Gun Sales and Control
Theis study is aimed at determining if there is a balance between the Second Amendment and the Gun Control Act. The study explores the effects of black market gun sales, the right-to-carry Law, the imbalances in attaining permit of concealed guns and mental illness in the Gun Control Act. Moreover, the research determines the role played by strict scrutiny powers in ensuring a balance between the Gun Control Act and the Second Amendment. The methodology consisted of reviewing previously conducted research and current information on gun sales using search engines and websites. The results showed that right-to-carry, mental illness, the black market, and civil law undermine the Gun Control Act. Consequently, the recommended method of ensuring a balance between the two Acts is suitable when both are treated as freedoms while strict scrutiny powers are applied.
Today, some ineffective guidelines and regulations guide the procedures of gun sales and gun possessions, with the already prevailing policies threatening the lives of citizens. Opinions regarding the ownership of guns at old age and possessing firearms in public pose social dilemma. Thus, Cook and Ludwig (2007) state that people in society believe that possessing private firearms makes the community polite, and the aithors offer various suggestions on owning firearms as a tool that escalates homicides and suicides. Gun control and sales policies formulated by the judiciary system clash with the opinions of the members of society. The different state government in the USA have their policies regarding the possession of firearms in public. For example, in 1990, NYPD illegalized possessing guns in streets even though the majority of the US states had allowed adults to possess handguns publicly (Cook & Ludwig, 2007). Thereefore, since in the United States, the Second Amendment’s policies do not work in line with the current proposed gun sales and control policies, the country should find a balance between gun ownership rights and control.
The Relevant Aspects of the Research on Gun Control and Sales
First, the research aims at determining the roles of the state government in guaranteeing a balance between Gun Control policies and the Second Amendment. Secondly, the study establishes the relationship between violence and firearms that aid in determining the kind of firearms favoring the Second Amendment but increase violence in the USA. Further, the research reports on the effects of illegal gun sales on gun regulations. Finally, the study investigates the cause-effect relationship of consequence of mental ailment on gun trades and gun control procedures.
The research was conducted by using search engines and secondary sources that provided relevant information about gun control and sales. The criteria involved the use of key words such as black market gun sales, effects of mental illness on gun sales, right-to-carry law, civil rights, and the role of the government in gun control. The eligible sources were published between 2007 and 2017, including Wendt (2014), Consenza (2017), Rodriguez (2015), Kopel (2015), and Koper (2007). The sources of data searched for the research contained actual evidence of instances where the Second Amendment and the Gun Control Act had showed imbalance and identified how the imbalance had threatened the public life. The study design was a cause-effect design that aimed at determining the relationship between mental illness, black market, right-to-carry with the Gun Control Act and the Second Amendment.
Comparing and Contrasting the Concepts of Gun Control and Sales Secondary Sources
There exists contradicting information on whether gun sales and control policies prevent or increase gun-related crimes. Thus, Wendt (2014) provides evidence that shows the instances where the Second Amendment overcomes the Gun Control Act. The Second Amendment advocates an increase in the use of guns to ensure self-protection while the Gun Control Act limits the provision of guns. At the same time, Kopel (2015) provides information on how the provision of concealed weapons based on personal experience has limited the functionality of the Gun Control Act. Further, Webster (2012) informs how the right-to-carry law undermines the functionality of the Gun Control Act and the percentage of inmates arrested with guns without background checks. He further states that the right-to-carry allows individuals that are disqualified from owning firearms to carry firearms in public, thereby contradicting the Gun Control Act (Webster, 2012). Furthermore, 2,400 individuals who qualified for the right-to-carry guns in public were found guilty of gun-related crimes (Webster, 2012). Finally, Wendt (2014) compares the impact of having increased number of households with guns in different nations such as the USA and Canada.
Make the right choice and get the perfect quality papers
(Standard value) The task is being completed by one of our professional writers according to the deadline specified - we make sure the script is handled by an appropriate specialist of the particular field of study.
(+10% of the order total amount) This option is for clients who want their order to be quickly assigned to one of our professional writers. The premium quality also means that the final paper will be a subject to additional plagiarism checks, and the client will receive a PDF file with a detailed plagiarism report created by our professional editors.
(+15% of the order total amount) Apart from a “Detailed Plagiarism Check” option, our online agents will try to urgently assign a writer among the top 30 best company writers. Your order becomes of the highest priority for us. If you want your order to be our TOP priority, select this option.
