Like every debate, Gun Control debate involves two sides, Gun Control side and Gun Rights side. Gun Control side suggests that lesser guns mean lesser crime. Gun Rights side suggests exactly the opposite. Sounds boggling. Right?
The former believe that the root cause of rising violence in the U.S. is easy access to guns while the latter believe that bearing guns might prove effective to protect the public from homicide and mass murder incidents.
The debate took a new direction in the recent turn of events. This is related to the launch of Armatix iP1, a Smart Gun manufactured in Germany. Simply put, a smart gun is designed so that it works only when operated by the gun owner. It is supposed to be unlocked by a biometric authenticator such as owner’s fingerprints or a radio signal as in the case of Armatix iP1.
Interestingly enough, both sides of the debate are quite resistive over the introduction of these smart guns.
Gun Rights side proposes that smart guns will be detrimental to the second amendment of the constitution which states that every citizen has the constitutional right to bear arms. As per them, smart guns defy the purpose of self-protection as it might fail to respond quickly in an emergency (which might be due to unavailability of the accompanying radio device at the moment).
While the gun control side see it as a mere tool to take away the real issue off the radar. They have maintained that the introduction of smart guns is going to have a negligent effect on reducing the gun violence for the apparent reason that people use their own guns anyway when committing acts of gun-violence. They have gone further and suggested that it will actually end up deterring government’s focus from gun-violence research.
Both sides of the debate are very religious about their respective positions. Maryland gun store owner Andy Raymond has suggested that the advent of smart guns in the market is inevitable. If government decides to ban the smart guns from the market, it will only be a transient move to pacify the current situation. But one day or the other, these guns are going to sweep off the mainstream market.
Oscar awarded documentary filmmaker Michael Moore suggests that guns are not the cause of gun-violence; people are! He holds the second amendment of the constitution sacramental to the public’s interest. He proposes that there has to be a greater sense of responsibility towards the subject of gun control. The government should not take away anyone’s right to bear arms as long as they clear their background checks and get legitimately registered for owning a gun.
Both the government and the masses agree on one thing and that is making Universal Background Checks in U.S. a mandate for every purchase and transfer of firearms. Effective background screening ensures that guns and firearms stay out of the reach of minors, mentally unstable, drug addicts and convicts. Looking at the current scenario, it can be safely stated that in the near future, Gun Background Checks are going to play a bigger role in the U.S.