Gun Control Essay, Research Paper

The debate over gun control has developed into a very complicated issue. Several

different groups have suggested limiting the use of guns and others have

proposed to supporting free gun use. On one side, people who use some form of

gun control imply that guns are responsible for too many deaths and injuries in

the United States. They propose that laws be passed to make guns more difficult

or impossible for ordinary citizens to own. On the other side are those people

who oppose all or nearly all forms of gun control. This paper will propose three

different issues to argue against the element of gun control. First, we need to

control the people who use the guns, not the guns themselves. Second, that gun

ownership is a constitutional right granted by the United States Constitution.

Finally, the fact in the decrease in crime. One of the major arguments against

the theory that gun control would save lives is that although two-thirds of all

homicides are committed with firearms, firearm controls would have no effect on

homicide, because ?human nature is what it is? (Nisbet 170). Even if guns

disappeared from the crime scene, criminals would replace them with knives,

clubs, axes, or even fists. Guns don?t kill people, people kill people. One

statement favoring this position, made by James D. Wright, says: Even if we were

somehow able to remove all firearms from civilian possession, it is not at all

clear that a substantial reduction in interpersonal violence would follow.

Certainly the violence that results from hard-core and predatory criminality

would not abate by very much. Even the most ardent proponents of stricter gun

laws no longer expect such laws to solve the hard-core crime problem, or even to

make much of a dent in it. There is also reason to doubt whether the

?soft-core? violence, the so-called crimes of passion, would decline by very

much. Stated simply, these crimes occur because some people have come to hate

others, and they will continue to occur in one form or another as long as hatred

persists…If we could solve the problem of interpersonal hatred, it may not

matter very much what we did about guns, and unless we solve the problem of

interpersonal hatred, it may not matter very much what we do about guns. There

are simply too many other objects in the world that can serve the purpose of

inflicting harm on another human being. (Nesbit 171) It is said that if

murderers were deprived of guns, they would find a way to kill with other

weapons. The basic argument for gun control is that crime would decrease, but

the root causes of crime, in most cases, is that of ?interpersonal hatred,?

the disliking of someone for one?s own personal reasons, which must be

considered when choosing a side for or against gun control. Even the most

effective gun control policy would not totally eliminate homicide; this argument

could be criticized for not dealing with the concept of ?interpersonal

hatred? (Nesbit 175). Many gun-owners agree that those who are promoting gun

control are misinformed. These people have probably heard myths, exploited

through repetition and mistaken for the truth. One of those myths is ?the only

purpose of a handgun is to kill people? (NRA 5). To contradict this statement,

an estimated 75-80 million privately owned handguns are used mainly for hunting,

target shooting, protection of families, and other legitimate and lawful

purposes (Newton 24). Most gun owners can be found skeet shooting, deer hunting,

or polishing a gun collection. However, these owners are also concerned about

their family’s protection. All of those who own guns for these reasons have the

support of the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA is composed largely of

hunters, gun owners, and sports enthusiasts who stand firmly in their belief

that Americans have a constitutional right to own firearms guaranteed by the

Second Amendment. The NRA?s 3.5 million members, including women and non-gun

owners, believe the NRA to be a bastion for ?freedom fighters? (?Gun?

37). NRA leaders plan to continue their fight to stop any and all gun control

legislation in its tracks. Anti-individual rights crowds accuse the NRA of

claiming the Second Amendment guarantees guns for all persons?including

criminals?and all weapons?including weapons of war. However, the NRA has

supported laws to prohibit gun ownership by those convicted of violent crimes,

and for decades, they have promoted and helped pass tough penalties to keep

those who misuse guns in prison where they belong (LaPierre 17). With the

exception of guns processed by criminals, Ex. NRA President, Joe Foss, describes

his group?s convictions this way: ?I say all guns are good guns. There are

no bad guns. I say the whole nation should be armed. Period? (Landau 39). When

asked about the Second Amendment, the battle is ?to retake the most precious,

most sacred ground on earth,? says NRA Executive Vice President, Wayne

LaPierre, ?This is a battle for freedom? (?Fight? 29). Another myth is

that of ?The majority of Americans favor strict new additional federal gun

controls? (NRA 2). Scientific polls indicate that most people oppose the

costly restrictions of firearms, the distribution of power to police to decide

who should or should not own guns, and the decision that they, as citizens, must

rely on self-defense from criminals. More than ever, politicians are clamoring

to restrict America?s constitutional right to own guns and the right to

self-defense. Yet, Americans, individually, as armed citizens are the best

deterrent to violent criminal attacks. Collectively, Americans, as an armed

law-abiding populace are the best protection against the taking-over of America

by criminals (LaPierre 28). John Adams, a member of the NRA himself, was quoted

as saying, ?Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual

discretion…in private self-defense? (NRA 27). Professors James Wright and

Peter Rossi researched a study of criminal acquisition, and found that 81

percent of 1800 criminals agreed that the ?smart criminal? will attempt to

find out if a potential victim is armed. The reaction to fight back or defend

oneself is instinctive of human nature (Baimbridge, par. 7); therefore, we

shouldn?t need studies to show us the truth about guns and the basic concept

of self-defense. Obviously, it is not in the best interest of criminals to

attack victims who are armed and ready to defend themselves. Wright and Rossi

found that 39 percent of felons admitted to aborting a crime because the victim

was armed, 34 percent were scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed

victim, and 74 percent of felons felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings

for fear of being shot (Baimbridge, par. 9). Criminals are clearly afraid of

private gun owners who choose to defend themselves, and as criminals, they feel

more free to commit crimes when a citizen?s right to own a gun has been

infringed. The right to self-defense and the right to use firearms for defense

of self and family are the cornerstone of individual rights in the U.S.

Constitution (LaPierre 27). Yet another myth, ?Gun control reduces crime,?

(NRA 25) is either believed or not believed by almost every citizen in the

United States. Each side claims to have objective evidence to support their

side. Gun control politics have grown to an intense stage in the past few years

due to the ever-growing fear of crime.