This anti-gun control essay is about guns. Guns are the cause of many deaths in America. The school shootings that happen on a regular basis all have one thing in common – they were committed with guns, and only because the gunman had access to them. I am against gun control, but more importantly, I am for stricter laws when it comes to buying a gun and what kind of person should be allowed to buy a gun.”
The Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms, is one of the most cherished rights possessed by Americans. The right was written into the bill of rights in 1791 and has been maintained by subsequent authorities up to now.
Prices start at $12
Prices start at $11
Prices start at $12
However, since the country’s many incidents of gun-related violence in recent years, this privilege has come under great fire. Many people are furious over the devastation caused by guns in school shootings and the general public. A number of measures have been called for to tighten gun control after such acts (2018).
The federal government has responded by implementing gun control measures, which has enraged pro-control advocates. This article will argue that the US government does not have the authority to regulate weapons and should therefore refrain from proposing policies to restrict gun ownership among its citizens.
Why Gun Control Should Be Abolished
The government’s attempt to restrict gun ownership is an attack on the fundamental rights of Americans to possess guns. The Second Amendment, which reads “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” specifically protects this right (Barnett 265). The government is attacking the constitution by attempting to implement gun control laws in the country. Because the government is duty-bound to defend the constitution at all times, any attempts at restricting gun ownership are unconstitutional.
According to gun-control advocates, the Second Amendment cannot be invoked to defend individuals’ right to own guns because it was originally intended for “service in an organized militia.” This group claims that individuals’ right to bear arms was restricted to military situations and that people were only permitted to arm themselves when called up. Legal experts argued that the idea that the Second Amendment protected the individual’s right to possess weapons is mistaken.
According to Barnett, even at the time of the creation of the Second Amendment, the phrase “bear arms” had a broader meaning; it was also used to indicate exclusively personal usage of weapons (244). As a result, individuals’ rights to own fire weapons today are still safeguarded by the US constitution.
Even if you ban assault weapons, violent individuals will still be able to kill. According to Domenech, the majority of calls for tighter gun control laws following devastating events like the mass homicide of schoolchildren by armed suspects (25). Gun control advocates use incidents of massive massacres like the Sandy Hook tragedy to support their cause.
Despite the fact that there is no evidence to support the notion that gun ownership raises the chance of large-scale murders, this is precisely what many people believe. Stricter gun control rules will not prevent tragic situations like those experienced at Sandy Hook, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were murdered because no legislation can make mentally insane persons sane or eliminate their capacity to destroy other people’s lives (25).
The government should endeavor to determine the causes of such events and take steps to avoid them in the future. It is irresponsible to blame gun ownership for the actions of disturbed murderous individuals. Gun controls reduce an individual’s ability to defend himself with weapons. Gun control advocates desire to make it difficult for individuals to acquire and keep firearms for self-defense. Most people buy guns in order to protect themselves and their loved ones. According to on Domenech, most handgun sales in the United States are made by individuals who wish to use them for self-defense (27).
It’s simply not feasible that all of this can be accomplished with just a single set of regulations. Many people will be unable to obtain weapons for defensive purposes if strict gun control measures are implemented. If individuals are prohibited from having guns, it’s likely that crime rates in the country will go up. This is because guns have a Deterrence effect on offenders who are frightened of being shot by a homeowner who possesses a firearm. Crime rates will rise if criminals aren’t concerned about getting into confrontations with armed legal weapons wielded by the owner they want to loot.
Individual gun ownership has been proven to decrease crime. While this is true, it should not be used as a pretext for denying individuals the right to defend themselves and boost their chance of surviving an attack. As a result, the government should immediately cease all restrictions on firearms.
Gun control will necessitate the government’s intrusion into people’s private lives. The United States currently has a gun culture that spans millennia, which is linked to ideas like individuality and freedom owing to the strong relationships that weapons have with the war for independence, which ran from 1775 to 1782 (Wolpert and Gimpel 244). Gun limits are irrelevant when you consider that guns have numerous legitimate functions, such as hunting and leisure.
Individuals are prohibited from exercising their right to bear arms under these regulations. Wolpert and Gimpel argue that by implementing gun control measures, the government is utilizing coercive power to directly influence behavior (241). In a country that extols its citizens’ rights, this state action should not be permitted. The government should guarantee the security of its people and allow them to have firearms if they so desire.
The goal of this paper was to demonstrate that gun control is a violation of the most basic rights of American citizens and that the government should not have power over guns. The paper began by noting that gun control laws are an infringement on the constitutional rights of Americans. While these regulations are primarily intended to reduce incidents of gun violence, research shows that having guns on hand does not prevent people from committing murder.
