The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control Policies

Gun control policies have been a continuous argument in America since the 1820s. In the 1820s, Congress gave guns to Indians in order for them to protect their land. Between the 1820s and the 1830s, guns were given to the western settlers in order for them to fight the Indians over land. In 1891, guns were given to the New York police officers to protect not only themselves, but society as well (Spitzer 2014). The Second Amendment believes, “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”(Epstein & Walker 2010: 374). While some responsible citizens purchase guns as a constitutional right to bear arms in order to protect them, their families, and their property, unfortunately, there are far too many misguided individuals in our society. These deviant individuals use guns to commit heinous crimes, which creates a hectic and fearful society.
In my opinion, a society would be better off if citizens had less access

to guns. The implementation of stricter gun control policies would reduce crime rates and keep citizens safe. Within any given law there is a flaw that contradicts itself or can be problematic within a society. On one end of the spectrum there is a perfectly law abiding citizen who has the right of gun ownership and on the other end, there are consequences of owning a gun if the individual is not careful or purchases a gun illegally.
With regards to high levels of gun related crimes, in 1976 the District of Columbia passed the nations most restrictive gun-control ordinance, in which banned the private possession of handguns. Dick Anthony Heller is a Washington, D.C native and works as a security guard. When Heller applied to own a handgun for self-defense, he was denied. On the basis of violation to his Second Amendment Right to bear arms, Heller sued the city (Epstein & Walker 2010:377). Naturally, the Second Amendment is fragmentally divided into its prefatory clause, which is “a well regulated militia”(Epstein & Walker 2010:380) and operative clause, which is “the right of the people” (Epstein & Walker 2010:379). In the District of Columbia v. Heller case, the relationship between both clauses played a major role in interpretation. The district court dismissed Heller’s case on the grounds of D.C’s restrictive gun ordinance, but eventually the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment protected Heller’s right to purchase a firearm for self-defense under to operative clause.

The majority opinion believed the Constitution guarantees an individuals right to keep and bear arms (Epstein & Walker 2010: 382). While Heller simply wanted to use his handgun as a form of self-defense, due to handgun violence in the U.S, many “amici”(Epstein & Walker 2010:381) believe the abolishment of all handguns is the solution.
Specifically focusing on Illinois’ recently approved conceal carry law; this is extremely problematic to the population. “After recording the fewest murders in decades last year, violence in Chicago is soaring: 40% increase in shootings and 29% more homicides in the first three months of 2015 (USA Today 2015).” The concealed carry law in Illinois will never work. The idea of allowing citizens to carry firearms in a violent prone city, such as some neighborhoods in Chicago, is

blasphemous.
Concealed carry is a law meant to protect oneself, but in Illinois this leads to more gun violence and murders. There are multiple cases of victims who have gunned down their perpetrator in a public place, just barely missing an innocent bystander. There are also cases of police officers mistaking a concealed carry individual as an actual perpetrator. All in all, citizens should not have to use a tool that is so life changing and instant, such as a firearm, in order to defend themselves. Citizens should not take the law into their own hands; instead police enforcement should only be allowed to carry firearms in public. Even though the idea of banning concealed carry is a difficult and impossible plan to implement, due to the Constitutional right to bear arms and previous cases such as the District of Columbia v. Heller, this idea would decrease crime and keep citizens safe in Illinois.
In current news today there are multiple stories of innocent, young children falling victim to accidental shootings. While playing an innocent game of cops and robbers in their Chicago home, a 6-year-old boy fatally shoots his 3-year-old brother, Eian. The grandfather, who was present in the home at the time, was not aware of a gun being in the house. It is reported that the children’s father was charged with child endangerment due to the handgun being found wrapped in pajama pants on top of a refrigerator as a place to store the weapon (Flores, Pearson, & Sutton 2015).
There are too many fatalities due to the use of firearms that just so happen to involve innocent bystanders with a major emphasis on children. Gun owning parents tend to leave their guns laying around their homes, unlocked and loaded, in the reach of their young children. Sadly, these children find their parents guns and play with them and accidentally discharge the gun due to careless and inexperienced adults. This is why all future gun owners should learn about gun safety. During the extensive 8 hours to16 hour training for concealed carry, an educational gun safety class should be included within the training class as well. This idea would prevent accidental shootings and teach future gun owners how to properly store their firearms.