The widespread ownership of guns in the United States has always attracted different views mostly in the political lines. In the last few decades, the United States has experienced increased violence and suicide rates. As depicted by Michael Moore in his film, for a developed country, the United States has huge number of people killed by firearms. According to the 2013 data from the CDC, 33,000 people died because of gunshots, and 84,000 were wounded many of them requiring physical and mental care. In the same year, there were high-profile shootings in Colorado Springs, San Bernardino, Charleston, Oregon, and Roseburg among others (Malina et al. 175). Moore looks into the culture and the widespread ownership of guns in the United States.
At the heart of America is the widespread massacres perpetrated by young people with guns. Moore shows the case of two boys with records of arrest and drug use who perpetrated the 1999 massacre at Columbine high school (Bowling for Columbine). The unanswered question is how the boys acquired guns. This is just an iceberg in the argument that the widespread ownership of guns in the United States increases violence rather than protecting the citizens. Researchers are dumbfounded by the widening gap between the gun-related deaths in the United States and other developed countries and the legislators are doing nothing to stop the menace. Had it been a health menace causing such many deaths, there would be an outrage directed towards CDC for failure to control the menace.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the association licensed to protect the right to bear and keep arms. Just because the second amendment gives one the right to own a gun, the NRA receives funds yearly to protect this right. One wonders whether the right to own a gun supersedes the right to be protected from gun violence. When Moore interviewed a former president of NRA, he admitted that he keeps loaded guns in his house not because he needs protection but because it is his right to have a gun (Bowling for Columbine). If one has the right to own a gun but then kill others with the gun, then this amounts to violence. The elites and politicians in the United States take advantage of the Gun ownership rights for their gains (Spitzer 58). Such people are the main suppliers of guns and acquire private military contracts with the government.
The debate around the ownership of guns always rotates around the second amendment. It is the view of some people that the ancestors who enacted the second amendment had a good vision for the country (Jacobs, James, and Alex 2). Supporters of free access to guns argue that they need to exercise this right. Times have changed, and so has the society. The ancestors saw the need for people to protect themselves based on the social issues existing at the time. However, such issues as civil wars and slavery are outdated. The advancement of technology has given rise to security systems that one can use for protection. There is no need for people to acquire guns only to use them against innocent people.
With the increased number of deaths due to gun wounds in the country, it is arguable that personal protection is eminent. The supporters of easy gun access use this point to support their argument. However, if the government continues allowing people to acquire guns with the pretense of personal protection, would it decrease or increase violence? From what has happened in the past, it is agreeable that this will increase violence and gun wound deaths. When a fellow students in a school shoot teachers and other students, those parents with guns never have a chance to protect their children. The only way to protect children and women who are the main victims in such massacres is illegalizing the ownership of guns. This has happened in many countries and violence levels are low.
The current solutions to this menace have huge loopholes for exploitation. The legislators in support of free ownership of guns introduced the Brady background checks. However, it is notable that between the years 2000-2009, 30,000 cases of denials were reversed in an appeal court (Stewart 50). In addition, the convictions of those who violate the Brady Act are rare. Actual happenings have proved that background checks are not the answer to gun control. If courts can reverse gun denials on the ground of second amendment, then there is no other mechanism to determine who should own a gun.
From all angles, it is clear that the access to guns has fueled the increased cases of violence in the United States. Measures such as background checks and gun registrations do not prevent a child from stealing a parent’s gun and shooting fellow children (Jacobs and James 710). People who acquire guns illegally perpetrate most of the high-profile shootings. Increased access to guns in pretense of personal protection will increase the illegal acquisition of guns as opposed to the illegalization of gun ownership, which will drastically reduce illegal ownership of guns since only the security agencies would issue guns.