There has
been a recent public outcry for stronger debates on gun control policies
brought on by the increasing tragedies of gun related violence in America . Since the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin
many states’ firearm policies, such as those in Florida , have come under fire for allowing such
an incident to take place. The advocates
of stronger gun control laws feel that had there been a tighter grip on
handguns in Florida
this incident and many others like it all across the country may have been
prevented. Opponents argue that in order to prevent incidents like this from
taking place in the future, gun control
laws must be even more lax so that more people will have the ability to posses
firearms, concealed or not.
So the question we are faced with is simple:
- In a
peaceful democracy this day in age, what is the need for citizens to
posses or carry firearms, particularly handguns and assault rifles?
Many
proponents of stricter gun control in America do not see the necessity of any
individual to own or carry assault rifles. The idea that in a supposedly
peaceful democratic country the need for citizens to posses such blatant
symbols of violence is negated by the citizen’s rights as individuals under
that country’s laws. It is a widespread
feeling among liberals that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to
bear arms should not extend past home protection and hunting rights. This being
the case one should not have the need to posses a handgun in public nor should
they have the need to posses assault rifles in general as these weapons are
only used for one thing: killing other human beings. The restriction of these
weapons may prevent crimes of passion, domestic shootings, gang killings and other
crimes usually involving firearms.
Gun rights
advocates translate the Second Amendment slightly differently believing that
the guarantee is extended to them not to protect individuals from each other but
to ensure that the government continues as a democracy out of fear of its
citizens. They of course also advocate
that more lax gun restrictions will serve to protect the more law abiding
citizens from the dangers of an increasing criminal underworld in which gun
control laws have no apparent effect.
The idea being that by tightening its grip around gun control, the
government only serves to restrict the law abiding citizens from owning the
firearms, which only increases the violence from the more unlawful side of
society.
How will
this debate be resolved? As the number of gun related deaths rise in America,
will the gun rights advocates eventually be trumped by the fear of an
increasingly violent society? Or, will the proponents of gun control lose their
battle against the Second Amendment? As it stands this issue is one of the most
polarizing public policy debates in the country and will likely remain so for
many years to come. Together we stand, divided we fall.
No comments:
Post a Comment