When our fore fathers first came onto this land, they wereoppressed by their rulers. The educated men decided to stage a revoltagainst their government and start up a new government, with a set ofrules, laws and rights. The revolt ended with bloodshed, yet the forefathers had risen to victory with the help of firearms.
Following therevolt the fore fathers decided to compose a bill stating the basic rightsthat every man in the country could contain. There were ten of these basicrights, among them were the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness, the right of free speech, and most importantly, the right tookeep and bear arms in order to protect their families, gather food, andpreserve their rights from all threats. However, in our recent times ofincreased violence, many believe keeping guns available is detrimental toour society, and the only solution is to abolish the right to keep and beararms. However, there is no possible way to justify removing an amendmentthat has been around for many years. Those that support gun control defineit as a way to better our society, however those that oppose it define guncontrol as the infringement of their rights.Order now
The opposition declares that that the Second Amendment was neverintended as a gun license for the American general public. The amendmentread, as it was originally drafted, does not grant any blanket right to owna gun nor does it stand in the way of rational, effective guncontrol(Crooker). The current anti-gun promoters cry out that if guns wereoutlawed, then the violent crime rate would drop dramatically. Yet, acriminal with a desire to attain a gun would still be able to obtain one,because most violent criminals buy guns2from black market dealers.
The crime rate does not result from theavailability of firearms but from the lack of respect in today’s societyfor other people’s lives and property (Crooker). Making guns illegal will have the same affect as de-legalizingnarcotics and alcohol; absolutely nothing. Individuals that want theseitems can still obtain them without any trouble. In the March 1994 issue ofthe Atlantic Monthly, writer Daniel Polsby wrote: “During the 1960s and1970s the robbery rate in the United States increased six fold, and themurder rate doubled; the rate of handgun ownership nearly doubled in thatperiod as well. Handguns and criminal violence grew together apace”(Polsby)This statement has now become the battle cry of the anti-gun lobbyist;increased gun ownership goes hand in hand with increased violence. Ofcourse it is easy for these lobbyists to count the bodies of those who havebeen killed or wounded with guns, but its not easy for them to count thepeople who have avoided harm because they had access to weapons.
Uniformedpolice officers carry handguns in plain view not in order to kill people,but simply to daunt potential attackers. Though officers can expect to drawtheir guns from time to time, few even in big-city departments willactually fire a shot (except in target practice) in the course of a year(Nagel). This observation points to an important truth: people who arearmed make comparatively unattractive victims. A criminal might not know ifany one civilian is armed, but if it becomes known that a larger number ofcivilians do carry weapons, criminals will become warier. On the otherhand, criminals which are known to attack people most likely could not getaccess to guns under strong anti-gun provisions (Patterson). This may betrue but statistics do show that most criminals that perform these kinds ofcrimes do not use guns, but knives, bludgeoning weapons, or a “fake” gun inorder to gain what they want.
The average Joe on the street3could not carry such a weapon in order to protect themselves, and so wouldfall easy target to criminals. Rational gun control requires understanding not only the relationshipbetween weapons and violence but also the relationship between laws andpeople’s behavior. The purpose of a law and its likely effects are notalways the same thing. Also remember that guns are a major economic tradeitem.
Without the manufacture, distribution, and trade of firearms,thousands of jobs would be lost (Patterson). If guns were illegal to own,that would ultimately mean that sports hunting would be outlawed. Thiswould put thousands of gamewardens, and employees of the Department of Fish and Game out of work. Taxidermy services would be obsolete, for there would be no animals toprovide these services to, not to mention the environmental impacts. Without sports hunting, game populations would skyrocket.
There is not manyhabitats for wild game to live on, which causes over population,starvation, and disease, which without sports hunting would cause majordeclines in animal populations (nagel).Eliminating guns would not solve any problems in this society, it mayactually end up causing more in problems than what it solves.Strong gun control is a bad idea, and those who say otherwise are foolingthemselves by not looking at the big picture4Works Cited