Gun Control: Rogerian Argument On The Anti-violence Campaign

Yet, some legal frameworks are present in federal constitution which determine the pre-conditions for the eligibility of being subjected to second amendment. Some conditions where the person in question loses their right to benefit from second amendment under the Gun Control Act of 1968 are the following: Being convicted in a court for imprisonment, being fugitive from justice, exhibiting controlled-substance addiction, exhibiting clinically proven mental defection and exhibiting domestic violence or misdemeanor crime.

However, every state also has laws in their constitutions concerning the eligibility and there are ongoing debates regarding the methods of classification when condemning someone mentally ill and convicted felon. It is been observed that laws on such issues vary considerably from state to state and the enforcement of such laws seems to be fluxional. (law.cornell.edu.tr, 2018) (constitutioncenter.org, 2018)

Gun Politics

Today, gun control is one of the most debated issue in American national politics. When observed, one can designate two opposing fronts concerning the issue: Pro-gun view and Public policy view.

Pro-gun View

Republican arguments center around the issue of extent of governmental authority to regulate guns under the protection of second amendment. The core republican arguments can be put under four distinct justifications. The first argument proposes that Bill of Rights as the ultimate founding document, grants right to own a gun and because of that possessing a gun is a symbolic act of honoring and eternizing the national presence, endowing a patriotic meaning onto it and thus equating national independence with gun ownership.

The second argument asserts that American democracy and freedom cannot be harmed, wounded or overrun by outside forces since constant armed population has the capacity to repel any occupying force. The most proposed claim regarding this particular argument is that if the Indians had guns, they could easily repel European and preventing them from settling in in the first place, and thus successfully sustain their independence.

The third argument is that armed populace functions as a deterrent against the tyranny of domestic government due to the fact that the existence of such force makes it hard for tyrannically motivated powers to actively pursue their goal and even in a scenario where the tyranny is somehow established, the resistance will ensure the possibility of a democratic independence. Therefore, armed populace is seen as an insurance against tyranny.

The final and the most dominant argument claims that every individual need a gun in order to protect himself and his family from outside dangers which include criminals, home invaders, insane killers and alike. That is to say, people should have some armed protection against ever-possible threat from other armed individual who means to cause harm. Such approach therefore, sees guns as necessary tools for self-defense, adopting a view that is very similar to 2010 decree of McDonald v. City of Chicago. (Powell, 2016) For the followers of this approach, bringing a gun control means stripping the only means of self-defense away from people and thus making them vulnerable to any possible aggression. Although these four arguments tend to go together in the minds of a pro-gun advocate, such togetherness is not a necessary condition for the adoption of this view.

Public Policy View

Public policy arguments base their justifications on the idea that the main purpose of a government is establish and preserve social order. The core public policy arguments can be put under three main justifications yet unlike pro-gun arguments these justifications constitute a unity, meaning that the adoption of one argument while rejecting or ignoring the other is not an existing way of conduct.

The first argument is that the availability of firearms in households increase the chance of people committing suicide since a person who is overwhelmed by the conditions surrounding them can be easily drawn to such solutions rather than asking for assistance. The second argument claims that the easy accessibility to guns highlights them as preferred choice of weapon in a homicide, not only lowering the chance of the survival of the victim but also increasing the chance of being wounded or dead as a result of any possible domestic fight due to the above-mentioned constant availability.

The third argument asserts that due to its effect of high deterrence guns often chosen as the primary weapon while undergoing violent natured businesses, increasing the chance of reciprocal damage infliction when the aggression was not the aim but was emerged out of the sheer presence of firearms. The final argument states that the availability of professional and high-tech weapons as well as long magazines allow the shooter to harm as many people as he chooses to do, paving the way for mass shootings and massacres. (Powell, 2016)

Barack Obama

As a democrat president and an African-American citizen Barack Obama had many things to say about gun control. During his first term presidency, United States witnessed forty-three mass shootings in twenty-five states which after four of them he delivered emotional eulogies at the sites of violence, promising to bring new regulations that will severely undermine any future similar events. In his speeches Obama explicitly stated that although he believes in second amendment, he feels the need to alter the long-standing precedent regarding guns due to the fact that the world today is nothing like it was in 1800s. (Frank, 2014)

After the shocking Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, president Barack Obama announced his plan for diminish gun-related violence in four parts which were improving background checks systems to eliminate any existing loopholes, banning assault rifles and large capacity magazines, establishing a safer school environment and expending the reach and accessibility of mental health services. The plan also included several executive actions which involved providing incentives for schools to hire a school resource officer, providing law enforcement some additional tools for better gunmen, and expanding the scope of personal background data examined by law enforcement to give a gun permit, and several Congressional proposals for some federal gun restrictions however, none of the proposed laws managed to pass through. (washingtonpost.com, 2013)

In 2016 due to increasing number of mass shootings Obama called for a “sense of urgency” against gun violence and tighten some of the gun-control enforcements which cumulatively aimed at expanding the legal supervision on any place that somewhat engages in transaction of firearms commercial or otherwise. (cnbc.com, 2016)

Literature Review

Just as the opinions of the involved parties are contrary to each other, various academic research seems to indicate some contrasting data regarding the issue. In their article, Kwen and Baack (2005) suggest that the result of their research laid out that comprehensive gun-control legislations decreases the number of gun-related deaths in every state between one to six per 100,000 people depending on the extremity of the respective legislations. However, they also underline the fact that socio-economic factors are also a crucial determinant when it comes to lowering death per capita. Issues such as unemployment and educational levels as well as racial contributors seem to affect the death rate in states.