Introduction
Gun right is the legal entitle that allows people to acquire and possess weapons like guns, mostly for their defense. Only a few countries support the idea of people keeping and bearing arms. These countries barely support the idea at both statutory and constitutional levels (Blocher 813). Gun control includes a set of laws and policies that regulate how guns and other firearms are manufactured, sold, owned, transferred, and used by civilians (Cook et al. 257). Gun control is not simply a question of liking or disliking guns; neither is it simply about liking or disliking control. It should be about judging the effectiveness of control. Most countries enact firearm policies restrictive in nature while allowing only a few legislations to be taken as permissive. Firearms debate has been going on for a while and will continue being a hot topic following the evident massive shootings and the presence of threats posed by terrorist attacks.
The gun control laws are enacted, aiming at regulating the manufacture, transfer, possession, and use of all types of firearms by civilians (Cook et al. 259). Gun usage is an important issue that needs to be considered in a bid to maintain safety for everyone across the globe. Increased mass shootings are a result of easy access to firearms, which is very difficult to prevent, as pro campaigners argued. Their stand is that gun ownership should be limited to the army and police officers. On the other hand, anti-gun control crusaders argue that they are forced to acquire guns as a defense mechanism due to governments' failure to offer security (Hogan and Craig 370). Although this is their argument, there have been instances where innocent people were hurt, injured, or even killed due to people carrying guns to ensure their safety. Gun control remains an issue even to date because various stakeholders argue against it while others support it.
The Full Range of Arguers and their Arguments
Violence is mostly the leading story on many news headlines. Crime and its prevention are important issues that go in line with the usage and possession of firearms by different stakeholders (Kleck et al. 488). Democratic participation is crucial in maintaining social order, protecting individual rights and freedoms, and preventing the onset of violence and massive killings in society(Hogan and Craig 371). Most people look at the government's role in ensuring security is maintained. Both the opponents and supporters of gun control argue that because their points are effective while those of their opponents are not, alienating them creates an avenue for the opposition to express their goals. However, taking both sides as reasonable, the question is not whether both are supporting gun control or not, but whether one side's strategies are better than the other in realizing the impacts of gun control.
Those who argue in the issue of gun control include the supporters and opponents. The supporters of the enactment of gun control laws believe that such laws will help protect innocent people who get injured when firearms are owned by anybody. They argue that allowing people to own firearms at their will results in increased crimes and massive shootings and that its control will enhance peace and safety of all, them inclusive (Kleck et al. 520). On the other hand, the opposers are people who believe the government has failed in ensuring their security, thereby needing the firearms to protect themselves. Their philosophical argument is that owning a firearm does not necessarily provoke one into crime. It's, however, a way of feeling secure all the time (Hogan and Craig 359). They believe with the uncontrolled ownership of firearms, and people will always be safe wherever they are.
Public outrage over increased assassinations of people in the United States led to the enactment of gun control policy in response to them. Increased gun violence incidences led to a ban in possession of assault weapons (Lemieux 79). However, opponents of gun control argued that having ore gun control laws would only lead to increased gun violence. Supporters argued the laws were just local, and hence their impacts were low and that without them, incidents would only increase (Moorhouse and Brent 103). According to Moorhouse and Brent, in self-defense, opponents say that guns are used up to 2.4 million times per year for protection. The proponents argue that guns are used for like 80,000 times for protection only, per year (104). The advocates compare data from countries that have strict laws and low cases of gun violence.
On the contrary, opponents cite countries with less strict gun laws and record low gun violence (Lemieux 74). However, much gun violence has many causes, and both sides tend to manipulate the measurements to support their ideas. Opposers who are lawyers also argue that gun control laws don't work since they are still evident with or without the crime. It’s all about understanding the difference between laws and people’s behavior. Supporters say that with the laws, crime rates are reduced (Kleck et al. 489).