Gun control inhibits individuals from engaging in legal personal behavior such as hunting and defending themselves against attackers. The government will not only be preserving the constitutional rights of its citizens by continuing to resist gun control, but it will also ensure that its citizens can enjoy the benefits that guns offer to them as individuals and to society in general.
The prohibition of weapons in the United States is an unlawful measure that cheapens our nation’s foundations. They not only play a significant role in many people’s lives, but they are also useful tools that may protect individuals from harm. Our Founding Fathers intended for us to have guns to defend ourselves against the government, and they would be outraged by our current abuse of power and overall disregard of the United States’ own constitution. A lot of people believe that firearms kill people; this is not true. Although guns in the hands of an irresponsible individual have the potential to kill people, just like anything else, it does not always do so.
The phrase “the right to keep and bear arms” from the United States’ constitution appears to be a strong one. Modern times, on the other hand, appear to be quite compatible with weapons. Firearms have a variety of applications beyond slaughtering people. Hunting is a significant reason for possessing a weapon. People hunt game all across the country, both big and little. Some may regard this as an inhumane act, but in most states, the White-Tailed Deer is ludicrously abundant.
It shouldn’t be an issue to go hunting since few people complain about eating a hamburger from a cow. People also like to shoot guns at targets. Rifles can be used for long-distance sniping, shotguns may be used to fire clay pigeons in the air, and handguns may be utilized to shoot targets. Shooting is completely safe and enjoyable in its own right. There’s self-defense included with the recreational activities that firearms make possible.
Let’s face it: if you’re in your house at night with an intruder, who will act quicker, the police or a gun in the hand of someone trained? The answer is self-evident. A weapon is almost a must-have in an emergency scenario. One may argue that the chances of being mugged at home are slim; similarly, the probability of dying as a result of firearms is slim. If a well-trained shooter uses a gun to defend others under duress, it can and will protect them from harm. In America, the outright prohibition of items that out-of-touch legislators consider harmful is not uncommon. For example, if you choose the year with the most gun deaths in America, 2003, and subtract 30,000 from it (the absolute MOST), you arrive at 27.
We all know that guns don’t kill people; criminals who should not have access to such dangerous weapons do. There’s no law in this nation calling for a total ban on guns; instead, it seeks to keep certain folks with a checkered history from getting firearms. We require gun control in the United States for legitimate reasons, and we need to address the issue now before it is too late. How many more innocent individuals must die before we realize that we have a serious problem with firearms in this country?
Tragedies like the one at Newtown, Orlando, or Aurora should make it evident that we need to pass gun control laws. Gun control is not an attack on our freedom but rather a means of saving lives. In this country, gun control has been a contentious issue since its inception.
According to the anti-gun control side, gun control infringes on our second amendment rights, thus jeopardizing our freedom. I didn’t comprehend this argument well, so I decided to research it myself. To get a better picture of the opposing viewpoint, I chose to interview a friend of mine who is more than just a member of a pro-gun organization and its president.
I wanted to understand how and why people in other countries can believe and defend more guns as a means of truly preventing deaths when more folks die from weapon injuries in the United States than any other civilized country. When our Founding Fathers established the Second Amendment, they had no knowledge of the brain, so they were unaware that medical stability played a role in someone’s ability to use a weapon responsibly. The weapons the founding fathers had were not nearly as deadly as modern guns.
The debate over gun control has been ongoing for many years. On one side of the argument, we have individuals in favor of restricting weapons, while on the other end, there are people opposed to firearms regulation. People in favor of gun limitations feel that gun control may help decrease crime rates, whereas those against it believe having the right to bear arms is an effective crime deterrent.
I believe that everyone who is not engaged in unlawful behavior has the right to carry a firearm and defend themselves against individuals intending to do them harm. Gun control measures are ineffective, and they have a detrimental impact on crime. Rather than decreasing criminality, gun control restrictions merely remove guns from good people’s hands and put them into the hands of criminals. Criminals will still get guns, regardless of gun control laws. Because criminals are less likely to follow laws, no matter what the law says, they will always discover a method to acquire a weapon.
That’s why they’re called “criminals.” There’s also no law that can prevent the illegal arms trade from supplying and demanding. Someone will profit if there is money to be made in the black market. Criminals may simply buy a firearm on the black market. “There are guns all over,” stated an unnamed convict. If you have the money, you may get a gun, according to one offender.
In the words of Fox News, “a background check has been found to be a 9mm handgun purchased at Walmart.” If a criminal wanted to purchase a weapon, they are not going to go into a shop and do it. As a result, they don’t care if they have a background check or not. There is no way to keep criminals from arming themselves for their own protection. The majority of criminals have many foes and would rather get caught with a gun than risk being caught unarmed.
