Political Ideology on Gun Control

Gun control is a political ideology that is used to advocate for civilian safety. Gun control is a legislated notion of a regulatory and statutory law outlining the correct method of possession, use, and trade of firearms, failure to which, the accused party is met with dire consequences. The United States has a strong gun culture. This stems from its rich history. The development and genesis of America as an independent nation had strong revolutionary roots and a defined future outlook which had an equally strong aspect of frontier expansion. Org). As of 2014, the firearm ownership in the United States exceeded its population. Ownership raged from civilians to law enforcement agencies where the firearm number stood at 371 million with the population being only 319 million.

About 52% of the firearms were handguns. 80% of the revenue for the gun industry from non-military sources was from civilians showing how Americans value gun ownership. The Bill was approved with a 12-0 vote and is waiting to be law. Survey question The survey question I formulated the topic of gun control. The question stemmed from the socio-political ideology that even though guns and all types of firearms can be used for our safety, it is necessary to control their ownership especially when it comes to civilians who have the right to own firearms as per the Second Amendment. The question is, "Should gun rights be regulated like any other constitutional right for the greater good of our safety?" The above question is what I asked within a specific population demographic which was around my community.

The demographic variables for the survey were the gender, the ethnicity and the political affiliation of the individuals. Most of the survey participants were either Democrats or Republicans with one being Independent. Discussion The survey showed that there is a great divide in the opinion of gun control laws and the regulation of gun ownership rights. In all age groups, both genders, all ethnicities and political affiliations, different individuals had different opinions concerning the survey question. This analysis showed that the gender, age, ethnicity and political affiliation might have some effect on the opinion of an individual but this is a small influence. The major consideration comes from an individual's personal experiences whether in the community they live in, the level of education they have and their family background.

Gun control laws would protect women and children from domestic abuse and crime. Gun control laws would protect gun owners who rarely use guns as self-defense but rather arm the attacker. Criminals tend to steal legally own firearms and use them illegally. The presence of firearms raises the risk of a conflict becoming more violent. Gun control laws would limit the occurrence of these instances and also advocate for training and mandatory safety exercise to reduce the number of accidental deaths caused by firearms (ProCon. And there are law enforcement agencies with professionals capable of using firearms safely to protect innocent civilians in the community on a daily basis. The need for civilians to own firearms came from illegal firearms being sold to militia and criminals who terrorize and harm innocent civilians.

People felt the need to own guns for self-defense and to have a sense of safety so that they can protect themselves in the event of an attack. Even if this is true, most civilian gun owners do have the training on gun use and safety and end up causing themselves and their families more harm than good. Moreover, owing guns without knowing how to use them properly gives criminal a higher chance to harm people with their own firearms. I also expected women to agree with the question but a large number were for gun ownership tights to be maintained. These women explained that they should have the right to own firearms to protect themselves and their families against criminals and abuse.

Judicial precedents have been used to interpret the constitution. Colonial history and frontier expansion are some of the reasons behind American pervasive gun culture (Goss 455). Guns were common in American territories where they were used for self-protection and hunting. Later, they were used extensively in American Revolutionary War (1775–1783). In this light, more than 270 million firearms are owned by the US citizens with 39 % of the household possessing at least one gun. In particular, the country has witnessed sixty-two mass shooting between 1982 and 2012. In addition, more than 188 people have lost lives in mass shootings in 2017 (Prestigiacomo). Notably, guns obtained legally were used in forty-nine mass killing out of the sixty-two. In total, 143 guns were owned by the perpetrators of the mass killing with 75% obtained using legal means.

The statistics indicate that gun control laws will not deter criminals from obtaining guns or acting against the law. Moreover, a huge portion of the population believes that holding a gun prevent citizens from being victimized. The leadership of the US governance heftily borrows from the constitution. Self-defense and a sense of safety are rights provided by the constitution, gun control laws infringe on these fundamental rights. The men in uniform are mandated with the role of protecting the citizens, but in some scenarios it difficult for police to protect citizens. A report compiled by the National Rifle Association (NRA), in the US, indicated that guns are used at least 2. Controlling of firearms is not what the country needs, education on safety and use of guns is what we need as a country.

Such precaution will materially lower the incidences of accidental deaths. A huge portion of individuals who own gun believes that a child learning about gun safety is imperative especially in the era of globalization. A more focus on education and regular mental screening will also reduce the cases of massacres (Ben et al. A responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in an accident that entails guns usage, whether at home or in the field. Notably, gun control law might rekindle the issue of racism which has been closely related to gun control and in the process deviate from its main goal. Strict gun control does not work in all cases, for example, Mexico has the strictest gun control in the whole world.

However, despite this strategy, they still record some of the highest numbers of homicides. In 2012, the country recorded 11,309 murder cases this represents 9. 97 homicide per 100,000; the figure is considerably high compared to the United States which recorded 9,136 gun homicides which translates to 2. In addition, the risk of women being killed in domestic disputes has increased to more the 500%. For instance, during the Afghanistan and Iraq war, the US lost 536 soldiers from October of 2010 to Jan of 2015. Similarly, the country lost 6510 women between 2001 and 2012 who were killed by use of a gun by their intimate partner. The statistics indicated that the women who lost their lives, as a result, of domestic disputes, were more compared to soldiers lost in the Gulf war. Furthermore, a study of 23 most populous high-income nations in the US noted that 86% of women killed by a gun in the United States were 11.

