THE BELIEVING GAME
The ‘believing game refers’ to the act of trying to believe in ideas in which we initially seem to have doubts (Strober, 2010).The gun laws debate in the United States brings in pros and cons of enacting more gun laws. The ‘believing game’ is thus applied by the opponents to try and believe in some of the ideas suggested by proponents and vice versa. In this case, we will apply it in trying to scrutinize the ideas of the proponents as opponents. The gun laws in the United States entail regulation of the manufacture, trade, possession record-keeping, transportation of firearms and firearm accessories. After the second amendment, it was not clear whether individual right to possess arms was created (Gardener & Anderson 2014). According to the amendment, ‘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. Amendment, therefore, protects the right of the people to own guns. In the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court held that the amendment protected the right of an individual to own arms (Gardener & Anderson, 2014).
The proponents state that the amendment was meant for militias, gun violence would be reduced and that guns are rarely used for self-defence that gun laws had always existed. On the other hand, the opponents state that the amendment protects the right to own guns, that guns are necessary for self-defence and that gun laws infringe upon the right of self-defence (ProCon.org, n.d). Enacting strict gun laws against unlimited gun ownership in any nation would help enhance the security of the citizens at both local and national levels. The amendment points out very clearly that the people’s right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed. This implies that individuals will still bear the right to possess or keep arms. The proponents, however, ascertain that the amendment was exclusively meant for the militia as unlimited ownership of guns would mean increased crime rates. They argue that even throughout the colonial America, gun control existed. Secondly, the proponents state that more gun controls would reduce deaths since from 1999 to 2013; gun deaths amounted to 52.2% of all deaths (ProCon.org, n.d). They also point out that guns are rarely used for self-defence. For instance, from 2007 to 2011, 0.12% of the citizens protected themselves using firearms (ProCon.org, n.d).In a sense, the enactment of more gun laws would help enhance security as pointed by the proponents’ arguments. However, it would only prove meaningful if some facts were to be considered. That is if the citizens with the legal right of arms ownership do not engage in crime.
In case the citizens who have been granted the legal right to possess arms are involved in gun violence, this would also cause insecurity. Hence, there would be no need of restricting arm ownership with the aim of curbing violence. Moreover, if the government commits itself to providing a reliable defence to …