At the same time, the research conducted by Vittes et al. shows that among the individuals allowed to own guns, 28.9 individuals of the total permitted people would have been prohibited to own guns had the government adopted more restrictive policies (Wendt, 2014). According to Kopel (2015), 40% of gun sales occurred without considering background checks, and private gun sales accounted for a small percentage of such cases. However, restrictive gun sales and having tighter control policies increase gun and rounds sales through the black market. Thus, Kopel (2015) offers information on guns that cause increased violence while favoring the Second Amendment at the same time. Moreover, mentally ill individuals see the black market as the only source of firearms where they can obtain guns without background checks. The possession of armaments should not have the expressed special guidelines that limit psychologically ill personalities from holding firearms (Kopel, 2015). On the other hand, Webster (2012) claims that mentally ill individuals pose threats and high risks and they should not own guns. Webster (2012) and Wendt (2014) agree that the percentage of guns acquired with background checks is almost equal to that of guns bought without background checks in the USA. Differences in opinions between the literatures show the existence of social dilemma regarding gun ownership and control strategies. Therefore, there is a necessity to safeguard an equilibrium concerning Gun Control laws and the Second Amendment.
A Report on the Effects of Illegal Gun Purchase on Gun Sales and Gun Control
Gun control policies’ leniency or restrictiveness influences the effectiveness of the Second Amendment. Studies show that there exist high levels of black market gun sales that undermine gun control policies. Thus, according to the research conducted in 2013 by Vittes et al., 96.1% of the inmates, serving gun-related jail terms, obtained them without background checks (Wendt, 2014). Black market enables unauthorized individuals to acquire firearms or bullets without background checks, which undermines the efficiency of gun control policies. Lack of balance between the Second Amendment and Gun Control policies causes deviations that force people to resort to the black market as an alternative plaform for gun sales. At the same time, Kopel (2015) seconds this idea by stating that mentally ill people see the black market as an alternative venue for acquiring guns without background checks.
- 12-point Times New Roman
- 1-inch margins
- Text aligned left
- 300 words/page instead of 275
- Single or double-spaced
- Free cover/title page
- Free table of contents
- Free abstract
- Free references/bibliography list
- Free outline (on demand)
Providing guns with increased number of rounds reduces purchasing rounds and guns from the black market. These recommendation were evident in 2012 when 100 rounds became insufficient for self-protection for citizens and the police (Kopel, 2015). On the other hand, Kopel (2015) states that according to Gun Control policies in the USA, individuals should own standardized guns that have a capacity of between 20 and 30 bullets for self-protection. Wendt (2014) claims that restrictive gun control policies result in law abiding citizens possessing inadequate means of self-protection, which leads to the increased number of illegally owned firearms. Therefore, finding a balance between the Second Amendment and gun sales or control plays a significant role in reducing the sales of guns through the black market.
How the Firearms that Favor the Second Amendment but Increase Violence Are Discused by Diferent Authors
High-capacity magazine guns offer increased self-protection capabilities and increase the magnitude of violence if used for a wrong purpose. According to Webster (2012), in 2012, 31,000 people suffered from gunshots, and this number only escalated due to the increased capacity of magazines for self-protection as advocated by the Second Amendment. Thus, Kopel (2015) advocates an increase in the number of rounds in the Second Amendment, which would undermine the effectiveness of gun control policies. Increasing the number of rounds enables citizens to protect themselves, especially before the arrival of policemen. On the other hand, the research conducted by Vittes et al. shows that reducing the carrying capacity and increasing the leniency of gun control policies increases assault and violence (Wendt, 2014). The research has showed that suicide, homicide, and violence in the USA accounted for high values of gun-associated crimes as compared to Canada because the former had 16% more households of gun owners when compared to the latter (Wendt, 2014). It has become evident that increasing the effectiveness of the Second Amendment lowers the effectiveness of Gun control policies. Among the US states, Washington D.C possess the highest number of registered guns that accounted for 6.5 times more gun-associated murders when compared to the nation’s average (Sterzer, 2012).