Such a strategy may be gender balance if gun laws would be enacted on such grounds. Moreover, gun laws would reduce the level of citizens’ defense having in mind that owning guns has immensely reduced the rate of crime. Similarly, such laws would also infringe on the right and freedom embedded in the constitution which has allowed citizens to own guns for their safety. Therefore, when such acts are enacted they contravene the provision of the constitution. Lastly, gun control is not the best way to reduce death associated with domestic violence; there are better methods of reducing such death such as marriage counseling. " Time, vol.  192, no.  2, 7 Sept.  2018, pp. Blanco, Dennis Vicencio. ” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 98, no. 2, 2017, pp. Hargrove, David S.

This incident, however, brought the transformation of gun control in Australia (Chapman, 2013). Primitive laws were passed in the country to govern weaponry possession as a way of limiting such catastrophic incidences from ever happening again. Basically, this gun control action had a positive outcome in the country as such massive rifle shooting have never been repeated, and the crime rates involving the guns reduced rapidly. With this scenario, America should profoundly emulate the gun control action as it has witnessed a lot live lost for years as a result of firearms. According to statistics in 2012 on human development index; USA records to comprise of 29. Disorder arises from the fact that one feels superior, as the guns give them an added advantage of protection.

This calls for dominance of these individuals in doing as they please which is inclusive of crimes, forceful tweaks, and killings. The loss of these firearms also contributed to the increased rampage of crimes if they fall into the wrong hands. Since guns are untraceable like the phones, the owners tend to acquire a new one while the old one is in possession of another person. This gives the other person a privilege of using the firearm without worries of being held accountable when negatively using the rifle on crimes since they are not registered to it. The eradication of this massive loss, an intervention on saving lives by the government was made to tame this number. The result was to advocate for safer cars, strict safety-belt laws and age limiting to car drivers.

These car safety improvement concepts can also get induced in controlling the real gun violence in the country. The lawmakers can pass on fundamental laws that demand substantial requirements for owning a rifle in America. For example, one should be above the maturity level of 25years and above, with a clean, good conduct sheet and in possession of firearm training. Psychiatrists are trained to help individuals with a disturbed resolution of life and viewing it in a better way thereby reducing death risks. Therefore, doctors' involvement can widely result in less unnecessary of life lost from a gun usage in the country (Swanson, McGinty, Fazel and Mays, 2015). Invest in Smart Gun technology Given the advancement of technology where gadgets such as the existence of smartphones, smart guns can also be induced to reduce guns harm to the public.

In specifics, upgrades on firearms to activate when in the detection of its rightful owner. This is a borrowed concept from the smartphones, where they only allow usage on owners fingerprint or pattern. This can result in more faultiness upon self-defense and more usage by the wrongdoers when they have the lost rifles. In conclusion, the discussed gun control practices can widely solve guns violence status in America without a doubt. However, some more consideration of them should be induced to work out correctly. By borrowing the established car purchase model, limits an unqualified individual in having the rifles. To better this input, the government should better the security system in the country as a way of ensuring that this group does not obtain threats or attacks from attackers.

II) The thesis statement strengthening III) A statement of how the issue is evolving over time. Gun control The conflict over the right to bear weaponries has been going on for so long in the United States. With the enormous differences between advocates and opponents of gun control, it has become one of the most controversial issues in America today. On one hand, proponents of gun control argue that America does not become safer with more guns in the hands of civilians. Additionally, they say that control of firearms will to a great extent reduce the rates of gun violence in the US. Many acts of gun violence involve impulsive confrontations that result in death or severe injury when a gun is readily available.

Lawmakers in America should, therefore, strive to make guns not as readily available to citizens to curb the rates of homicide and crime. With gun violence being one of the leading causes in premature mortality in the United States, there is need to regulate the number of guns in the hands of Americans and as a result, curb premature death in the country. Stricter gun control laws are necessary to curb suicide rates in the United States. Out of the over 30000 firearm deaths in the United States, 62% are suicides (Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis, 1). The high rate of police shootings can be attributed to loose gun laws, supporters of gun control say. In countries where gun laws are stringent and those where ownership of guns by civilians is unheard of, police shootings are sporadic incidences.

In the United States, however, when a police officer stops a suspect, their first thought is that the suspect is armed and that the suspect could be a threat to the police officer’s life. With this thought, any movement of the suspect’s hands is perceived as an effort to reach for a firearm and therefore when the police officer shoots the suspect, it is done to protect the officer’s life. A severe limitation of weapons will help ensure that police officers see suspects as just that and that when they are arresting suspects, they do not fear for their lives. While those opposed to stricter laws claim that the laws that have already been put in place are tough enough, those laws have not done anything to curb gun violence, suicide or police shootings.

This goes to show that existing gun laws are not competent enough in limiting deaths and injuries caused by guns throughout the United States. Following the many years of demonstrations and continued advocacy for gun control, some states in the United States have introduced stricter laws. Nevertheless, tough gun laws that exist in those states have been neutralized by the weak laws in other states which make it easy to transport weaponry into the tough-law states (Spitzer, 7). As gun control advocates argue, the ineffectiveness of the existing regulations is as a result of their weaknesses, and although gun control opponents maintain that the existing rules are already too restrictive, there is the need for stronger and more inclusive federal laws to fix the problem (Spitzer,8).