Most opposers argue from an economic point of view, stating that regulations do not necessarily stop the flow of guns into the market where crime is their dominant employer. However, the supporters argue from a health point of view, stating that guns cause not only violence in the form of crime but also suicide, accidents, and homicides are common (Moorhouse and Brent 103). The opposers believe that having guns for self-defense will help protect families and citizens even at crime scenes where police may not be around. Supporters believe without guns, their safety, and that of other people around them, is assured. With stasis theory, it is evident that the arguments made contain facts; they have a true nature, present serious issues, and require immediate action and plans to be put into place. There are various advocacy gun rights and gun control organizations that have been created to advocate for gun rights and control laws amendment and legislation. Gun-rights advocacy organizations see weapon possession as a matter of individual rights (Kleck et al., 492). Gun control organizational advocators regard the right to possession of firearms as a political issue that keeps those who regard it as necessary for public safety against those who consider it a serious infringement of personal liberty.
Stakeholders Identified
The various stakeholders that have been identified in gun control include the public, the lawyers, political parties, and advocacy organizations. The issue is still unresolved because both opposers and advocators hold to their positions strongly and use facts to defend their arguments (Eckstein and Lefevre 225). The stasis theory is divided into four questions and processes that help discover the main issues in an argument and identify the most effective way to address the challenges. The four key divisions include understanding the facts, defining the nature of the problem, determining whether the issue is positive or negative, and deciding on the corrective action (Smith 19). Both opposers and advocators understand that gun control laws are enacted to prevent and curb crimes and massive killings, hence protecting people's right to safety. They all understand the root of the issue: Some belief in the effectiveness of gun control laws while others don’t. Some believe that gun control laws are positive, while others think otherwise. Some see it as a severe risk with broad consequences, while others believe the risk can be mitigated and the consequences limited.
Application of Stasis Theory
Stasis theory is crucial as it asks debaters to agree on the issue at hand. In this context, opposers believe that gun control laws should not be enacted while supporters want them. To get into an agreement, the parties need to understand whether gun control exists and its relevance (Smith 19). Supporters believe their existence helps curb crime while opposers argue that whether they exist or not, crime will still be evident. The next step is to understand what actions constitute gun control. Opposers believe that denying people the right to possess firearms will increase their insecurity. At the same time, supporters argue that allowing people to own firearms rightfully will lead to more massive shootings and homicides. Both parties need to understand whether the issue at hand is hurtful or not (Kleck et al. 499). Both opposers and supporters understand the consequences of having people owning guns. However, opposers argue that guns are only used for protection to the owners.
In contrast, supporters of the laws argue that people owning guns do not directly imply that they use them for protection only. They add that cases of innocent people being injured and killed as a result of freedom of ownership of guns by members of the public are evident (Kleck 488). t. Finally, the parties need to agree on the next course of action. In this case, it looks difficult to agree on a plan of action since debaters strongly argue their positions defensively.
They all argue that corrective actions must be taken, but the problem remains that each side's argument seems realistic. The current debate is both heated and confusing since coming up with a stable solution is difficult. For example, stakeholders like gun control advocacy organizations are not advocating for themselves but for the sake of the public whose outcry is sometimes unheard or considered of less importance. Like the lawyers, some opponents are at times invoking the public and advocacy organizations that seeking protection from the constitution under various amendments is a flawed approach (Eckstein and Lefevre 225). They argue that a right to bear arms, including those that might endanger others' safety, will always provide grounds for amendment repeal rather than a case in respect of it. It is at this point that they argue that gun laws do not work.
Conclusion
Gun-related violence remains an intractable problem to date. Some people believe that the solution lies in enacting stricter gun control laws, while others think the measures would still be counterproductive. Interactions of lawmakers, interest groups, political parties, and the public indicate how the issue may remain and has remained unresolved over time. Only a few constitutional disputes maintain a powerful grip on the public mind as the battle with the legislation of gun control laws. However, many advocates of the right to keep and own firearms agree that the right should be subject to regulation; there is still no clear evidence of the effectiveness of an approach to gun safety and prosecution. The debate on gun control and gun rights remains a hot and unsuccessful one due to the ability of either party to defend their position strongly.
