Law

Introduction

Gun control opponents begin by quoting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “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 Constitution”, 2006). This, they argue, as were all of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, was added by the Founding Fathers to provide a more clear definition of the specific rights guaranteed to Americans. Further, they suggest gun control advocates consider the Second Amendment to be “obsolete; or is intended solely to guard against the suppression of state militias by the central government and therefore restricted in scope by that intent; or does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but one that can be limited by reasonable requirements” (Krouse, 2002). Of course, read in context, this passage refers to the right to bear arms as a part of the need for a militia, which we have; it’s called the National Guard. Why would have the Founders have so carefully worded the Second Amendment in this way? The word ‘gun’ cannot be found in the Constitution. It refers to arms. Does that mean we have the right to bear nuclear or chemical armaments? The topic of Gun Control is controversial and the debate surrounding it is often emotional usually centering on differing interpretations of the Constitution. This discussion will examine the intent of the authors of the Second Amendment as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing arguments on the volatile issue of gun control.

Historical Interpretation of Gun Rights Advocates

In the opinion of gun control opponents, the right to own arms was of supreme importance to the Founders given that it was listed second only after the freedom of religion and speech was documented in the First Amendment. The Founders knew that by ensuring the right to own arms, citizens would have the ability to protect themselves from that which might endanger their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. This could include bodily protection from persons and animals or from an oppressive government that threatened the freedoms outlined in the Constitution. “The Second Amendment reflects the founders’ belief that an armed citizenry, called the ‘general militia’ was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is foreign to the intent of the Constitution’s framers” (Reynolds & Caruth III, 1992).

Gun advocates believe that safety and security are dependent on the right to bear arms. They argue that police departments are under no legal obligation to protect anyone or any group and usually are only able to react to a crime that has already occurred, take a report and investigate. “Governmental police forces were created to prevent and break up riots and to keep a general sense of public order. They were never designed to stop criminal acts against individuals and, accordingly, they do this job poorly” (Fulk, 1993). There is about one police officer available for every 3,000 citizens in a given city; therefore, personal safety is the responsibility of each person alone (Fulk, 1993).

Justifications for Gun Control

Gun-control proponents, according to the words of opponents, decry the evils of gun ownership every time a tragedy such as Columbine High School or Virginia Tech occurs and though they would like to see every gun taken out the hands of law-abiding citizens, seldom is an enforceable, workable plan offered that would curb gun violence. Disarming citizens, they say, would be next to impossible because there are more than 140 million guns in the U.S., a third of which are handguns (Wright et al, 1983: 25). Attempting to disarm criminals is a great plan in some fairy-tale land but is a fruitless venture in the real world. “The ratio of people who commit handgun crimes each year to handguns is 1:400; that of handgun homicides to handguns is 1:3,600. Because the ratio of handguns to handgun criminals is so high, the criminal supply would continue with barely an interruption” (Department of Commerce, 1986: 171). The prohibition of guns in an effort to diminish criminal activity is as reasonable solution in much the same way the prohibition of alcohol would diminish the occurrences of driving while intoxicated.

Gun control opponents actually suggest that more guns in the community would reduce gun violence, that if everyone, evidently including high school students, carried handguns, everyone else would be afraid to use theirs. To gun control advocates, that is such a twisted and dangerous manipulation of logic and common sense, it is not worthy of rebuttal. The citizens of the country no longer have a need for arms such as they did 230 years ago. No hostile Indians and little threat from wild animals; the government is stable and elected by a democratic process and the citizens of the country have the most powerful armed force ever assembled by humankind in addition to several levels of law enforcement that protect it. It is also argued that the right to own guns has become a detriment to the safety of society which is in opposition to the intentions of the Founders.

Counterargument

Gun control opponents do accept that this is at least a somewhat valid argument but argue that the underlying rationale for the right to keep and bear arms remains an essential element for the protection of individual freedoms, which the Founders foresaw. An example, they say, can be found the first time gun control was enacted in the U.S. Following the Civil War, many Southern states passed a law that forbade blacks from owing firearms. Because of this, they had no means by which to protect themselves from radical white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Today, minorities of all descriptions including Muslim and homosexuals are better able to protect themselves from hate groups because of their constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms.

Global Examples

Many examples of human rights violations have been documented in all parts of the world following laws that banned citizens from owning guns. In 1911, Turkey enacted gun control legislation which led to the extermination of 1.5 million unarmed Armenian citizens of that country by 1917. In 1929, the Soviet Union enacted gun control. From that year until 1953, over 20 million unarmed people identified as political non-conformists were murdered by the state. Approximately 20 million citizens in China were killed for the same reason from 1948 to 1952 following gun control enacted in 1935. (Fulk, 1993)

Gun control was enacted by the Nazi regime of Germany in 1938. From that time until the end of World War II in 1945, untold millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, politically-defined mentally ill people, political non-conformists and others considered less than ‘normal’ were exterminated. In 1956, Cambodia enacted gun control which led to the eradication of more than a million of its ‘educated’ citizens from1975 to 1977. Similar genocidal events occurred following gun control laws enacted in Guatemala in 1964 and Uganda in 1970 (Fuller, 2005). What groups such as the National Rifle association do not explain is how any of these instances are relevant to or reflects the current situation in the U.S.

Right to Self Protection

Safety and security is dependent on the right to bear arms according to gun control opponents. Police departments are under no legal obligation to protect anyone or any group and usually are only able to react to a crime that has already occurred, take a report and investigate. “Governmental police forces were created to prevent and break up riots, and to keep a general sense of public order. They were never designed to stop criminal acts against individuals and, accordingly, they do this job poorly” (Fulk, 1993). There is about one police officer available for every 3,000 citizens in a given city; therefore, personal safety is the responsibility of each person alone (Fulk, 1993). Gun-control proponents decry the evils of gun ownership every time a tragedy such as Columbine High School or Virginia Tech occurs and though they would like to see every gun taken out the hands of law-abiding citizens, seldom is an enforceable, workable plan offered that would curb gun violence.

The Genie is out of the Bottle

Disarming citizens would be next to impossible because there are more than 140 million guns in the U.S., a third of which are handguns (Wright et al, 1983: 25). Attempting to disarm criminals is a great plan in some fairy-tale land but is a fruitless venture in the real world. “The ratio of people who commit handgun crimes each year to handguns is 1:400; that of handgun homicides to handguns is 1:3,600. Because the ratio of handguns to handgun criminals is so high, the criminal supply would continue with barely an interruption” (Department of Commerce, 1986: 171). The prohibition of guns in an effort to diminish criminal activity is as reasonable solution in much the same way the prohibition of alcohol would diminish the occurrences of driving while intoxicated (Kopel, 1988).

Conclusion

The hallmark of American society, in which its citizens have historically taken great pride, is the fact that they are self-reliant and strongly defend personal liberties. Gun control is but one case in point of an American society that is moving away from these attributes which have defined the nation’s ideals and towards the belief that the government can best deal with its problems according to gun control opponents. Some people choose to accept threats to their well-being as their fate then depend on the justice system to make everything right. Others, however, choose to defend themselves and their property. Both personal choices are the right of every American, at least for now. Many American citizens would throw away hard fought for freedoms by denying the constitutionally guaranteed right of gun ownership. They would do so without regard to the possible genocidal consequences as exhibited by historical examples or without concern for the safety of their neighbors and countrymen.

