Should the United States put more restrictions on gun ownership and use?

The issue of gun ownership and restriction has a way of igniting heated debate and the worst side of debaters. This is because the argument for and against the restriction is based either based on hard facts or ignorance.  However many people are usually on the better position of ignorance which means they do not have excuse to support or oppose  gun restriction and ownership.  The discussion should focus on several important issues including whether more guns will prevent gun-related deaths and whether gun laws will prevent such deaths.

Liberty gains meaning if only a person is allowed to willingly harm themselves and hence, as long as one is not harming other people, he or she should be allowed to do as they wish.  The bigger point is that by not restricting gun use and ownership, person autonomy is respected by the society if they do not use it to harm others. An argument for pro-gun rights holds that despite United States having the highest rate of homicide related to guns among the developed countries, it is quite difficult specifically measure how many mass shootings would have occurred if fewer citizens had guns (Carter, 147). In other words, how many mass shootings could have been prevented if the country had more armed citizens? A good case is Chicago Uber driver who had the license to own and carry a gun and who shot a person who was shooting on a crowd.

 A calculation done in a past research tended to indicate that the states with the fewer laws restricting gun ownership and use reported the lowest deaths related to gun shooting: per 100,000 people (Nasro, 24). Such information supports the view that having more people owning guns would force everyone to control their uncouth behavior and thus renounce any action that may threaten others. Moreover, research by National Association of School Resource officers supports the training of school officers on the premise that armed guards at schools have assisted in reducing school violence, (Nasro, 24). Therefore, any gunman will avoid firing at others since they have the knowledge that they can be countered by their victims. The proponents for gun rights look at the deterrent effect of owning and using a gun as the major reason why restrictions should not be embraced.

On the other hand, the advocates for restrictions on gun use and ownership holds that gun control allow the government to exercise the full power bestowed on it. Lack of gun control encourages the culture of individualism while thwarting efforts to have a coherent society or community since everyone is trained to carry and use a gun.   Not restricting gun use and ownership would go against the vast majority – 90 % - of Americans who wish to have more background checks on use of guns (Carter, 147). In addition, it would require everyone to have a gun and be trained on how to use which is a very huge undertaking. Even so, there is no assurance that accidental gun firing will not occur or firing in the time of passion. The case of extreme individualism is cited as suiting power.

In conclusion, a solution would be found only if good people are allowed to own and use guns while restricting the social paths. However in a real world, determining who is good is difficult since human are known to change under different circumstances.

Works cited

Carter, Gregg L. Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2012. 147

Nasro.National Association of School Resource officers and prevention of violence in schools.2012 .24-26