even exercising freedom of speech should also be prohibited. However, the effectiveness of laws depends on people's trust in them. Comparing gun ownership in America to issues like cigarette smoking is irrational. The notion of needing to carry a firearm is outdated and was relevant during the establishment of the rule in the 18th century. Conversely, envision a society where everyone carries a gun; if a robber exhibits a machine gun during a robbery, instead of complying

and surrendering themselves, everyone else draws their own firearms and instructs the robber to yield. This could have resolved the situation.

The main argument is that prohibiting firearms will not effectively reduce or prevent crime. Even if guns were banned, criminals would simply find alternative weapons such as knives, baseball bats, gasoline, or using cars for hit and run incidents. In fact, stabbings and strangulations cause more deaths in America than gunshot wounds. Instead of focusing on banning guns, it is important to prioritize conducting thorough background checks on gun owners to verify their identity, criminal history, mental state, and other crucial factors. Individuals with ill intentions typically do not acquire firearms from police stations, gun shops, gun shows, or places where firearms are legally obtained.

The reason for this is that individuals recognize the importance of having responsible people around to prevent harm. The main point is that even if people are not given firearms, they should still receive training on how to handle them correctly. Guns are essentially tools or machines, and if mishandled or misused, they can cause harm to others. Similarly, a hammer's purpose is to drive nails into objects; if used incorrectly, it can result in injury. Guns should be approached with the same mindset. Without proper training, both myself and others could unintentionally harm others. Some individuals use guns exclusively for hunting and providing food for their families. Prohibiting guns would completely disrupt someone's life as well as the lives of their family members.

The issue in this case does not lie with guns themselves, but rather with the individuals who possess them.

Works cited

1. Beck, Glenn, Kevin Balfe, and Hannah Beck.
   

Control. 2013. Print.

Print.

The text includes two references to gun control. The initial reference is to a book named "Gun Control: A Documentary and Reference Guide" written by an author residing in Westport, Connecticut. This book was published by Greenwood Press in 2009. The second mention is of a book titled "Gunfight" authored by Adam Winkler and published by W.W. Norton & Co. in New York City in 2011.

Print.