Gun Control Essay, Research Paper

Our fore fathers did not begin this country through negotiations and arbitration. They began this country through a revolt. When the revolt was over, these men had risen to victory through the use of warfare and guns. When deciding which rights all men were to possess in this new country, one major right was too keep and bear arms in order to protect their families, gather food, and preserve their rights, from all threats. However, in these modern times of increased violence people are questioning whether keeping guns available is too dangerous to be continued? If so, how can we justify taking away one of the most basic and sacred rights that has been held since the dawn of our nation? If we do this, are we any better than our previous rulers who used control as an excuse for oppression?

The opponents of gun rights say that The Second Amendment was never intended as a gun license for the entire American population. As originally drafted and as consistently interpreted by the courts for more than a century the Amendment does not grant any blanket right to own a gun, nor does it stand in the way of rational, effective gun control. They also say that the idea of gun ownership as an American Birthright is just a myth. However, this is not true. The amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Clearly stated, this says that the right of people to have and use guns shall not be taken away.

The modern day anti-gun advocate cries that if guns were outlawed, then the violent crime rate would drop dramatically. Were this true, I would agree with them, however, I do not see it that way. Were guns still outlawed, the criminal with a desire to attain a gun would still be able to get one. Most violent criminals do not buy guns legally; they usually buy them from black market dealers to avoid having their purchase on record. Second, the crime rate does not come from the availability of firearms, but from the lack respect in today s society for other people s lives and property. Were guns made illegal, it would have the same effect as Prohibition had, absolutely nothing. Those individuals, who wanted guns, would still get them without any trouble at all.

Everyone knows that possessing a handgun makes it easier to intimidate, wound, or kill someone. But the implication of this point for social policy has not been so well understood. It is easy to count the bodies of those who have been killed or wounded with guns, but not easy to count the people who have avoided harm because they had access to weapons. Think about uniformed police officers, who carry handguns in plain view, not in order to kill people, but simply to daunt potential attackers. And it works. Criminals generally do not single out police officers for opportunistic attack. Though officers can expect to draw their guns from time to time, few officers actually fire a shot in the course of a year. This observation points to an important truth: people who are armed make comparatively unattractive victims. A criminal might not know if any one civilian is armed, but if it becomes known that a larger number of civilians do carry weapons, criminals will become warier.

Which weapons laws are appropriate can be determined only after considering two related questions. First, what is the connection between civilian possession of firearms and social violence? Second, how can we expect gun-control laws to alter people s behavior? The second question is routinely overlooked and often mocked when noticed; yet it is crucial. Rational gun control requires understanding not only the relationship between weapons and violence, but also the relationship between laws and people s behavior. The purpose of a law and its likely effects are not always the same thing. Many statutes are notorious for the way in which their unintended effects have far outnumbered their intended ones.

You must also look at the environmental impact. Without sport hunting, game populations would skyrocket. Many would say that the numbers were not that bad before humans, which is true enough. However, because of development, there is a lacking of adequate habitats for wild game to live on, which causes over population, starvation, and disease. Over population also causes animals to venture into urbanized areas in seek of survival, which causes problems such as traffic accidents.

In short, violence may be a problem in today s overcrowded cities, but it is not the fault of the guns. Eliminating guns would not solve these problems, and may end up causing more harm than good. In addition, the environmental and economic impacts that it would cause would far exceed what problems it may or may not solve. Strong gun control is a bad idea, and those who say otherwise are fooling themselves by not examining the whole picture.