The unending dispute over gun control in the US has flared up again. The purpose of the most current executive orders was to restrain gun violence in America. This would be done by improving education upon the matter, creating a new background-checking system (The National Instant Criminal Background Check System), and the state-level consolidation of existing laws. Toward these statements, both pro and con sides exist.
The main argument of the opposition group is the preservation of the Second Amendment which is, “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”. It has allowed the legalization of firearm uses in America, and worked as a foundation of the majority of gun-related legislations. People who disagree with President Obama’s gun control policies believe that regulations such as strict background checks and reinforcement of the law violate the right to own guns and further infringe upon the Second Amendment.
Not only this, they also argue that the gun violence cannot be repressed by new legislations or any kind of executive actions. In order to reduce the number of firearm accidents and innocent people’s death, overall crisis consciousness should be prevalent throughout the country. Basically, the general citizens acquaint a possession of arms as a tool that protects individuals from the possible threats. In this sense, just simple law revision or strict back ground checking will not have enough power to change the social atmosphere. This statement has been actually supported by the statistic that shows 7.64% surged share prices of Smith &Wesson and 5.85% increased stock price of Strum Ruger, two prominent gun manufacturers in the United States, right after President Obama’s speech.
Moreover, people who are against the executive orders insist guns are not the fundamental problem. They argue that most of the gun accidents are rooted from the tendency of the people. Therefore, the background checking and consolidation of current legislations may reduce the official-record of gun sales in a short run, but do not bring out proper measurements of the most principal facet. Instead, it will encourage more black market dealings and illegal trades, considering overall social customs of United States.
In America, firearms are also one of the national scale businesses of NRA (National Rifle Association) and small medium-size enterprises, which take considerable possession of American economy. In this sense, president’s executive actions cannot stop this grand scale business market as they’ll going to take every possible action for their own interest. Thus, firearms market can be extended more even the engagement of illicit transaction in order to work out certain level of profits they want.
In contrast, there are many people who express a more positive stance towards the current actions of President Obama. They argue that the President’s executive action is the demand of background checks, so it is far from infringement of Second Amendment. They state that everybody has right of freedom, but nobody wants to be killed by that freedom. Ignoring the millions of death just for equal right to bear firearm to the unqualified people is unjustifiable. Thus, it rather enables the government to guarantee the right of freedom to be secured by protecting majority of citizen’s security from the people who should not bear firearms, such as mental patients and ex-convicts. Furthermore, they assert Mr. Obama’s recent executive action was inevitable, considering the responsibility given to his social position. 30,000 people are killed every year by gun in United States, and it is significantly higher than other advanced countries like Germany, British, Canada, and France.
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths in 2010, and the dead by shooting during 7 weak surpasses the American deaths in first 7 years of the US-Iraq war. As the president, Obama at least brings out some possible measurements to deal countless number of casualties, bereaved families with deep sorrow that resulted from weak gun-control. Therefore the evaluation that Obama tried his best under the law in order to show government’s will toward gun-control and express sympathy toward both of the innocent victims and their families seem acceptable.
Furthermore, NRA’s great power of huge amount of funds and organizational power often led Republicans to win at the election and House of Representatives. Toward this situation, people are also raising voices stating that Obama’s orders are giving a deliberate jab towards the Republicans who use gun-control (and the power of NRA) to further their election. They also claim the general idea that guns are rarely used for self-defense. 29,618,300 case of gun violence were committed from 2007 to 2011, but only 0.79% of victims (235,700) actually protected themselves from a threat, and 0.12% of victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm of the 84,495,500 property crimes. Even though the president’s executive orders and endeavors for the strict gun-control cannot eradicate every single aspect of the problematic situation, it is still evident that those restrictions contain infinite possibilities that can save millions of innocent lives that shouldn’t be taken away by unjustifiable accidents.
Guns are like a double-edged sword. They can be used to protect someone from possible threats, but they can also be abused for various kinds of unpardonable crimes and for the political-financial purposes. Therefore, the US government (and individuals supporting the government) should work hard in order to find valid measurements that could both prevent improper use of firearms and respect certain extent of freedom that could allow people to have least protect of own self. In this regard, the sensitive adjustments and cooperation of each governmental section seem necessary at this stage.