Gun control advocates generally want the weapon that kills the most people, handguns, to be illegal but are willing to compromise on rifles and shotguns. In this way, the right to bear arms is protected and so are the thousands that die from handguns every year. Of course, when reading the Second Amendment in context, only armed militias have the right to keep and bear arms. However, given the current strong emotions tied to the issue and the popularity of guns in this country, a compromise is the only solution.. To make the case for upholding the widely perceived ‘right’ to bear arms by allowing rifles and shotguns of a certain length while banning handguns and assault rifles seems the sensible solution and a fight that could be won. This tact has proven effective in other countries such as Britain and many other European nations. Those countries that ban handgun use have a much lower homicide rate than does the U.S.

Works Cited

Fulk, Austin. “Gun Control vs. Our Freedoms.” Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberties. (1993).

Fuller, Al. “Gun Control Revisited.” Odessa FactSheet. Vol. 44. Los Altos, CA: The American Horse. (2005).

Kopel, David B. “Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control.” Cato Institute. Cato Policy Analysis No. 109. (1988).

Krouse, William. “Gun Control.” Congressional Research Service. (2002).

Reynolds, Morgan O. and Caruth, W. W. III. “Myths about Gun Control.” Policy Report. National Center for Policy Analysis. No. 176. (1992).

Wright, James; Rossi, Peter and Daly, Kathleen. Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America. Hawthorne, N.Y.: Aldine. (1983).

Introduction

Gun politics and gun control is one of the most controversial issues in the United States of America’s politics. The relation between gun availability, gun control and crime are subjects that have continued to arouse so much interest from criminal psychologists with a view of establishing any form of causal relationship. Though there are various forms of crimes caused with the possession of guns, this does not guarantee the argument on gun usage in relation to crime rate to be true. Gun control does not necessarily check or control crime. The possession of a firearm in the US acts more as a protective measure rather than a deterrent one.

There are various discussions on Gun control and whether it reduces crime rate or is it crime rate that precipates Gun control? Lawmakers are of the view that gun control laws reduce the violent crimes using firearms hence, according to them, there is less crime when few guns are circulating among individuals. In this research paper, I will try to examine if there is any relation between gun possession and the prevalence of high crime rate in the United States and in trying to establish that relationship, I will discuss briefly on the historical usage of guns in U.S, the current trends, evolution of gun control laws, laws governing ownership of firearms in U.S and the constitution development that has incorporated gun control laws. Finally, in the conclusion I will indicate whether gun control checks or controls crime.

Gun use in the U.S

Historical background of gun use in the US

Gun use is not a new phenomenon in the U.S culture but rather it has a historical perspective. To capture this historical perspective of gun use, this research paper will look at guns in American society both in the past and in the present to ascertain the trend of gun usage and how this trend has influenced gun usage in the modern American society. Thereafter, the rate of crime in relation to the possession of gun would be established

Guns in the American Society

Since the formation of the American nation, a culture known as gun culture came into existed. This culture prescribes certain fundamental needs of owing a gun in American society. This goes hand in hand with all hunting sports carried out using guns in those early days. During the early days of the American society especially during the Agrarian revolution, gun possession became inevitable since gun served as an important asset to an individual. During the Agrarian revolution, obtaining food especially wild meat required one to have a gun and further still, the need for protection against predators in the process of hunting made possession of guns inevitable. Through hunting the American society could sustain their livelihood through the sale of hides which acted as a means of earning incomes. Shooting skills among the young American boys became so essential thereby making every child conscious of acquiring the skills. Possession of guns therefore became inevitable in society and as a result, gun culture became part of the American culture. (Carter, encyclopedia of history and politics).Consequently each and every community possessed a gun or two for purposes of hunting. Today, it is not certain whether this culture has faded away or it is still in existence since the issue of gun control has really affected the rate at which people wish to hold guns. However, in other communities such as those living in Texas, this culture has continued to be practiced despite the increasing laws on gun usage. The cultural practice of gun usage in Texas has not been eroded compared to other States that have witnessed an influx of immigrants who have diluted their culture. In addition, the practice of large scale farming in Texas has allowed an environment similar to the ancient one to prevail thereby proving good reasons to continue with the culture. Important to note is that gun culture requires a less populated environment which has very few youth population and this environment is found in Texas. As seen in various movies and programs concerning Texas, gun culture is illustrated clearly through the ‘Cowboys” who try to portray the American gun culture. (Ludwig 56).

However, gun culture not only included cultural practices of shifting from childhood to maturity but also involved military combat with enemies. Unlike modern America where security is fully provided by the government, the ancient American society relied more on self defense than government protection. As a result, the possession of a gun became the most important thing for a family to have as it was the surest method to guarantee security especially from foreign attacks. It is also important to note that during the 18^th and 19^th century, the government had little resources to maintain a huge army and therefore relied on the citizens who were armed to act as a source of army in cases of attacks from outside. Consequently, it was inevitable for a man to have a loaded gun at all times. As a result, a culture emerged that required each and every family to posses at least one gun to offer security services to the nation whenever necessary. Consequently, voluntary militia emerged in the U.S that served as a regular army (Ludwig 56).

Lastly, the issue of Westward expansion contributed to the gun culture of the American society. The desire by the Americans to conquer the West and expand the American territory necessitated the need for guns which acted as a weapon to eliminate the natives of a country hence forcing them to flee. To achieve the Westward expansion agenda, the American society incorporated gun usage into their culture to allow for easy invasions especially in the Indian dominated States (Carter, encyclopedia of history and politics).

It is seen clearly from the above illustration that gun usage in America is not a new phenomenon. As a matter of fact it is part of the American culture and practices adopted in the early years of American history. However, there is a great difference in gun usage in the modern American society compared to the early American society. In the Modern American society there is a lot of gun misuse compared to the ancient American society which believed that gun is basically for protection and hunting purposes. The misuse of gun comes in various forms of criminal activities conducted using guns. They include homicide, suicide, robbery and assassinations all of which are dangerous criminal acts to the society. Looking back to the late 20^th century, there are several deaths caused by misuse of guns especially among college students. A memorable case is the 1999 case where two students killed twelve students in their school and injuring twenty three others. The incidence which resulted in the death of one teacher occurred in Colorado where guns and other explosives became the main weapons of committing the crime. Thereafter, the two students killed themselves leaving everyone in suspense as to why they committed such an evil act. Prior to this incidence, numerous other cases in the early 1990’s had also occurred (Kleck 156).

Clearly, from the observation, the real intentions of owning a gun in the modern society greatly differ with early society’s intention of holding a gun. The need for protection and other leisure activities such as hunting is what comprised the major intentions of the early society’s need to hold guns. However, in modern society the need for protection is still fundamental though many owners of guns tend to misuse the guns. Though Americans still appreciate the need for owning guns as a form of security, its relevancy has greatly reduced since the government has the capacity to provide enough security to its citizens unlike in the past where the government was unable to guarantee security for everybody. Therefore, as time passes, the need for guns for security purposes is declining due to the security being offered by the government through its various police departments. However, demand for guns for purposes of committing crimes is gaining ground day in day out. Most of the Americans who acquire guns are of the view that their sole intention is to protect themselves against criminals who might attack them. This therefore indicates that, the rate of crime committed using guns is steadily increasing with time and if not properly checked may lead to increase in illegal gun possession among wrong people. As a result, it can be observed that the American culture of acquiring shooting skills have greatly reduced as a result of erosion of culture which has increased crime in the society (Long 89).

