Public opinion is sharply divided on the question of legislative processes geared at increasing gun controls in civilian communities. In the midst of the debate raging and prying questions such as the degree of constitutional permissibility required to sustain anti-gun possession legislation; whether or not gun control legislations will be useful in the overall fight against crime? Be that as it may, will a gun control regime be the first step towards a steady denial of the rights of citizens to self-defense?

It is against this background that this essay will fundamentally be arguing in favor of strict gun controls citing uncontested facts to prove that it is in the best interest of the nation to come out with such a policy measure. My argument will be structured in the pattern of analogical framework highlighting all the pros and cons of the need to implement strict gun control measures. It is my sincere believe that doing so, will add to the strength and credibility of my argument thus insulating it against any criticism of being lopsided.

To begin with it is worth extending the premise of the opening paragraph by looking at the contentions swelling around the debate. First and foremost, it is worth looking at the tentative role gun proliferation plays in the crime combat process to be complemented by the degree of constitutionality of any attempt to either stifle or relax firearm circulation in our societies. What is of critical interest to me on the question of the constitutionality or otherwise of firearm controls has to do with the incessant interpretation given to the Second Amendment by both proponents and opponents of gun control alike. In the heat of the debate about the Second Amendment and its fundamental application to the issue in question, the debate sadly gets clouded by the failure to identify the ethical base of striking a comprehensive balance between the individual right to self-defense against the collective public safety stemming from a near zero arms circulation.

It is this failure that has fuelled the misconstrued attempt to question the legitimacy of government to regulate the proliferation of firearms. A common source of reference to back the argument of non-control advocates is the clause in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that 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.” The public interest is downplayed by advocates who cite this provision in articulating the absurd argument that the Second Amendment like each of the other Amendments places premium on the individual’s right against the collective right. Surprisingly, I am left wondering why the proponents are failing to acknowledge that it is individual’s who ultimately become a collective whole. For that matter, a collective whole is a representation of individual shreds who wield equal if not higher rights than the single individual and whatever right such an individual touts. The Federal government in representing the public collective interest is in effect representing the individual rights of people in a community which does not in any amount to travesty of the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the right enshrined in the Second Amendment is clearly not intended to be absolute but fundamentally wrought with the capacity to be regulated along the principles of justice.

I never cease to be surprised by the indifference of gun rights advocates to the staggering statistics about the lethal effects of gun possession on American societies. Take for instance, the 1998 study and publication of the International Journal of Epidemiology, which ranked the United States as the leading nation in the industrialized world with the highest level of gun related homicides. Does that not tell us as a nation that we are moving too fast in the wrong direction in our failure to exercise moderation in our gun laws? Decreasing gun possession is no doubt a potent source of decreasing corresponding gun violence in the streets of our cities.