Discussion on Gun Control in the United States - Sample Sociology Essay
The problem of gun control in the United States is always a hot discussion disturbing masses as long as there are proponents and opponents of this policy. Every person in the country has a right to protect himself/herself for the sake of personal safety and safety of his/her family or property. However, this issue has different sides when looking at the current statistics, and what ordinary people think of it. Thus, America is in need of taking more control of guns sold throughout the country. On the other hand, guns are always in free sale and they are too popular among the civil population that it would be quite hard to decrease the number of guns compared to the current ratio.
First of all, guns are always associated with murders or power taken by anyone who possesses a gun or a rifle. Ethically speaking, this nationwide spread of lethal weapon makes each and every family under a threat of danger coming from anyone in the neighborhood or elsewhere. Therefore, kids, adolescents, and adult population – nobody knows when “judge day” will come to their lives. Anyway, cases of uncontrolled shoot-outs at schools, colleges, universities, and just on the street are so frequent that there is no 100% assurance that it will not touch upon anybody in a particular community, suburbia, or in the downtown. There should be some measures already adopted in order to limit the number of weapon sold and people allowed to buy at a gun store (so-called background check of the population).
On the other hand, it is obvious that not everyone thinks that stricter laws will make America better than now. The thing is that proponents are likely to tell everybody that such measures will make American population weaker in the face of global terrorism or whatsoever. This position terrifies, as in the most of cases there is no link to the terrorism, as Americans themselves commit crimes once they obtain a gun and feel disappointed about life, society, and other problems. Besides, both President Barack Obama and the Congress seem to be supporting the normal regulations on carrying firearms without taking strong measures to decrease this ominous spread (Nicas and Palazzolo 1). It is an astonishing truth that even though the problem still exists nobody from the highest echelons of power is able to provide better regulations complementing the needs and requirements of the population. In fact, it is more like serving to own people in an undemocratic manner.
One more reason why the right for bearing guns is so vague in its legal objectivity is the social disturbances having taken place in America during its short history. Actually, it is all about the movement of minor groups for civil rights in the atmosphere of widespread racism and segregation. If not reason, then guns will change the situation for better. In this respect, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Cited in Winkler 1). Herewith, both sides of supporters and opponents of the unlimited spread of arms within the society see this excerpt well complementing their own sides. Furtheremore, this ambiguity is in most cases what stops Senators from adopting a new law forcing on the need for the gun control.
What is more, most of the observers admit that the Congress moves Americans to a slippery slope whereas uncontrolled mass murders still happen. Basically, background checks claimed to serve the needs of the gun-control side can partially solve the problem. Though, it does not make emphasis on the universal gun control in the country. It seems that due to the recent act of terrorism in Boston, officials as well as President Obama seek to further popularize the arms escalation. Surprisingly, but it complements the market ambitions of the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Civil population does not feel safe, as the rage of guns appears to be more dangerous in the arms of ordinary Americans than terrorists. Background checks are what should be initially well spread across the US to avoid terrific events which happen each year and, most importantly, rise in number of occasions. In his article, Andrew Rosenthal notes the following idea: “One thing you have to love about the debate over gun control is the lack of inhibition” (1). In other words, as long as there is a huge lobby of anti-gun-control supporters among officials, there is a low extent of beliefs that the spread of arms will decrease. Senators like Mitch McConnell still hesitate before adopting the gun-control act (Rosenthal 1).
The Gun Report: April 25, 2013 gives a horrible evidence of how frequent the uncontrolled spread of arms touches upon innocent people of a wide range of age (starting from 1 year up to 70 years old) (Nocera 1). In this vein, it is vital to remember events at Virginia Tech, Success Tech Academy and others when adolescents went crazy about their own life and tried to manifest their protest by shooting other peers irrespectively of whether they were guilty or not. Needless to say, children suffer first because there is still a widespread debate on the need to somehow limit the spread of arms. Otherwise, the situation will not change, and Americans will pursue living their “normal” life full of fears of spontaneous shoot-out in the neighborhood or somewhere else.
However, a right for bearing a gun is a democratic right of every American. Supporters of anti-gun-control side are also Americans who strive to leave their rights unchanged. They just want to be sure that nobody will threaten them or their families as they still have weapon at home to fend off anybody who violates their freedom or makes an intrusion into a private property. It sounds quite logic and up to the constitutional rights equal for every American. However, today the situation is far from being controlled by the police or Federal Government. That is the reason why reaching a particular consensus is vital for the whole nation irrespectively of whose side a person takes.
Admittedly, some states adopt laws enacting gun control when others urge for more legislation of the spread of arms, “So far, five states have passed seven laws that enhance gun safety, while 10 others have enacted 17 laws undermining controls, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks the issue” (The Editorial Board 1). Needless to say, it is the right of everyone whether to protect oneself by reasonable measures or by means of weapon. However, it seems like inability of the United States to refuse the universal consumption of oil changing this source of energy into alternative ones. The same is for the arms which has a strong lobby among those who produce and distribute guns across the nation. Anyway, while looking at what lawmakers vote for, everyone’s hair stands on end, so to speak. Thereupon, current review among states sheds light on the following facts, namely:
Arkansas lawmakers have voted to allow guns in churches and on college campuses. South Dakota legislators authorized school boards to arm teachers. Tennessee residents will now be entitled to store weapons in their car at the workplace, even if the boss objects. Patently unconstitutional proposals declaring any new federal gun control null have been introduced in 36 state legislatures, according to the Sunlight Foundation. (The Editorial Board 1)
Strange as it may seem, supporters of the anti-gun-control side are more than those who oppose it. In this case, it becomes clear who actually supports this side of the spread of arms. If the Federal Government still stays aside from straight-forward actions to decrease access to weapon among population, then it is quite profitable for officials irrespectively of what ordinary Americans think of it. Strong steps toward gun control accepted in a number of states are not enough if the federal power is still not a companion in this case (The Editorial Board 1). Another problem is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea of the existing laws enforcing gun control nationwide, and this is an exact problem why so many people stay behind the nationwide discussion on the problem which has not disappeared yet (Rosenthal 1).
Given that, contemporary vision of the gun-control problem still leaves much to be desired. People from a national liberal group called Americans United for Change are still struggling for quicker actions on the part of the Congress (Rosenthal 1). However, for different reasons, President Obama and Senators from both ruling parties seem to ignore those messages of protest. Definitely, rights of Americans shall never be violated. The right for carrying guns is one of those constitutional norms. However, laws should work better equally protecting both opponents and proponents of the spread of arms in America. This is why, most probably, the change can come from the highest echelons of power. Democratic meetings and protest movements can only hurry them up in order to avoid a misbalanced social situation nationwide.
Words count: 1500
You can buy sociology essay at WritingLeader where custom essays are written from scratch by professional essay writers.