The discourse surrounding firearms’ availability and the restriction is an outrageous issue and often causes negative emotions among crucial stakeholders in American society. The second amendment’s interpretation contributes to this contentious debate, which guarantees the right to own firearms. Those who cite the document argue that this is an absolute right to carry weapons and that unnecessary efforts should not be made to limit the ability to possess firearms. The use of firearms to perpetrate violence remains at the core of the gun control debate because it threatens the right to life and health (Jones and Stone 167-168). Mass media outlets have heightened the severity of firearm violence in the United States. Viral videos and publications on deaths from mass shootings ensure that gun control remains the big debate that could affect public opinion and government policy (Newman and Hartman 1527).
Many experts appear before public forums to call for strong gun laws, especially those that restrict sales. President Obama has appeared repeatedly in the media and press briefings, reminding Americans about several incidents in which many innocent Americans have died prematurely because of mass shootings. These words sparked negative emotions as Obama whipped up emotions by citing the number of children who lost their lives in endless, deadly shootings across the country Newman and Hartman 1527). In Newton, Connecticut, the mass shootout in 2002, popularly known as the Sandy Hook massacre, prompted the Obama administration to enact a law to limit firearm sales. Unpredictably, the U.S. public responded by buying more firearms at unprecedented levels, which resulted in rationing as inventories declined. American weapons manufacturers and suppliers have produced record sales and profits since 2013. The National Rifle Association (NRA) reported an increase in its members with an unprecedented number of five million people. Ironically, the Obama regime received strong opposition from the U.S. firearms industry and heavily financed its adversary in an attempt to block its second term in office. Any presidential candidate and any president of the United States must face this paradox because gun control often provokes contentious debates. They can win or lose the election based on their strong position on this issue, primarily Democrats. Over the last few centuries, the federal government has tried to impose a strict law to restrict firearms possession, but its efforts have failed (Jones and Stone 167). As a result, it seems possible that gun control may remain one of the most contentious regulatory threats, as consumers often respond by threatening massive demonstrations to protect their rights to bear arms.
Opponents of gun control argue that firearm restriction legislation supporters rely on exaggerated information, so their efforts fail to reduce or eliminate gun violence. One of the pieces of evidence they presented in support of their brief was the mass shooting in high school. The shooting happened on Valentine’s Day in 2018 in Parkland, Florida. One delinquent shooter murdered seventeen students at the school. While this incident appears a perfect piece of evidence to impose gun control, its critics claim that exaggerated data should not inform such measures. Opponents contend that Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, used uncorroborated information to mislead Americans into believing that gun violence affects the United States more than any other country (Ausman and Faria 1-2).
Opponents have criticized the media for not forcing Senator Murphy to substantiate that information as they examine President Trump’s position on the issue. Critics claim that the police at the scene did not confront the criminal aggressively, allowing the offender to kill the children. Unfortunately, they were critical of the Obama administration’s reaction to raising the minimum age to purchase firearms from eighteen to twenty-one years. Opponents believe the government should provide teachers training and allow school staff to carry guns to defend themselves and prevent such an incident from reoccurring (Ausman and Faria 1-2). However, the fact that armed violence continues to claim many individuals’ lives, including children, is reason enough to restrict firearms possession.
Evidence that supports gun control measures is overwhelming and should inform policy and legislation to address firearm aggression. Data on severe injuries and deaths caused by gun violence, including the social cost in America, cannot be ignored when restricting firearms ownership. Data from the University of Pennsylvania’s Firearm Injury Center show that the proportions of deaths increased between 1980 and 2006, with 32,300 deaths per year. This means that armed violence is responsible for 88 deaths per day. Gun violence is at the forefront of the proportion of mortalities per day relative to fatalities due to motor vehicle accidents. Furthermore, In the U.S., emergency rooms receive one person every five minutes with a firearm injury. Conversely, armed violence’s economic cost is alarming, as the annual expenses are over $100 billion (Jones and Stone 168).
The severity of gun violence’s indirect costs includes increased budgets to increase security, poor business outcomes in some places, lost productivity and income, and agony and suffering. Besides, the United States Department of Justice recognizes that crimes committed with firearms have reached approximately 500,000 annually. This translates to one firearm crime per minute (Jones and Stone 168). These statistics demonstrating the social and economic impact of gun violence are sufficient to legislate and approve strict laws limiting firearms possession. However, opponents of gun control argue that the government’s efforts to enact such laws would fail because the right to possess firearms is entrenched in the United States’ Constitution. In this way, despite the consequences of gun violence, they will continue to purchase firearms to protect themselves against threats from such criminals (Kleck et al. 496). Therefore, proponents of gun control should express their views sufficiently to encourage many Americans to support legislation that prohibits the right to own a firearm.
.