GunControl Laws can Reduce Armed Attacks in the U.S.

Gunpolitics remains a controversial issue in the US and around manydeveloped nations. The US has recently witnessed grave misuse offirearms leading to the killing of innocent people. Orlando nightclubshooting and Dallas massacre are among the recent incidences thathave raised the debate on the need for gun control measures. TheSecond Amendment to the American Constitution gave the citizens theright to bear firearms. Although the intention of the drafters waslimited to the government’s use of force against the citizens,recent actions have raised the debate on the need to control thepossession of guns. The country lacks appropriate gun control lawsespecially in the recent social environment where many people aremisusing their weapons. Guncontrol laws in the U.S. are necessary because they hinder criminalmaneuvers by making it hard to access firearms.

Accordingto Agresti and Smith (2016), United States has a population of 307million people. Moreover, the research provides that, as of 2010,civilians owned approximately 300 million firearms. Moreover, thestatistics indicate that about 42% of the homes in U.S. own firearms(Agresti and Smith). For a long time, the liberals have beenadvocating for enactment of stricter gun policies with the intentionof minimizing gun attacks. Nonetheless, the National RifleAssociation and other pro-gun organizations fiercely contest theestablishment of stringent control systems. The advocates claim thatenacting regulations that would restrict civilians from owning gunswould be making the population more vulnerable to terror attacks.They also contend that gun control policies are inadequate topreventing the occasional attacks that occur in the United Statesplus, a good person who is armed can help to thwart a potentialterror attack. Nevertheless, the reasoning applied by a majority ofthe liberals lacks reliable facts.

DonaldTrump, the incumbent Republican’s presidential nominee, observedthat it could have been possible for the civilians to contain therecent Orlando nightclub massacre. He reasoned that if there werearmed patrons in pulse, one of them could have easily shot theattacker (DeFilippis and Hughes). However, the candidate’s proposalwas hypothetical because there was an armed police officer whoexchanged fire with the gunman unsuccessfully. The National GunVictims Action Council conducted an empirical research that involvedarmed civilians with different level of gun use skills in situationswhere they were supposed to defend themselves. The study discoveredthat civilians faired worse than the police officers did whenresponding to hostile crises. For instance, most of them killedinnocent victims while the others were shot in the confrontation. Thelikelihood of armed civilians thwarting such a crisis is also next toimpossible because they are unprepared for war. A majority would mostlikely be too drunk to shoot perfectly. Consequently, making it hardto purchase a rifle would be the best strategy to thwart terrorattacks.

Proponentsof guns rights observe that the Oregon College mass shooting incidentserves as evidence that gun free zones are dangerous. The incidentresulted in the shooting and death of nine people, including, thegunman. They also argue that gun free zones have a high potential formass shooting since assassins are aware that there is no one to stopthem. The National Rifle Association backed the argument regions aredangerous since when everyone has no access to a gun, the civilianscan conveniently disarm him or her. Furthermore, the civilians arepoorly trained in using guns therefore, they rampant gun use couldresult in higher casualties. Furthermore, therelacks a national training program on the use of guns. The fewexisting programs are insufficient to ensure that the guns are usedsafely. Training all the citizens is an expensive undertaking, andthere is no guarantee that guns would not be fired accidentally or inpassionate moments (Phillips).

RobertSpitzer, an author, and renowned political professor contends thatweak gun control laws enhance the vulnerability to terror attacks. Heuses an example of Florida’s relaxed gun policies to demonstratethat it was easy for Omar Mateen to purchase assault weapons despitehaving a questionable background. For instance, he had declared hisallegiance to Islamic State (Spitzer). Furthermore, he had a historyof abusing his wife as well as hot temper. The professor points outthat Mateen’s personality would have disqualified him fromacquiring a gun permit in states that have tough gun laws such as theNew York. In fact, he adds that the attacker’s explosive temper andwife-abuse information does not need to have reached a criminal levelin the New York state for the authorities to deny him the permit toown firearms. He recommends that other states should also implementstrict gun laws, including, detailed background checks of theapplicants to avoid instances of gun bloodbaths in the United States(Spitzer).

MichaelDePinto, an American pro-gun crusader, provides that backgroundchecks on gun owners do little to stop attackers. As such, hedismisses the possibility of strict gun laws reducing criminalactivities and terror attacks in the United States (DePinto).Nevertheless, DeFilippis and Hughes disagree with DePinto’sassertion. They use the findings of a study, which discovered thatextremists have resolved to use guns in their assaults because it isnow hard to acquire bombs or materials for constructing one.Furthermore, the law enforcement can now trace people who havepurchased bomb-making materials more conveniently than in the past.If similar policies can be implemented concerning guns, criminalactivities can decrease drastically as the law enforcers caneffortlessly track and put a stop to potential aggressions in time(DeFilippis and Hughes).

Inconclusion, the Second Amendment to the American Constitution gavecitizens the right to bear firearms. However, the policy has beenwidely abused as it facilitates terror groups and radicalized peopleto access guns easily. The outcome of the policy has been heateddebate between pro-gun crusaders and the liberals. The latteradvocates that the USA should enact stringent gun laws that willprevent ‘bad guys’ from accessing weapons that they in turn usein wreaking havoc to civilians. On the contrary, pro-gun campaigners,such as Donald Trump, recommends flexible laws on gun ownership. Hereasons that if several civilians own guns, they can easily defendthemselves when ‘bad guys’ attack them. unfortunately, a study bythe National Gun Victims Action Council reveals that gun ownership bycivilians does not help much in addressing the matter due to lack ofskills and fear. Criminal elements use firearms to commit heinouscrimes such as robbery, violent assaults, and rape instead ofsupplementing the government’s effort in securing the countrytherefore, enacting strict gun laws is the best approach to surpassarmed attacks in the U.S.


Agresti,James D. &amp Smith, Reid K. “Gun Control Facts.” JustFacts.13 June 2016. Web. 9 July 2016. &

DeFilippis,Evan and Devin Hughes. “5 Arguments Against Gun Control — And WhyThey Are All Wrong.” LosAngeles Times.8 July 2016. Web.9 July 2016. &lt

DePinto,Michael. “Six Facts That Disprove Everything Liberals Say About GunControl.” DC Clothesline. 8 July 2016. Web. 9 July 2016.

Phillips,A. “The gun control debate, explained in 5 questions”. TheWashington Post.13June 2016. Web. 9July&lt

Spitzer,Robert. “What the Orlando Shooting Shows About the Importance ofGun Laws.” TheWashington Post.14 June 2016. Web. 9 July 2016. &lt