Abraar Saad
Karen Peterson
English 102
December 5,2018
The Right to Bear Arms in the United States
Over recent years, people living in the United States have questioned the efficiency of the law that allows people to own firearms. American citizens are divided into two groups; those who support the right to bear arms and those who do not. Both parties raise meaningful arguments supporting their respective claims, and the decision lies with the government and the judiciary to determine the future of gun ownership in the US. This paper will focus on the negative implications that the right to bear arms has had on Americans and compare how other nations cope with the lack of gun ownership. Primarily, the audience is people who are for the right to own weapons and justify the reason for citizens to use weapons during various circumstances.
For many decades, Americans had the right to possess guns, and their supply and sale has been the most rampant than any other country in the world. Initially, the main use of firearms was by people in the military and police force during war or for law enforcement purposes. The rapid manufacture of guns swamped the market with availability arms that were purchased for self-defense purposes, which was an essential need for most people (Bloomberg 172). At the time the situation was a significant concern, most people already owned guns; hence the government could only put a restriction on those who were allowed to own an arm. The second amendment was established to create ground rules on how the use of guns would be supplied to the public and used.
The American constitution gives its citizens the exclusive right to purchase and own firearms. The second amendment 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", which indicates that it is the right of a citizen (Cook and Ludwig 399). Therefore, American citizens are allowed to possess guns at their will without the restriction of another person.
However, not all citizens are allowed exercise this right as the clause "a well-regulated militia" describes the people who are clean of any criminal activity in the past and may not pose security threats to others by owning firearms. Nonetheless, some people went ahead and described the clause as the military, arguing that a regulated militia should only be people in the military. In addition, they are the only group of individuals in society who undergo thorough training for the handling of any forms of weapons and are aware of the social challenges that they may cause if mishandled. Police and soldiers in the army are conscious of the power bestowed on them, which is not a consideration that average citizens remember when they acquire personal firearms (Cook and Ludwig 381). Consequently, people should not possess arms as quickly and easily as it is in the United States as they have not been trained appropriately on safety precautions of handling guns.
The major challenge that faces the right of people to bear arms is the notion that unlawful individuals may get access to these weapons as well and cause security threats in the process. In recent times, the government has emphasized on regulations that should be followed before a firearm is sold or issued to an individual. The primary directive is that every vendor should ensure that they work with government agencies to do a background check on every potential firearm buyer and establish whether he or she can be entrusted with a firearm. In most cases, felons, people with uncertain criminal behavior, and people who are not of sound mind are not supposed to be in possession of a gun, and any distributor who sells one to them will have violated the law.
A significant drawback of the background check process is that it is not an accurate measure of restricting unwarranted people from accessing weapons. There exist numerous loopholes in which a felon may gain access to a firearm (Winkler 15). A majority of the population qualifies to pass the background check, which makes it easy for a large number of people to purchase one. Consequently, the more firearms in circulation among citizens hands the easier it becomes for potential criminals to get their hands on one as well. There are many ways in which an unauthorized individual may possess a weapon, such as taking one that belongs to a family member or even sending a friend to purchase one (Winkler 15). As a result, the sole purpose of the process becomes ineffective and more citizens are put in danger. Therefore, a background check is an appropriate method towards ensuring that the people who acquire firearms are of good conduct, but it does not guarantee that the arms do not eventually fall into the wrong hands.
The sole purpose of selling guns to citizens is to increase safety through self-defense. However, the provision of guns to the general public juxtaposes the intention it is intended. In the United States, almost every household comprises an adult with access to a personal firearm. In most of these homes are young children and teenagers who are curious and adventurous. For example, in the movie Is That a Gun in Your Pocket, a child sneaks into the parents' room and takes the father's gun and goes with it to school. The movie depicts the dangers that many Americans are faced with on a daily basis. Young children live and grow in societies where guns are easily accessible and can be used dangerously, which may lead to severe accidents and loss of lives.
Many cases have arisen in the past few years of indiscriminate shootings that have led to the loss of lives of both young and old. For instance, during Barack Obama's tenure, a shooter broke into an elementary school and killed 28 children and teachers in Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 (DeGrazia 76). In a similar event, a man named Stephen Paddock opened fire on a music festival that was going on outside his hotel room. He shot and killed 59 people and many more were injured as a result of the fracas that erupted. Similar events of shooting and killing are reported across the country but the number of fatalities is not as high. Many cases that occur are a result of personal disputes that lead to the death of one or two people per incident (DeGrazia 76). The events are brought about by reckless gun sale ownership and malice that lead to the loss of human life. Presidents have been looking into the gun violence catastrophe which continues to claim more than ten thousand lives annually.
A comparison with the United States and other nation across the world indicates that the high rate of gun ownership among citizens corresponds to a higher crime rate and gun-related deaths. For instance, in the year 2008, England recorded only 40 cases of death that were linked with gun violence. In the United States, the same year had more than 12000 gun-related deaths, a number that was higher than in any other country around the world. Putting the difference in size of population between the two countries, the US has six times more people than England. Therefore, it indicates that the United States encounters a lot more gun-related deaths than a nation which does not have similar laws.
The world continues to experience tougher economic times as competition for scarce resources becomes stiffer, and the population grows steadily. As a result, people strive harder to make ends meet and may sometimes engage in unlawful behavior (Fraser 33). Inflation and unemployment are persistent social problems that coerce some individuals to indulge in crime. The availability of guns further compromises the security of many people as most individuals who intend to engage in crime will do so using firearms. Numerous surveillance camera footages reveal that both petty thieves and large robberies are undertaken using guns. This indicates that the availability of firearms among many US citizens is a leading factor to high crime rates.
In conclusion, there are far more negative implications of allowing the general public to bear arms. Granting people permission to own firearms can easily lead to a breach in security as most people may be prone to accidents, or the guns may get into the possession of malicious individuals. Other countries enjoy significantly more peace and security without the general public possessing any form of weaponry. Contrary to popular belief, the restriction of gun ownership will result in a safer society and less gun related deaths. 
Works Cited
Bloomberg, Michael R. Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis. Eds. Daniel W. Webster, and Jon S. Vernick. JHU Press, 2013.
Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig. "The Social Costs of Gun Ownership." Journal of Public Economics 90.1 (2006): 379-391.
DeGrazia, David. "Handguns, Moral Rights, and Physical Security." journal of moral philosophy 13.1 (2016): 56-76.
Fraser, Max. "Politics, Guns, and Money." New Labor Forum. SAGE Publications, 2016.
Winkler, Adam. Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. WW Norton & Company, 2011.