The erosion of cultural practices of gun is what has resulted in the misuse of gun in the modern society. Instead of gun acting as a symbol of passing childhood and achieving maturity in modern society, it has become a symbol of heroism by committing gun crime. This argument is based on statistics of crimes committed by firearms obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. This has destroyed the initial intention of gun culture in American society thus making gun possession irrelevant. The history of gun culture therefore helps in understanding why gun possession in American society is so vital though the modern societies have destroyed the initial intentions of gun control.

Guns Crime relationship

Having discussed the history of gun use, it is easier to ascertain why gun use and possession is rampant in American society. This is because gun use and owner ship is as old as America itself. However, the possessions of guns in the modern society are surrounded with a lot of controversy, especially the misuse of guns in committing crimes. As a result of the controversy, various politicians, scholars and religious leaders have offered their views on the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Many have associated the possession of guns to the rising crime rate in the country. Therefore, in this research, validity of those views would be examined by looking at different types of crimes and how they were committed. To examine these views clearly there is need to consult recent statistics on crime that involved gun use. Statistics according to Bureau of justice indicates that the crime rate that involves firearms has a fluctuating tendency over the years. However, the increases in firearm crimes have always been greater than the decline. Prior to 1980 and 1990’s, crime rate associated with gun did not exist in big numbers and various crimes manifested themselves inform of riots. Early gun crimes include various assassinations especially among the top political figures such as Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, President James Garfield and John Kennedy. Since then, crimes committed using guns tremendously increased thereby causing an alarm that led to various debate that related possession of guns to crimes. It is to this extent that I will examine different types of crimes that involve crime and ascertain whether gun possession has any relationship with increased crime (Carter 23).

Homicides are the crimes that have recorded the highest number of occurrence that involved usage of guns. Looking at statistics provided by Bureau of justice, homicides committed using guns have greatly increased over the years in comparison to homicides committed with other forms of weapons. The graph below helps in illustrating the increase in the number of homicides in the country.

Looking at the graph above which indicates homicidal incidence in the U.S from 1976-2005, it is observed that actually, homicides committed using gun especially hand gun has by far outweighed homicides by other weapons. It is also observed that the incidences have been fluctuating with 1990’s having the highest numbers of homicides committed using hand guns. As a result of introduction of laws on gun control, the trend reduced a little bit but is still greater than before 1980’s. Therefore, it is asserted that there is a clear relationship between guns and crime as shown by the above diagram. It is alleged that homicides by guns is easier compared to homicides by other means therefore, the access to these hand guns and other forms of guns have highly precipitated crime rate especially homicide. An interesting observation is that these homicides have been committed by teenagers aged between 16-19 and other youths of ages 20-25 especially college students. This clearly indicates the changing trends in gun culture among the American societies. Unlike in the past where guns were used responsibly and acted as a symbol of transformation from childhood to adulthood, the modern youths have misused it thereby making the gun culture in America to lose its original meaning (Adam, New York Times)

Another crime that has been constantly associated with gun is robbery. Robberies committed using guns are in most circumstances fatal compared to robberies that are committed without firearms. Since this is the easiest way to get away with crime, robbers have constantly employed guns in their missions thus increasing the number of crimes committed using guns. In the US, various acts of robberies have been reported since 1980’s and almost all of them ended up being fatal in nature. As a result, many scholars and politicians have indicated a positive correlation between robbery crimes and gun. Lastly, assassinations are other forms of crimes that have employed the use of guns. Guns have made various assassinations in US easy since guns provide opportunity for assassins to terminate the life of their target at a long range thus increasing the number of assassinations in the country. It is clear since many of the US leaders have succumbed to death through assassination hence there is no doubt that gun has increased the assassination crimes in the country. However, it can not be said that guns have 100% increased on crimes but there are other factors that have contributed to the rise in crime (Moorhouse 103-124).

Therefore, according to this research, it can be ascertained that there is some close relationship between guns and crime rates basing on the above data which indicates that most of the death caused as a result of crime occurred due to the use of guns to execute the crime. Though the rate has since reduced, it is still high compared to other forms of deaths caused by crimes using different weapons other than guns (Goss, Princeton University Library)

Evolution of Gun control movements in US

Gun Ownership and attitudes

Ownership of gun is allowed to any person above the legal age who is able to acquire a gun legally and the fully license the gun. Data relating to gun ownership is usually kept by the General Social Survey (GSS). According to GSS, firearm ownership declined by 10% from 1989 to 2004. The decline is associated with single parent hood where the female population has increasingly been practicing single parenthood. Looking back at history, it is seen that guns are mainly meant for the male population and therefore, the increasing number of female families has reduced gun ownership in families headed by a women. The ownership of guns survey carried out in 1994 revealed that most Americans own guns for self protection while a few own guns for hunting. Those Americans owning guns for hunting are only eleven percent of the total population owning guns. An interesting phenomenon to note is that the survey revealed that approximately 69 million people owned riffles; 65 million people had handguns; approximately 59 million possessed shotguns and the remaining people out of 192 who owned a gun possessed other types of guns. The ownership of guns according to GSS is mainly by adults who use them for protection and hunting (Katarzyna 229-247).

The peoples’ attitude towards gun ownership can be said to be positive. Almost all the people interviewed concerning ownership of guns have asserted that they own guns for positive reasons especially for self protection. Therefore, it is seen that most people own guns to guard against attacks by people who have their arms illegally or acquired the gun for sinister motives and as some criminologists have asserted that there is no clear correlation between gun ownership and violence involving guns. Examining statistics, most violence committed using guns in most families are done by outsiders and not the family members who own the guns. Further still, most families can defend their life’s against attacks through the use of guns they posses. Therefore, a part from a few criminals who have misuse guns for their sinister motives, most Americans have a positive attitude that guns are for protection purposes (Katarzyna 229-247).

Gun control and Citizens rights

Gun control has the sole intention of prohibiting the regular access to guns by unlawful citizens. Therefore, it acts as a regulatory measure to acquiring firearms in the United States. As a result, gun control intends to limit access to guns by people believed to be untrustworthy citizens, minors, individuals who are believed to be criminals or terrorist in the ‘eyes’ of the law. But gun control should not come at the expense of American society’s rights of owning a gun. It should be noted that the process of acquiring a legal gun in America has become tedious and lengthy thereby limiting most of the citizens with decent intentions of owning a gun from acquiring one. Though this process helps in limiting the access to guns by unfit persons it should in the same way not limit rights of the citizen to own a gun (Long 73).