The more gun control laws and restrictions there are, the happier criminals will be. They know that the more gun rules there are, the lower their chances of being a crime victim who defends themselves with a lawfully owned firearm. Crime rates in some right to carry states are lower than those in states with stricter gun control laws. The difference is because firearms are used more defensively than illegally.
When criminals are targeting law-abiding citizens in right-to-carry states, they’re usually rolling the dice. (Polsby) Criminals are afraid of the police and other authorities. What terrifies them the most is a potential gun owner. It makes it more difficult for criminals because they don’t know what to expect from them if they’re trying to rob them. They’re either fortunate enough to encounter an unarmed victim or become a victim with a citizen who is prepared to shoot and defend their family members.
Only people who follow the law are affected by gun regulation laws. The law does not apply to criminals. Criminals will find a way to get weapons, even if there is a gun ban. The illegal arms trade has no method of being restricted by gun legislation. Handguns are not sold in Chicago lawfully, which makes it one of the most difficult cities to legally obtain one in the country.
People must pass a background check and wait up to one month before lawfully carrying a weapon in order to obtain a gun license. (Polsby) Although it is difficult to acquire a firearm legally, it is very simple to illegally transport one in Chicago. Thousands of unregistered weapons are on the streets, with thousands more arriving every month. The prohibition on handgun sales in Chicago makes no difference at all. People may go elsewhere to purchase a weapon if they so choose. They can travel across state lines or even out of the country in order to get their hands on one. Indiana and Wisconsin are both close by (Moorhouse and Warner).
Another example of why gun control laws are ineffective is the steep rise in crime in England since they imposed a ban on firearms. In 1997, England enacted a ban on all weapons, making it unlawful for everyone to carry guns. England’s gun penalties made it one of the most severe regimes in the world. The new legislation created the false impression that society was safer.
The law instead drove crime up because it put the general public at the mercy of criminals who are confident that they would not be attacked by individuals with guns. Gun-related offenses rose 40% in the two years after the legislation was passed, and armed robberies increased to 53%. From 1997 to 2001, violent crimes increased by more than 120%. In comparison to New York, London is six times more likely to have a gun pointed at you during a robbery.
The percentage of burglaries that occur in the United States is much lower than those in other countries. In England, burglaries are five times more common than in the United States, with 55% occurring. The ban on weapons in England had unintended secondary effects, including street lawlessness and gun violence.
Even in the United States, where many states and cities have passed stringent gun control laws, they’ve been ineffective. Places with the most restrictive gun control regulations have the most criminal activity linked to firearms. (Piquero) Of the 15 states with the highest murder rates, 10 have very strict firearms rules. New York, for example, has one of the nation’s tightest gun restrictions and experiences 20% of all armed robberies.
In Washington, D.C., for example, the murder rate has risen 200 percent since handguns were prohibited in 1976. Since adopting a ban on guns in Chicago in 1982, the city’s homicide rate has consistently been one of the highest in the country. In May 2010, a month before the Supreme Court struck down the ban, Chicago had 113 murders for the year , making it one of America’s most violent cities (Piquero).
Chicago and Washington, D.C., which both had strict gun control laws on the books, experienced dramatic reductions in crime after the Supreme Court lifted those restrictions in 2010. The murder rate in Chicago decreased 14% from January through June 2011 when compared to the same period one year earlier. This is the first significant reduction in murder rates since gun limitations were established in 1982, according to statistics released by the DC police department. In 2008, the District of Columbia vs. Heller case was decided by the Supreme Court, which ruled that D.C.’s handgun ban was unconstitutional.
Since the gun ban was lifted, the murder rate in D.C. has dropped by 35% from 2008 to 2010 (Lott). The assault with a weapon count decreased by 37%, as well as armed robberies, by 25%. These figures further illustrate how ineffective gun control laws are. Not only do they fail to reduce crime, but they also have harmful side effects. Instead, they make matters worse.
I believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right and that the government does not have the authority to take it away. I feel that all citizens have a duty to defend themselves and their families. Laws restricting gun usage do nothing to help law-abiding people protect themselves or their families. These laws just take away everyone’s ability to defend themselves, leaving us helpless against criminals. Gun control simply gives the false appearance of safety while failing to address the real causes of crime. Taking away guns will not solve the crime problem; in fact, it may make things worse.
The problem of crime is not limited to weapons. Regardless of whether or not there is a strict law, criminals will find a method to obtain firearms. The majority of criminals are opportunistic, and simply having strict gun control gives them the chance to do more criminal activity with less fear of being shot themselves. I believe that other strategies can be used to combat crime, however, I don’t think that gun control is the answer to making our world a safer place.