Our agency is the one which can provide you with effective
academic writing projects. There are many features that are offered by our agency for free, namely:
A title page
Table of contents
A reference page /
Violence in the USA increases due to an imbalance between gun control and the Second Amendment regarding concealed weapons. According to Koper (2007), marginalized ethnic groups, such as African American women, obtain guns illegally for self-protection due to restrictive gun control policies. Further, Wendt (2014) stated that the probability of minorities obtaining concealed firearms in New Orleans was high due to the increased likelihood of risk. Thus, in New Orleans, the Gun Control Act was overpowered by the Second Amendment because issuing guns was based on personal preference rather than a person’s experience in handling violent instances (Wendt, 2014). Such procedures undermine the Gun Control Act. Kopel (2015) gives the example of Suzanna’s leaving her concealed firearm in a car when he talks about issuing guns without considering an individual’s ability to handle guns during crime and how the Gun Control Act influenced by this. From the literature reviewed, one can see that lack of balance between the Second Amendment and the Gun Control Act regarding attaining permit of concealed guns is real and serious.
Cause-Effects Relationship of Mental Illnes on Gun Control And Sales
The procedure used by the Gun Control Act in controlling mentally ill individuals when it comes to possessing firearms is controversial. Consequently, such people undermine this act through acquiring guns from the black market. Drug abuse acts as a major cause of mental illness, which prevents drug addicts from acquiring guns legally. Moreover, drug dealers also harm the Gun Control Act through selling both drugs and guns to individuals with mentall illnesses. The use of background checks limits the effectiveness of gun sales and control. For example, Kopel (2007) offers Houser’s case, in which background checks have failed to determine his inability to possess a firearm after a five-days background check due to the limited time for this procedure. According to the Second Amendment, the period provided was enough to determine Houser’s mental health situation that led to him owning a firearm, later killing 11 people and himself (Kopel, 2007, p.3). Houser’s case showed that the deficiency of equilibrium concerning the Second Amendment and the Gun Control Act resulted in the former destabilizing the latter. Therefore, background checks have failed to ensure gun sales and control policies in this particular case. The American Constitution inhibits the sense of balance between the Gun Control Act and the Second Amendment because it prohibit taking action against mentally ill individuals until they become victims of gun violence (Kopel, 2007). Therefore, the need for the balance between between the two plays a vital role in ensuring the effectiveness of both documents in controlling mentally ill individuals and related gun violence.
Our Lifetime Discounts:
Exclusive savings! Save 25% on your ORDER
Get 15% OFF your FIRST ORDER (with the code perfect15) + 10% OFF every order by receiving 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
Arguments on Strategies that Aid in Achieving Balance Between the Gun Control Act and the Second Amendment
The key to reducing gun-related crimes lies in the ability of the US judiciary system to balance the powers of the Second Amendment and the Gun Control Act. Treating both as freedom instead of right is crucial in enabling the government to regulate and balance the two laws (Rodriguez, 2015). Attaining such a balance involves increasing restrictions in the Gun Control Act to ensure that background checks filter people with ineligibility possession data that prevents them from obtaining firearms according to the Second Amendment. At the same time, the Right to Carry Act should be amended because it limits the powers of the Gun Control Act. Moreover, the government can use its powers to prevent the diversion of firearms with more than 10 rounds since it is allowed to violate the powers of the Supreme Court in the case of strict scrutiny (Cosenza, 2017). Consequently, this scrutiny enables the state government to balance the imbalances between the Second Amendment and the Gun Control Act regarding concealed firearms through treating such arms as scrutiny demand, which does not require compelling evidence.
There are some imbalances between the Second Amendment and the Gun Control Act regarding gun sales, concealed weapons permit, gun diversion, and the procedures of conducting background checks. The latter is undermined by the Right to Carry, civil laws, and the black market while the Second Amendment is harmed by the standardized number of bullets allowed for self-protection and access to weapons by mentaly ill people. Inadequate disqualification data limit authorized dealers from guaranteeing the provisions of the Gun Control Act because lack of information regarding background checks increases the gap between the Second Amendment and the Gun Control Act, which limits ineligible people from obtaining firearms under the Second Amendment. The strategies that aid in fixing the imbalance between the two laws include treating them as freedoms instead of rights, amending the right-to-carry law, treating concealed handguns as scrutiny demand, and the government should using strict scrutiny powers to regulate the two laws. Strict scrutiny enables the state government to balance both regardless of the Supreme Court consensus. Therefore, the key to reducing gun-related violence lies in balancing the Second Amendment and the Gun Control Act.