Looking at the American history, guns have formed part of the society for many years and even gone to the extent of being incorporated in the ritual rites of signifying the transformation of a child into adulthood. Therefore, to reach a time where access to gun becomes a problem is to indicate that there is an absolute erosion of American’s culture and the denial of Americans’ fundamental rights as provided in the constitution. I am not of the view that gun control should be abolished but what I mean is that the process of acquiring gun should not be that stringent to deny some of the innocent citizens from accessing guns for protection purposes. It should be noted that while formulating gun control policies, emphasis should not be placed on the process of acquiring the guns but on the enforcement methods. The current gun control laws have a lot of emphasizes on the methods of acquiring gun but relaxes on the methods of enforcing proper gun usage. Once an individual has acquired a gun, there is no proper channel to ensure the gun has been appropriately used according to the requirement stipulated. Therefore, the gun ends up being misused by the owner. In addition, the is no provision for the storage of the guns once they are acquired and as a result, poor storage always result into the gun falling into the wrong hands such as in the hands of a minors or an intruders who may use it to commit crime (Wilson 336-337).

Therefore, as the government considers restricting access to gun through gun control, it should first examine the enforcement agents and methods to ascertain the major cause of crimes caused by firearms. There is no need to deny the citizens the right to own gun when the government it self cannot enforce the use of guns in the country.

Development of gun control legislation

Legislation on gun control begun as early as 1790 when the need to restrict access to firearm became inevitable due to the increasing numbers of crimes committed using guns. Initial legislation meant to restrict access to guns by the black population who were then considered as slaves by their white counterparts. However, as the misuse increased, it became inevitable to incorporate gun control laws in the constitution. This is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Laws and legislations on gun ownership and control

There are various laws on gun ownership and control in the United States. The Federal authority provides the general rules on gun ownership and control but each State has the authority to formulate subsidiary laws in relation to the main law provided by the Federal authority. The laws are divided into the following categories; persons who are ineligible to own guns and they include convicted persons, fugitives, citizens who renounce their citizenship, minors, illegal immigrants, drug addicts, convicted persons, and discharged members of armed force due to indiscipline; the second category is the acquisition of guns from dealers whose provisions include acquisition of gun by any person above 21 from any federal licensed dealer, individuals above 18 years can access gun from any licensed dealer in any State, prohibits licensed dealers from selling imported arms without the necessary authentication, persons holding the C & R license can purchase guns that are above fifty years from anyone; the third category is the sale between individuals which requires an individual to posses a license before transferring any arm to another person in a different State; the fourth category is on the use of the fire arm which provides that an individual may borrow a friend’s gun for use so long as the gun is fully licensed, right to carry the gun depending on the State an individual hails from, and the fire arm shall not be used in any crime otherwise an individual is subject to imprisonment; the fifth category is Antiques category recognized in the Gun Control Act which allows an individual to posses firearms that were manufactured prior to 1898; the sixth category is concerned with shipping firearms and states that one may be allowed to ship a firearm for hunting purposes to another State, firearm can only be shipped to other States within America when it has federal firearm license, and shipment of firearms must be accompanied by a letter indicating the contents of the shipment ; the seventh category of gun laws is related to transporting of the firearms hence the law prohibits crossing a State into another State without the required documentations, it also exclude the carrying of gun while in an aircraft and in cases where an illegal gun is carried on board, it should be handed to the appropriate officials and in this case, it should be handed over to the Pilot or Captain; the last category is on ammunitions which has states that it is illegal and punishable by law to illegally manufacture any kind of firearm ammunitions (Utter, Encyclopedia of guns).

Constitutional development

Constitutional development on the laws of gun control began in 1791 with the ratification of the Second Amendment which recognized the need for citizens to be issued with the right to legally own guns. The second amendment therefore protects the right of individuals to purchase and own a gun. Since its ratification in 1791, it acted as the only source of law on gun usage and with time, misuse of gun became so rampant leading to the enactment of the National Firearm Act in 1934. This Act instituted tax on the sale of firearms both at home and abroad. Further still, the manufacturing of guns became restricted allowing only a few individuals to manufacture guns hence reducing the numbers of guns available. Soon, the Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 to creative a provision for the shipping of firearms. In this provision, all merchants involved in selling firearms across the States and within the States were governed by this law hence reducing illegal transfer of firearms to unwanted persons. This law brought into light the licensing of every dealer in firearms so that individuals could only purchase firearms from licensed dealers (Utter, Encyclopedia of gun control and gun rights).

The crucial development in gun control laws came in 1968 when the gun control act was enacted following the assassination of President Kennedy, and other prominent people. The act created a provision limiting mail sale of firearms by dealers. The next step came in 1972 with the formation of Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco department to ensure the enforcement of the Gun Control Act. In 1986 another act known as Law Enforcement Officers Act was enacted to prohibit importation of bullets that were able to penetrate bullet prove gadgets. Other development came in 1990 with the enactment of Crime Control Act and finally in 1994 when Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act were formulated which restricted selling of guns to minors. The 1994 enactment became popular since it restricted gun access to minors who at that time had very easy access to guns. This is seen in the high levels of crimes committed in the early 1990’s and late 80’s. Most of the crimes were executed by minors of age 14-19. Therefore the enactment of this law served to reduce on these high levels of crimes by juveniles. However, this law did not completely eliminate juvenile crime as in 1999, another serious gun crime in U.S history occurred. This led to the formulation of other minor laws meant to supplement the existing ones. (The Editorial Board, New York Times).

As of present, the debates on gun controls laws stills continues and as days passes, many provisions and amendments are being included in the constitution to provide for a safe environment as well as the rights to own guns among the citizens. Whether these amendments and provisions will last to provide a positive impact on gun ownership and gun control is yet to be established and is only a matter of time before the true fats come abode.

Effects of Gun Control Legislation

As a result of the various Acts enacted, the rate of crime has somehow reduced though not to the levels prior to 1980’s. Gun control legislations have offered an avenue for gun owners to be more responsible with their firearms so that they avoid prosecutions. The legislations have also reduced on the illegal guns coming into America. As a result, there has been a peaceful co-existence among the society members unlike in the early 90’s when crime committed using guns was so rampant (Linda, New York Times).

In several States in America, carrying a concealed gun which is licensed is legal and therefore any person with a licensed gun can move with it anywhere so long as it is not exposed. The gun control law that included this provision has brought in positive effects especially among the women. It is now hard to attack somebody without a second thought of whether he/she is carrying a firearm. As a result, many women who are the major causalities of crimes such as rape and other victimization are able to protect their lives more easily. Let’s take an example of a women walking down an aisle and all of a sudden she is attack by a criminal who may either demand money or may force the woman to have sexual intercourse. In this scenario, there are two options, one is to defend herself and the second option is to succumb to the demands of the aggressor. In situations where the woman has a concealed gun, she can easily come out of the hand of the aggressor. However, if she has nothing to protect herself, she will succumb to the masculine strength of her aggressor. To this extent, the introduction of the law of concealment of firearm has greatly improved on the safety of American women.

Gun control has in other States resulted in more crime than the initial intention of reducing on the crime rate. According to Moorhouse (103-124), States where strict gun control is in place, are the States where levels of crime are high compared to States with less restrictive gun control. For example, the State of Texas which has a large majority of its population having guns has reported a low rate of criminal acts using guns. Despite the high prevalence of guns and less restrictive laws on gun ownership, crimes are still low. This is attributed to self responsibility of persons owing guns and the limited pressure on laws controlling guns.

Public Opinion on Gun Control

Many people are of the view that the legal age of acquiring guns should be raised up to 25 and in that process; many juveniles would be blocked out in accessing this firearms. It is because of the age in which people acquire guns that precipitates the crime rate since most of the youths are not certain of the clear use of a gun. As a result most of them resort to showing others their heroism using the gun and the end result is crime. Restricting the age to around 25 would act as a means of totally banning minors from accessing guns and would provide the opportunity to more mature persons to own guns (Marjorie, New York Times).

