Research Paper on the Right to Own Guns

Student Name
INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION(S)
ENGLISH

P a g e | 1
Whether all people should have the right to own guns.
Research paper
Introduction
The proponents of having the rights to own guns believe it is their right, possibly
responsibility to carry and have the ownership of guns. Their core belief is considered due to
recently polarised groups, popularly known as 'sportsmen' who have changed their name as
'right-wing gun nuts'. The opponents, on the other side, believe that from morality and
legality perspectives, the government must react in every possible way to prevent people
keeping guns with themselves so that further violence is restricted. This groups ranks among
fundamentally well-intentioned people who differ their experience from firearms and are
convinced that they would rather be better without guns (Blanco). The differentiated and
diverse approach regarding on what conviction or prosecution one holds the right to hold
guns have become a debatable and necessary topic particularly for fashioning law, policies
and regulations that need to govern the matters related to gun control. The argument has
indeed become more polarised and is usually dominated by two opposite and equal parties
revealing shrill extremists.
Arguments in favour of rights to own guns
When it comes about right to own guns, discussion in favour of it provides moral
reasoning to bear and keep guns typically to present the positive side of guns as self-defence
means. This is an empirical claim and shows that allowing a private gun can lead to increased
self-defence and crimes. In other words, although the rights to own a gun may have many

P a g e | 2
negative sides to it, overall benefits behind keeping a gun cannot be avoided completely. It
can be assumed that every individual has rights to have a permissible gun law rather than
accepting discretionary laws or total ban on it (Hsiao). The recognition regarding crime and
that it can occur anyplace and anytime remains beyond the control of common citizens. This
makes control and jurisdiction require protecting people and their homes. Subsequently,
banning the right to own a gun would encourage assaulters and discourage weaker, smaller
and potential victims of assault as assaulting them would become less costly and easier. The
victim would not be able to defend himself/herself fundamentally even though the victim
faces a situation where another person invokes the self-defence privilege. Since the victim
remains convicted for violating rules reading gun-ban, despite the fact, using guns are usually
counted as a crime in trails (Blanco).
Since every individual has equal rights to self-defence, and handguns might prove to
be a reasonable means. Considering it as a minimum right can prove helpful particularly for
weak and vulnerable victims. In addition to benefits such as self-defence, study shows that
resisting violence with the help of gun lowers injury rates. This can be said because a forceful
resistance with the help of guns can potentially and effectively evade away violent attacks as
compared to resisting the attack with other means such as using physical strength or other
non-resistant means (Myvenn). A study made by Hsiao of eight different forms of fight
resistance finds that when victims used the gun to protect themselves, their resistance strategy
proved more consistent and stronger and realised success to outcome robberies and other
related crimes. Other study shows that women who resist criminal assault without a gun faced
serious injuries four times greater than ones who resisted violence with the help of a gun.
Men who used gun for resistance also reported being less injured than the ones who resisted
without a gun or did not show resistance at all. In most of the defensive cases, victims do not