Argument Against Gun Control
An Argument Against gun control As long ago as 1789, the creators of the
Constitution realized the importance of guns in American society. The Second
Amendment 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.” No loopholes, or legal caches exist in this statement. The Founding
Fathers allow for no restriction of the private ownership of firearms. Yet, in
recent years anti-gun politicians have attempted to control guns in the name of
crime prevention. Gun control makes no effort to control criminals, does not
reduce crime, takes guns from responsible sportsmen and recreational
shooters, and allows criminals to possess firearms superior to those of the
public. Advocates that support the cause of control claim that controlling
firearms will lesson criminal action. Gun control does nothing to control
criminals. The fundamental flaw in the thinking of anti-gun polititions is that
guns don’t kill people. People kill people. The same logic that leads one to
control firearms could also lead one to endeavor to control automobiles and
The Essay on Gun Control Guns People Crime
... to obtain and posses a firearm for the people least likely to commit a crime with a gun. Criminals, meanwhile, are virtually unaffected because ... of handguns would be an attempt to stop people from owning handguns. People against gun control feel that is a violation of the ... of weapon to stop an argument. Authorities should be the only ones to use a gun because they are trained professionals ...
fast food simply because they are instrumental in millions of deaths per year.
Why when Americans reject such an absurd theory as “Automobile Control,”
which do not infringe the constitution,. would these same individuals embrace
an idea as gun control? People accept gun control, but if a politician would
suggest “controlling” fast food restaurants because the fatty food causes heart
problems and deaths, the public would scorn his insane proposal. Ultimately,
people’s choices lead them to drive recklessly, overindulge in unhealthy food,
and use firearms to commit violent crimes. So, criminals should be controlled,
not the guns which they share with millions of law-abiding citizens. Gun
control supporters claim that gun control lowers crime rate. Gun control does
nothing to reduce crime. A study conducted by the Urban Institute regarding
The Clinton Gun Ban Law of 1995, finds that “because the banned guns and
magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even
the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun
murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically…” Joseph
Constance, the Deputy Police Chief of Trenton, New Jersey, states: “Assault
weapons are used in an underwhelming .026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey.
This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from
the local zoo, than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed
killer on the streets.” West Virginia stands as an example of the inaccurate
thinking of gun control advocates. This state has the highest number of guns
per person in the nation, yet it has the lowest number of crimes per person in
the nation. Gun control has little or no effect on crime. Gun control advocates
believe that gun control has no effect on the law-abiding citizens.However,
gun control takes recreational firearms from law-abiding citizens. Many of the
guns used today for hunting and recreational shooting originate as military
The Term Paper on A History of Gun Control in America
... to society. The rational given for most modern gun control legislations is “Crime Control.” The Brady Bill is one example. The ... to ensure that only responsible citizens are issued a permit. These restrictions cover age, criminal record, and mental competency. ... children responsibility, and promote trust between parents and children. Laws are definitely good for society. Throughout history violence ...
weapons (e.g., 6.5 x 55 Mauser, 8mm Mauser, and 7mm Remington).
Gun
control advocates like to make statements such as this one from a New York
Times editorial: “No Federal law limits military assault rifles that are
semi-automatic.” They overlook the fact that military rifles are not
semi-automatic they are automatics. The guns which gun controll advocates
seek to regulate conform to statutes that keep the public from owning
military, fully-automatic weapons. Average Americans responsibly shoot
these completely legal semi-automatic guns for recreation. Gun control takes
firearms from hobbyists and hunters. Finally, limiting the right of a citizen to
own certain guns puts him at a disadvantage when dealing with criminals and
protecting his family. If a criminal needs a gun, he purchases it on the street,
and can acquire whatever type of firearm he chooses. Yet, when a
law-abiding citizen wishes to procure a gun, he must choose from those
which the government deems fit. So, when the criminal breaks into the
citizen’s home or business, bearing any type of firearm he chooses, the citizen
must defend himself, his belongings, and his loved ones, with an inferior, legal
firearm. In this scenario, gun control serves to give a criminal an advantage
over a law-abiding, armed citizen. In conclusion, no substantial reason for gun
control exists. It fails to control criminals and crime, while taking guns from
law-abiding Americans who use them for defense and recreation. The time is
at hand for Americans to stand and defend their Second Amendment rights,
and make liberal, anti-gun politicians aware that gun control has no place in
society.