Many people have differed on whether to impose control over gun ownership or control the rights of owners of the guns. In 2000, approximately 66% of the total population considered gun control on ownership as a more appropriate way to limit access to gun by minors and other ineligible persons. This survey occurred a few months after the 1999 shooting incidence in Columbine High school and indicated that approximately 29% supported gun control laws on the rights of owners. Currently, most people view laws on gun control more appropriate than laws on gun ownership rights. This trend has fluctuated from the year 2000 but still most people are of the view that gun control laws on ownership helps limit the rate of crime in the country.

On whether gun sale of guns should be completely banned, opinions vary across the population with most men opposing the ban on sale of hand guns. Approximately 55% of the US population is opposed to the ban on the sale of hand gun and about two third of this percentage are men. This is attributed to the fact that most men use guns to protect their families unlike women who rely mostly on the government to provide this service (Katarzyna 229-247)

Opinions on whether to have restrictive gun control or less restrictive gun control

People in support of a more restrictive gun control laws have three main strong points to support their argument namely the high rates of death associated with guns, that the second amend enacted in 1791 does not provide gun right to individuals and lastly they are of the view that there is need for the American society to have appropriate gun laws. Let’s begin with the society’s need for a safe environment where the proponents of this point ague that having individuals in the society with guns makes the whole environment unsafe for living.

Secondly, the high rates of crime committed using firearms is what has necessitated the call for restrictive gun laws and finally, the proponents of restrictive gun laws cite the second amendment which only allowed a collective ownership of gun for States and not private individuals whom are now allowed exclusive rights to own guns privately (Long 35).

On the other side, people who have proposed a less restricted rule argue that gun act as a means of self defense. Therefore to put restrictive laws on acquiring guns would jeopardize the lives of many civilians who rely on guns for their protection. In supporting their arguments, they have cited various incidences of crimes in States where the restrictive laws have been adopted and yet the levels of gun crimes have continued to increase. Secondly, proponents of less restrictive gun control laws argue that these laws restrict people from participating in recreational activities that require the use of guns. These activities include hunting and shooting competitions. Third is that this group of people believe that the second amendment clearly provided for the right to any American citizen to own gun without too much restrictions though this second amendment is still subject of debate on whether it gave the right to collective ownership of guns or private ownership of guns. Nevertheless, proponents of less restrict laws argue that the second amendment gave the citizens the rights to resist any tyrant government using the gun (Long 35).

Conclusion

According to this research paper, it can be asserted that crime increases gun control. This is because, looking at the constitutional development, all the amendments made were based on the prevailing crime situation precipitated by firearms. All the amendments were incorporated to tackle a given particular concern of firearms thereby reducing crime. Prior to 1934, the United States had stayed for a period of more than 100 years without amending its constitution with provision for firearms control. However, as the crime rate increased during the better part of early 20th century, there was need for laws governing gun ownership and gun usage. Therefore, as a result of the increased crime, gun control laws were inevitable. In addition, legislatures rely on the rate of crime to determine whether to initiate gun control laws or not. When crimes associated with guns increase, it prompts the legislatures and other politicians to adopt laws that would control the increase in crime. Therefore, it can be ascertained that due to increased criminal activities using firearms, gun control laws will continue to be formulated (Moorhouse, 103-124).

In my own opinion I would not prefer stringent gun control laws since in most States where this has been applied, crime rate tend to be high. Self discipline and responsibility is what should be adopted by every member of the society. When this is done, American society would be able to return to its good olden days where gun culture was an excellent practiced.

Bibliography

Adam Liptak. “Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship” New York Times. 2009. Web. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2009. Web.

Carter, Gregg Lee. Gun control in the United States. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2006.

Carter, Gregg Lee. Guns in American society: an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, c2002.

Carter, Gregg Lee. The gun control movement. New York: Twayne Publishers; London: Prentice Hall International, c1997.

Goss, Kristin A. Disarmed: the missing movement for gun control in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, c2006. Web.

Katarzyna Celinska. “Individualism and Collectivism in America: The Case of Gun Ownership and Attitudes toward Gun Control.” Sociological Perspectives (2007): 229-247. Social Science Module. ProQuest.

Kleck, Gary. Point blank: guns and violence in America. New York: A. de Gruyter, c1991.

Long, Robert Emmet. Gun control. New York: H.W. Wilson, 1989.

Linda Greenhouse, New York Times. “Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Gun Control Case.” 2007. Web.

Ludwig, Jens. Evaluating gun policy effects on crime and violence. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, c2003.

Marjorie Connelly. “Poll On Gun Control” New York Times. 2007. Web. 

Moorhouse, John C, Wanner, Brent. “DOES GUN CONTROL REDUCE CRIME OR DOES CRIME INCREASE GUN CONTROL?” Cato Journal 26.1 (2006): 103-124. Research Library Core. ProQuest.

The Editorial Board. New York Times. “In the Supreme Court Today: Gun Control” 2009. Web.

Utter, Glenn H. “Firearms, Law and legislation, United States.” Encyclopedia of gun control and gun rights. Phoenix, Ariz: Oryx Press, 2000.

Wilson, Harry L. “Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Political Science Quarterly (2007): 336-337. Research Library Core. ProQuest.

Introduction

Informed consent is a fundamental right of clients receiving professional help. Each client has the right to informed consent. It is the basic right because clients need assistance in becoming educated and willing participants in the therapy of their choice or treatment offered by a professional. The primary objective of the informed consent process is to guarantee clients the provision of updated, adequate, and accurate information about every aspect of the treatment to ensure that clients have sufficient understanding to consent to treatment. Furthermore, clients have a legal and moral right to expect an explanation of the treatment and have clear information about the necessity to record cases and participation in counseling plans. Without informed consent, no client should undergo the treatment or participate in the therapy. It is the primary responsibility of the counselor to provide clients all information that may affect the decision of the person to consent to the treatment. In other words, clients should be given all data to make adequate and informed choices about the treatment, therapy, counseling, or any other professional help.

Legal Aspects

From a legal perspective, there are three key elements ensuring adequate informed consent: capacity, comprehension, and voluntarism. Capacity is the ability of the client to make rational decisions. If the client lacks the ability to make sound and rational decisions, a guardian is given the right to authorize informed consent. Comprehension can be defined as an understanding of information. The comprehension aspect signifies that therapists and counselors are legally required to present clients with information in a clear manner. It is the responsibility of the therapist/counselor to ensure clients are given adequate information about procedures as well as their potential consequences and understand this information thoroughly and in detail. All answers to the questions of the client should be given. In particular, the clients should be notified about the goals of the program, services, expectations, and any risks involved in the therapy. Voluntarism means acting freely and having an opportunity to withdraw consent at any time and for any reason. It means that the client is the decision-maker. It is important to add that voluntarism holds clients free in their choice to continue or withdraw treatment. However, voluntarism signifies that clients are legally and psychologically capable and competent to give or withdraw consent. The voluntarism aspect is important because it gives clients the power to choose to enter the therapeutic process.

