Gun Control Essay, Research Paper

The gun owner’s almost talismanic faith in the protective efficacy of guns leads him to cling to them

notwithstanding the indubitable evils to which guns all too often lend themselves. The other side seeks to outlaw handguns

(many would prefer outlawing all guns), dogmatically convinced not just that, on balance, guns do more harm than good, but

that “In the hands of the general public handguns confer virtually no social benefit” and, since legislatures have proved

unwilling to ban handguns, Magistrate McAdoo’s intellectual descendants urge the courts to do so, in effect, by imposing

strict liability for the manufacture, distribution or ownership of a gun. Given the fervor of each side in this decades-old

debate, it is not surprising that neither has seemed fazed by the lack, until comparatively recently, of any substantial

quantum of hard evidence upon which to base rational judgments about the supposed utility of civilian firearms ownership in

reducing crime. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the empirical evidence on that issue most of which has become

available only in the last decade. [3] Prior to such discussion it is necessary, however, to set out some caveats and two

definitions This subject has received considerable attention in recent years and has culminated in legislation which, it is

claimed, will reverse the current trend which now accounts for large numbers of deaths of mainly young males. A variety of

solutions have been proposed and those most favored are associated with the compulsory registration of firearms. These

proposals have not gone unchallenged, particularly from Rifle Associations. Their favorite slogan is that: ?guns don?t kill; it

is those who use them that do the killing?. They also claim, with considerable justification, that most homicides are caused

by guns which are in illegal possession by criminals and it is unfair and ineffective to hound those who are in legal

possession while criminals are not targeted by the proposed legislation as their guns are not and never will be registered. It

could even be argued that as the maximum effort would now appear to be directed against those law-abiding citizens who

have already registered their guns, criminals, who are largely responsible for firearms murders, will be subject to even less

scrutiny and their activities will flourish. These guns are really killing a lot of people. Is that really the truth? I don?t think so.

A gun never killed a person in the entire world. Lots of people have used guns as a weapon to kill other people. So does that

make the gun the bad part of the equation? Cars kill a lot of people every day. I don?t think we would want to outlaw cars. It

would be wonderful to be able to control every problem we have just by making it illegal to possess some article that is used

to kill people and that actually be the end of the problem. Unfortunately, it just doesn?t work like that. Let me say one thing

that is very important to my reasoning which places me totally against the type of gun control which would not allow law

abiding citizens to freely own guns as provided in the Constitution. That one thing I want to say is that, even though I own

guns and enjoy the sports made possible by them, I would gladly give up every gun I own and be totally in favor of strict gun

control IF I EVEN THOUGHT it would actually work. That is the whole point. Gun control can not eliminate murders and crime

committed with firearms. Just who do we suppose would be likely to be affected by strict gun control? That is an easy

question. Only the law abiding citizens would be affected. The criminals would do just as they do now. They ignore the law

and commit crimes and murder. Everything would be just as it is now except the criminals would have the peace of mind

that, when they were going to break into the houses of law abiding citizens, they wouldn?t have to worry that the

homeowner just might be armed and ready to protect the lives of their family and their property. So just who would gun

control really benefit the most? The criminals of course. They would still have their illegal guns and have more of an

advantage than they do now without the strict gun controls that are advocated by some unrealistic people and politicians.

The law abiding citizen that has a gun is in no way a threat to society because he owns that firearm. He is the person I am

proud to have as a neighbor and feel better knowing he is armed rather than unarmed. I just happen to be of the opinion

that a person has the right to protect what is legally his and, if some dope head or other criminal breaks into my home and

threatens me or my family, I would indeed take it extremely seriously. The criminal and the murderer will still be a criminal

and a murderer even without the legal availability of guns. It is purely unrealistic to think that there is any way that we can

take the guns away from criminals. It just will not happen. It is against the law now to kill people. Does the criminal care? If a

criminal does not have access to a gun, he can use a ball bat, a knife, a rock, a screwdriver, a broken bottle or any number

of items to threaten or hurt another person. Why is it so hard for some people to realize and understand the real truth

about the gun control issue? I think it is no different than all other matters of life. When you are honest and want to know

the real truth, you can understand it. The real truth is that gun ownership is a right protected by the constitution and law

abiding citizens do now and must always have this right in order to help maintain the freedom we now enjoy. We have

fought for this freedom and must not let the criminals and the politicians take it from us. More recent figures of suicide

from firearms are less than the 1500 mentioned above and for 1991 and for 1992 they were 1046 and 1110 respectively.

These figures are still far too high and they must be included in the gun control debate. The debate has now become

polarized, with governments confident that the slogan of gun registration will be popular with the vast majority of the

electorate and, unfortunately, most governments value popularity above all else. But this popularity will have been obtained

by misrepresentation or by the exclusion of important data from the debate. The total number of homicides from all forms

of firearms, in Canada, in 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 were 196, 271, 246 and 193 respectively which is still a fraction of

those who commit suicide with firearms. The whole problem needs a very different approach. This is not because one side is

totally right and the other is totally wrong but because the slaughter is continuing and this is far greater among sick people

with tortured minds who have excellent prospects of recovery. The regular gun owners should not be demonstrated as the

cause of the much smaller number of deaths from homicide due to the use of firearms, for many of them are actually

victims of a lack of any policy which would prevent the alarming number of these suicides. It is high time that the two sides

got together and applied real remedies to the more serious and urgent problems. Bibliography Archer, Denis, ed., Jane’s

Pocket Book of Pistols and Submachine Guns (1977) Blair, Claude, Pistols of the World (1969); Hogg, Ivan V., and Weeks,

John, Pistols of the World (1978); Nonte, George C., The Pistol Book (1978). Kates, D. B., ed., Firearms and Violence (1984)

Nisbet, Lee, ed., The Gun Control Debate: You Decide (1990) Zimring, F. E., et al., eds., The Citizen’s Guide to Gun Control

(1987).