There is no reason why all people would neglect the issue on handgun ownership. Nowadays, various crimes and offences happened and the only weapon an ordinary person possesses is self-defense. On the issue of handgun ownership, I am more convinced that there is a need to lift any ban about it. The government must properly weigh out all things in implementing decisions on whether or not handguns will be allowed to be owned by private citizens. There are many reasons why we need to allow private citizens to own handguns.
If we could remember, a latest decision of the United Supreme Court provided that the ban on private citizen’s ownership of handguns is already lifted (Truitt 1). The decision was founded on the fact that although there were more cases of violence due to handgun ownership of private citizens, the number of victims increased since criminals illegally obtains handguns to kill (Truitt 1). That is the present scenario and it is no longer practical to disallow private individuals to protect themselves from criminals. Aside form that, the only reason why private citizens are allowed to own handguns is self-defense.
Courts are bound to investigate and properly hear cases related to handgun use in order to distinguish whether or not there is a hint of self-defense. It is absurd to protect the citizens from criminals through the Penal Code when they would be held powerless to defend themselves when criminals attack them. When the present situation would be considered wherein gun-related cases leading to death constantly occur, there is a need to review the necessity of allowing private citizens to protect themselves from possible offenders.
Anyway, if private citizens being allowed by law to own handguns use the same for illegal activities, they will also face the consequences of the said actions. Moreover, Truiit mentioned that if the government will disallow private citizens to own guns, children will be more curious of its causes and tend to glamorize the situation (Truitt 1). Since children would like to know why there is a tight law on handgun ownership, they tend to conduct activities that will heighten their curiosity. That will lead to more violence and increase in the number of juvenile delinquents.
The present situation gives more reason to implement the provision of the second amendment wherein a person has the right to keep and bear arms (Truitt 1). Besides, there is no existing proof that gun bans deter presence of criminals and their horrible acts (Truitt 1). Despite the fact that there was a ban on handgun ownership, crime rates still increased and violence still exists in many places. Thus, it is not practical to disallow private citizens to own handguns in any legal means applicable.
The problem really lies on the effectiveness to arrest and convict criminals in a given area. These criminals will do everything just to own handguns to be used for their illegal activities despite the fact that there is ban in ownership of the same. Therefore, the implementation of the ban will have no effect on these criminals as they would continue their illegitimate deeds for personal gain. It is not also true that self-defense accorded to every private citizen to facilitate gun ownership will only lead to death.
It is a shallow argument and appears to be a presumption. Every handgun- related case is a situation-to-situation basis and there is a need to go over the same individually. Finally, there is really a need to lift the ban on handgun ownership for private citizens after all the reasons that has been laid down in the paper.
Truitt, Trenton. “DC Gun Ban Overturned”. 27 June 2008. Suite 101. 21 July 2008 <http://peacesecurity. suite101. com/article. cfm/dc_gun_ban_overturned>