Conclusion

Informed consent is a fundamental legal right of the client. It gives the client an opportunity to require information about the treatment, procedures, risks, consequences, etc. It puts clients into the position of decision-makers. At the same time, informed consent shifts responsibility for becoming a participant of the program to the client. Capacity, comprehension, and voluntarism are the three legal aspects of informed consent which guide the therapist in ensuring that the clients enter the program voluntarily and are knowledgeable on all matters related to the treatment. Moreover, these three aspects guarantee the adequate protection of the client’s rights. In summary, therapists and counselors must help each client make informed consent and ensure that their rights are protected effectively.

Introduction

“The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act” was passed in 1974. It is also well known as “the Buckley Amendment”. Buckley is the name of its proponent. It is a federal law of the United States. Privacy of student education records is protected by this law. Educational records mean the records which are directly related to the student. Written documents, Computer media, Microfilm and microfiche, Video or audio tapes or CDs, Film, photographs (all related with the student) come under the category of educational records. According to this act the institutes that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education have to provide some rights to the students about their educational privacy such as students can access their education records. Students can disclose some information from the records but institute has to take permission of the student prior to disclosing his educational record to some one other. According to this law the student who is applying for an educational institution such as graduate school can view proposals, suggestions, and recommendations submitted by the others.

Main body

These rights are not directly given to the students. Firstly they are given to their parents. When a student crosses 18 years of age or admits in a school beyond the high school level, these rights are transferred to him and the student whom rights have been transferred is called “eligible student”. It is specified in this law that Parents or eligible students can examine and check the student’s education records which are maintained by the school. But it is not compulsory for the schools to provide copies of records. Schools have to provide copies of records, if it is impossible for parents or eligible students to view the records because of the long distance. In this condition schools may charge a fee for providing copies. If parents or eligible students find any mistake in the record, they can request to the school for a correction. If schools do not modify the record then the parent or eligible student has the right to a formal enquiry.

Generally there must be a written permission from the parent or eligible student to disclose any information from a student’s education record, but FERPA permits schools to disclose those records without any written permission under some conditions such as school administrators with valid educational interest can view a student’s record, other school to which a student is transferring can view a student’s record, specified officers can view a student’s record for audit or evaluation purposes, parties who are providing financial aid to the student can check his record, in cases of health and safety emergencies specified officers can see the record.

Conclusion

According to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Schools may reveal some information such as a student’s name, telephone number, address, date and place of birth, awards and honors, and attendance dates. This information is called “directory” information. Parents and eligible students may request a reasonable amount of time that the school will not divulge directory information about them till that time. In this law students have right to know about the location where their educational records are kept. In December, 2008 a new law was attached in FERPA by the US Department of Education, which is applied for mental health and campus safety.

FERPA was passed by the Congress for the purpose of protecting the privacy of student educational records and it became succeed in its aim. But there are some drawbacks in each and every law. It has proved a good policy for the institutes. This act would be more effective if institutes provide information to the student about their rights under FERPA. They should out publish some articles about FERPA. If there is any doubt then institute should first inform to the student. Institute should take a written permission from the student before disclosing his educational records to other party.

References

Everything you’ve always wanted to know about HIPAA and FERPA (but were afraid to ask). (2007). Nuesoft Technologies, Inc. Web.

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). (2008). U. S. Department of Education. Web.

The FERPA Watchdog. (2008). Web.

Van Dusen, William R., Jr. (2004). FERPA: Basic guidelines for faculty and staff a simple step-by-step approach for compliance. Web.

Introduction

The competitive business climate of today frequently makes brand managers to turn their focus to near-term issues. Accomplishing the month’s objectives such as; returns objectives and attaining a targeted figure of consumers at a good number of times force administration to drop focus of extensive term strategic chances and on to critical items. As a result, most brand ambassadors seem not to see the bigger picture of what their job’s real mission is. Instead of developing an impenetrable bond with their user audience, they dwell a lot on achieving monthly targets. A marketer’s primary daily duty should be concentrated on building and maintaining bonds with customers so that these bonds end up being (Oliver, 1999). By doing this, marketers will ultimately increases the chances of their brand withstanding hard times such as economic downturns and recessions, competitive threats, and reasonable price increases. (Collins 2001)

Consumer Loyalty is a term used to define the behavior of frequent customers and those that offer good testimonials or rankings to a Company, or product. A good number of consumers help companies a great deal by volunteering information to the rest of the public about a company’s products or services that they value (Rob, 2007). However, loyalty of customers consists of several aspects, it is both a process, and to some extent a program (or a group of programs) aimed at keeping consumers going back for product or service as a result of satisfaction.

Customer loyalty can be used as a one time incentive to lure customers, but giving out free samples is more popular, as a consumer purchases one product he/she might get another piece free or get to try another for free. One other incentive program towards accomplishing customer loyalty is through the offer of a product for free for given period so that the consumer can try it without having to buy it (Rob, 2007). This may in addition be termed as product name fidelity; these kinds of inducements are meant to guarantee that consumers come back, not only to purchase the similar goods over and over but also to attempt other goods or services presented by the business (Barry, 2009).

Brand loyalty is when a consumer decides to favor one product brand over another. This happens as a result of consumer’s fixed perceptions that the brand offers him/her the right product specifications, for example a mobile phone brand may be favored because of its features, size, user friendliness, or level of quality at the right price (Fredrik and Earl, 1990). The perception created builds into the basis in which another buying habit if formed by the people. Many consumers buy a product for testing purposes initially, it may be in the smallest version of the product, when they think that it is good enough for them to use, they will definitely come back and might buy the same product in even larger quantities as a result of surety.

Evidence of Consumer Loyalty

A good example of customer loyalty is in the Chinese market. The Chinese buyers are Loyal to domestic brands than the international imported ones. As big companies are planning to move into the Chinese market and doing surveys, it has occurred to them that it is very difficult to beat the local brands due to this significant aspect. Such products that have commanded this large following includes, Haier, Heartex, Tsingtao and Master King (Barry, 2008). This factor beats the almost eternal believe that the east always preferred overseas goods.

A company like Haier draws most of the loyalty from it’s customers from CRS activities it carries out within its community. For example, during the 2008 Beijing Olympics Haier promise d to build an Olympic Hope School for each gold medal that their athletes won. This was a partnership deal that they went in with Project Hope which is a China Youth Development foundation sponsored NGO whose primary aim is to promote the poor population in getting educational facilities (Reichheld, 2007).

Haier announced in 2007 that it would launch a project called “1 Gold Medal, 1 Olympic trust School”. That is for every gold medal won by a Chinese athlete it would match it up by building one primary school in China. This was practiced by an NGO called Project Hope (a sponsored program by the China Youth Development Foundation for the non-governmental organization). This organization was started with the main aim of trying to support educational programs in the under developed parts and poverty stricken parts of China (Reichheld, 2007).

By the end of the Olympics games China had bagged up to fifty one gold medals that translated to that number of schools for Haier to construct. These schools were supposed to be located in disaster stricken areas such as the Sichuan Province and fifteen others in the earthquake prone Beichun County. Haier does not only support local courses, it has gone to an extent of proving some sponsorship to the American national Basketball Association (NBA). This was meant to promote and create brand awareness in the American market (Reichheld, 2007).

In survey done by several institutions including AlixPartners’, of market all market preferences including service or product, price, shopping experience , product and store/in-store access, Chinese consumers concentrate on the product as their first priority ahead of factors such as price and durability (Reichheld, 2007). This has made customers support Haier because they are sure that their money goes to a worthy course.

Example two illustrates the disadvantages of consumer disloyalty. This is in the case of America’s Wal Mart. Wal-mart’s on going business and specifically their marketing strategies seem to raise more concern (Dick and Kunal, 1994). From survey the retailers have scored poorly in consumer loyalty. Despite their managing to stay afloat during the economic decline their strategy is not at all aimed at keeping their consumers loyal to them. The reason that they manage to stay afloat is because of their cheap prices and nothing else. This strategy has seen Wal-mart stock share price go up steadily.

As it has always been through history a bad economy is usually good for these retailers and this one is no exemption there management hints that this is a result of a three year strategic plan. The only problem is that customers are not contented with their customer service, ethics, and quality of their products, but their prices. The only disturbing thing is will these customers stay on when the economic situation becomes better, but probably no as most Americans them might not be driven by prices only.

The New York save Life Insurance Corporation is the one of the most successful insurance firms in the United States. The company was awarded in 2008 the prestigious Customer Loyalty and Engagement award which the firm came out at the top in this competitive sector. This award showed that successful companies are not only those that concentrate on making money, but those that are providing to notch customer loyalty programs also get a good share of growth and success (Barry, 2008).

General Motors is an additional successful company that ranks highly in customer loyalty programs. Back in 2002 the company topped surveys done by several firms including R.L. Polk & Co. company rankings. GM defines loyalty as a circle of consumers that lease or buy a brand new motor vehicle of a given model that they had purchased earlier (up to 10 years). The information that was basically based on data from vehicle registration showed that up to 60% of their customers who had bought or leased a new car for the previous 10 years came back for another one in that duration (Barry, 2008).

How Marketers can use consumer Loyalty

In some instances, the realization of loyalty of customers can be done by giving out or selling a quality product with a firm guarantee. It can also be reached through offering free samples for consumer to try, shopping coupons, financing options with interest rates, trade exchanges with high valued items, warranties on items with the possibility of extension, other forms of consumer loyalty programs would include allowing the customers a trial period in which they can return the items at no cost and many other incentive programs. The most important goal of customer loyalty programs is to keep customers happy so that they can come back to buy frequently and add to the company’s number of loyal consumers by persuading other customers to use that organizations services or products. This would in the long-run translate to increased profits and the same time creating customer satisfaction (Dick, and Kunal, 1994).

Customer loyalty can be used as a one time incentive to lure customers, but giving out free samples is more popular, as a consumer purchases one product he/she might get another piece free or get to try another for free. One other incentive program towards accomplishing customer loyalty is through the offer of a product for free for given period so that the consumer can try it out without having to buy it.

Having a good customer service program in place would be another better way of attracting, and retaining customer loyalty. If a when a consumer has a problem, the company is supposed to do whatever it can to correct the situation and try to make things right and when a fault is discovered by a consumer on one of the products , replacements or refunds should be made to maintain customer loyalty (Fredrik and Earl, 1990). This should always be maintained as company policy and standard process in order to maintain a good reputation of the business. Marketers may use consumer loyalty to;

To increase Sales for expansion

All company’s have growth as one of their aims in the long-run. To increase the volume of sales accompany might have to streamline their operations first by improving on their production. They would also have to cut on their cost by managing inventory and working on their labor issues. Then they would also have to improve on their effectiveness by finding better methods and adjustments to be made or find different methods of production or operation. (Alexander 1979)

In addition, the company would like to work on their marketing and specifically to increase the number of their loyal consumers by improving the effectiveness of their marketing. This will enable the firm to provide ready market for their commodities or service. This will also mean that their customer loyalty programs will be meant to be for the long-term because of the need for growth. As a result of improving their production capacity, and effectiveness, a solid customer base will go a long way into boosting this growth.

From statistics, an average company in the United States has a decline in their customer base by 13% annually (Collins, 2001). This shows that an increase in competition increases the challenges that affect company also increase. For a company to achieve even the smallest growth it needs to increase its consumer base, which includes both current and new ones. Therefore, if a company can increase its customer base this can improve growth and hence customer loyalty, this will lead to consistency and an increase in sales as the company’s products are purchased repeatedly and in large numbers.

To retain the trophy Customers

Creating a group of loyal consumers can be compared to creating a healthy bank account balance which you can draw upon. It requires understanding of your customers buying behavior, trends and frequency. With this knowledge a company can assimilate unsuspecting one-time buyers into prospective customers and lastly into loyal customers. Your loyal customers can act as an unofficial perfect campaign team always there to put up a good word for you to the rest of the public when you are and when you are not aware.

Furthermore you ought to be able to persuade 20% of your loyal consumers to be in a position to provide about 75% to 80% of your business by making regular purchases (Barry, 2008). Consumers’ loyalty can also play a major role when you are thinking of rolling out a new product in your market. If your are able to conduct a survey within your loyal consumers, you should be able to have a successful rollout as you will be able to tell before hand how much you’ll be able to sell to make a reasonable profit margin.

Having this top cream of customers can also allow you to be able to concentrate on other aspects of your business. This would include the issuance of discount programs for example. A firm might have the capacity to offer discounts to it’s consumers who are not loyal because this group of consumers might be attracted by price more than anything (Oliver, 1999). On the other hand the loyal consumers will also continue buying because they are not attracted by price and anyway they had already made their decision to buy.

To learn consumer behavior patterns

Buying behavior refers to the trends, and decisions that people are engaged in when buying a service, product or a brand. Then consumer buying behavior is the ultimate customer’s trends, and the way he/she makes the decision to make a purchase (Chak, 2003). By knowing their customer’s personalities, lifestyles, attitudes, opinions, social class, culture and reference groups, a firm may teach its marketing team on how to handle clients effectively without making them feel out of place, offended or being judged. The knowledge of consumer buying behavior enables the firm to know the reason consumers make a particular purchase, the factors that made the consumer make that decision and lastly the dynamism of that particular society. (Handy 1981)

Consumer loyalty is a decision a customer will make knowingly and unknowingly. It is just shown through the consumer trends in the purchases they make. In the competitive business environment of today, increasing consumer loyalty enables marketer to sustain an easy and longer positions in the market they are operating in.

By studying these behaviors the marketing team can develop an effective plan because they can predict their clients’ reaction to activities such as the introduction of a new product. Their customers may take it positively because they could predict and work out an effective way of presenting the new product. Knowing consumer behavior will also tell the firm how long a product can stay in the market before being obsolete (Alexander, 1979); hence they will know the best times to introduce a new product.

To be able to determine the prices to set

The privilege of premium pricing is one that is available to only the best companies with the best quality products. This is so because consumers loyal to their brands are generally not price sensitive, but other factors such as consistency of quality and availability of the product when they need it. Majority of loyal customers are readily willing to pay for their preferred brand at any price, this is because have some perceived unique value in the brand which they don’t have for other brands (Dick and Kunal, 1994).

To reduce future costs

Brand loyalists seek their most favorite brand and are not keen on the advertisements and promotions. When a company has achieves customer loyalty it reaches a different level where it seeks to retain its customers rather than seek customers. This is basically done through maintenance of aspects such as quality, offering special reward systems, and giving their consumers some sort of recognition or status for using their products. These outcomes lower costs particularly for advertising, marketing and distribution. According to it can cost a company more to attract new customers than it would to maintain older ones. (Alexander 1979)

Conclusion

There are a lot of diverse ways to win customer using a diverse number of programs to achieve it. However the best methods are those that are aimed at changing and forecasting consumer behavior. Being able to make your consumers have a genuine reason to come back for your manufactured goods or service is the main aim of a consumer loyalty program. Failure of such programs might have devastating effects on an organization no matter the size.

Having a good share of your customer’s attention and keeping them wanting to be associated with your product saves you time and money. This also comes with other advantages such as; being able to communicate to customers meaningful messages which are personalized to their needs increasing convenience, the firm will have to put in little effort to get consumer demographic information which can lead to forecasting consumer behavior, and with these in place the firm can and enjoy easy access to consumer retention and acquisition methods (Handy, 1981).

It is difficult to get customers back once they are lost, hence a company should make sure that they retain their loyal customers. The company should do whatever in necessary to ensure that they retain consumers’ confidence. The marketing department should develop an aggressive marketing plan but remember to keep their customer’s privacy private. In addition the company should also review their customer loyalty and retention programs to ensure that they keep up with the dynamism of markets. (Collins 2001)

Bibliography

Alexander, C 1979, Timeless Way of Building Consumer Loyalty, Ronald Printing Press, New York.

Barry, C 2008, Loyalty of the Consumer: Still Every Business Goal, Penton, USA.

Chak, A 2003, What Makes One to Be Loyal to a Product, New Riders Press.

Collins, J 2001, Business organization management, Virginia, Triumph Printers Ltd.

Dick, A and Kunal, B 1994, Consumer Loyalty: Attaining Integrated concrete Framework, Marketing Science Journal, 22 (2), 99.

Fredrik, F and Earl, W 1990, Quality comes after good Service, Harvard.

Handy, C 1981, Understanding Organizations (second edition), Harmon worth England, Penguin Books.

Oliver, R 1999, “Whence Customer faithfulness? Marketing Journal, 63 (3), 44.

Reichheld, F 2007, Loyalty of Consumers: China’s case study, McMillan Publishers.

Rob, W 2007, Just Say No, Marketing Journal, 121, pg 2.

Introduction

If you go out to the streets and ask different people what it means to have human rights, you are likely to get a wide range of answers. Human rights are defined as “rights that belong to an individual as a consequence of being human” (“Human Rights”). This concept is founded on the principle that all humans are free to enjoy their rights without being discriminated.

What makes human rights different from other types of rights is the notion that they are universal, inalienable, uniformly applicable and inherent to all. Human rights are, therefore, taken to mean inalienable, essential and universal rights, which everyone is intrinsically entitled to just by being human. They are universal because everybody possesses the same rights at birth. These rights apply to each person without considering their residential, sexual, ethnic, cultural or economic affiliation.

Over several centuries, governments and non-governmental institutions have made great advancements in the quest to ensure that every human being enjoys these rights. However, there are several situations where people are denied these rights by society and even the law. Some of these cases are justified by the fact that the perception of human rights varies from culture to culture.

In addition, some governments curtail the rights and freedom of their citizens on grounds of national security. Is this inalienability absolute or is it relative to different situations? This essay looks at the concept of ‘human rights’ and the universality of the term as well as the ambiguities involved.

Universality

If it is true to say that human rights are those rights that human beings enjoy just by being human, then it can be deduced that all humans must enjoy them. No one can be disqualified from being human based on their gender, sexual preference, cultural background or religion. If this is true, then universality of human rights demands that all humans enjoy uncompromised access to their rights.

Closely connected to universality is the view of equality that all humans are born equal with the same rights and dignity. This means that a citizen of Zambia is entitled to the same rights as a citizen of Canada. Going by this, human rights ought not to be withdrawn, changed, modified or abridged since they are inherent and essential.

One of the challenges to the universal application of the concept of human rights is cultural diversity in different countries. Different parts of the globe witness varying degrees of violation of human rights. Though all humans are free and equal at birth, universality requires that human rights should be enjoyed by all people throughout their lives. Most of the laid down guidelines for different nations are shaped by the values and practices of that society or region.

Consequently, it is very hard to formulate a universal definition of the concept of human rights that applies across all countries and cultures. In North Korea, for instance, the government is absolutely totalitarian and what it decides cannot be disputed. In such a country, freedom of speech and expression are curtailed, and basic human rights are violated. Citizens who speak against government oppression are brutally murdered. In such a government, the concept of human rights is as laid down by the authority.

Sexual orientation is another controversial issue. Lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are not clearly mentioned in any of the major legislation on international human rights. However, this does not mean that they are less human. They should be allowed room to enjoy their fundamental human rights without prejudice.

Gay relationships are treated scornfully by society with most governments failing to recognize their marriages as legal unions. In some countries, these relationships are the target of media scrutiny and social maltreatment. Without proper legislation in place to defend the rights of these marginalized groups, we cannot claim that human rights are universal and inalienable.

Inalienability

Inalienability is a term that refers to something that cannot be given away or sold. To alienate means to sell or to separate. Therefore, to describe human rights as inalienable means that they cannot be separated or taken away from the individual. The government should not take away or cause a person to part with his human rights under any circumstances.

The responsibility to protect human rights lies with the individual states (Doebbler 6). There are, however, some scenarios where the state is justified in limiting the freedom and rights of any of its citizens. As outlined in the constitution, human rights are meant to be supreme and not watered-down.

However, using terminologies such as ‘the greater good,’ the judicial arm of the government can restrict the rights of an individual or group. In such situations, the rights of an individual can be taken away if he poses a threat to other persons or to the state.

When dealing with a terrorist for instance, the government can withdraw the rights and liberties that the suspect enjoys in order to avert potential harm to other people. Security agents can justify the use of force to extract information about a potential threat from a suspected terrorist. Though the agents recognize that this suspect is a human being entitled to fundamental and universal rights, the threat he poses to other people overrides the claim he holds to such rights and liberties.

The military is another place where the rights and liberties of the individual are secondary to the responsibility to authority and duty. Soldiers take orders and act as a unit and not as individuals. This is intended to instill discipline for the greater good of the unit. Such cases show that human rights are not absolutely inalienable and can be with withdrawn.

Conclusion

The concept of human rights is a reasonably modern one and has managed to gain considerable attention from many quarters and stakeholders. There exist various positions on the definition of human rights. Although there are different opinions about what should make up the corpus of human rights, most people posit that every human being is in the least entitled to most fundamental rights. Though observation of human rights is very important, not every person in the world gets to enjoy these rights.

In conclusion, the notion of human rights ought to take into account certain rights such as people’s right to think freely and choose leaders without coercion. It must also include the right to food and water. Without these entitlements, it is virtually impossible to claim the universality and inalienability of human rights. It is my hope that the current and future generations can work together to realize a society where everyone enjoys basic human rights.

Works Cited

Doebbler, Curtis, F. J. Introduction to International Human Rights Law, Washington DC, USA: CD Publishing, 2006. Print.

“Human Rights.” Merriam-Webster Online. n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2013. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human%20rights>.