Gun Control

In the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment In the Constitution reads: “A well- regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be of Rights) There are many effects and Consequences of Gun Control. The right for of all Americans to bear arms is a right even the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Whether or not gun control laws work, the fact of the matter is that these kind of laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under inconsideration.

Even if that issue Is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be Implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they increase the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence, I think would ultimately fail.

I am not against gun control, Just the current law being proposed. All Americans, including gun owners, support responsible gun laws which keep criminals from buying guns. But Just because a law Is passed, doesn’t mean that every person that owns a gun wants more laws. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The reason I choose this topic is because gun control is a very controversial topic going on in the united States and also around the world. Gun control has been an issue for a long time in history.

Given the previous experiments of gun control around the world, a good example of his would be with Doll Hitler In Germany, Joseph Stalin in the Soviet union, or with Fidel Castro and Cuba. It makes no sense to me why people would want to give up their constitutional right because they believe In the disillusion of a safer society without guns. But in reality it is the opposite. Self-defense. Who is to say whether or not a gun is a good mean of self-defense or not. Well some of those questions were answered by a report done by a criminologist working at Florida State University.

A criminologist by the name of Gary Clerk researched data from the Department of Justice while attending Florida State University. He learned that victims which have defended themselves with a handgun during a robbery or an assault, have the least chance of being injured, or the crime being finished out. Anti-gun people say you don’t need a gun to help save your life. You can Just try and escape, reason with the offender, or use physical resistance (other than a handgun), and that will work. That is not true.

Gary Clerk discovered by doing all of those things, there is actually a larger chance of injury and the crime being completed. (Clerk). These statistics are the same when it comes to burglaries. Most of the time when the victims resisted with a handgun, there was a less chance of the crime being committed or the victim being hurt. In Clack’s study only 33 percent of the surviving robbery victims were hurt, about 25 percent did not resist, and 17 percent who used a handgun, were injured. The same comes with assault victims.

Of the 30 percent that survived with injury, 27 percent gave to resistance, and only 12 percent that resisted with a handgun were injured. (Clerk) There were no sites to be found that had anything to say against these statements. The major point hat Clerk shows is that people were less likely to be injured when they defended themselves with a handgun, than do those who give no resistance at all. Another topic that is discussed over and over is that of accidental gun shots. Many of the anti- gun groups say that is a major problem with guns.

Again Gary Clerk the criminologist says something different. He says they are actually very rare. In is estimations only 2 percent of fatal gun accidents occur during defensive gun use. He estimates only about 30 per year. There are about 2 million defensive gun uses each year (Clerk), which would mean that fatal gun accidents are less than 1 in about 65,000. Anti-gun groups say to make the gun childproof. But according to Timothy Wheeler it is almost impossible to do so without making it useless to the owner. There is no way to childproof it completely.

The most effective way of child proofing is safety education. There are special classes that you can enroll your child in to help ensure safety. They teach the correct way to handle and shoot a gun. (Wheeler). In the wake of the Newton, Connecticut school mass shooting, many have called for new restrictions n gun owners. The blood at Sandy Hook Elementary School wasn’t dry before mainstream media pundits, scheming politicians, and career gun control advocates began heaping condemnation and slander on American gun owners.

Blaming innocent gun owners for the murderous actions of a few high-profile mass shooters is natural to them, since they blame guns for crime, rather than the humans who misuse them. The Problem Is Not Gun Control, its Mental Illness. The real problem with violence and more notably mass killings is the mental illness associated with very single instance of these scenarios Pearl, Mississippi, Aurora Colorado, Columbine, Colorado, Newton, Connecticut and every single one of the other tragic events, was mental illness.

It Just so happened that these psychotic people got their hands on guns to help them facilitate their agenda. The person in Aurora, Colorado even had hand grenades. Freedom to worship how we want. It’s not Just no taxation without representation. It’s not Just about freedom of speech. No, The United States of America is about Freedom from a repressive government. It’s about being a Republic. “… ND to the Republic, for which it stands… ” The 2nd Amendment which gives us the rights to bear arms, is not to allow us to collect antique, interesting guns.

It’s has nothing to do with hunting weapons. In a national survey of members of one of the largest groups for law enforcement professionals, an overwhelming majority of active duty and retired officers said that the Obama administration’s gun control proposals will either have no effect or will make things significantly worse. In the survey conducted by Pliocene. Com, a stunning 85 percent of law enforcement professionals said that n their opinion, a federal ban on assault weapons would have no effect on crime, and would likely have a negative effect on their safety. Pliocene. Com) When asked whether a federal ban on ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime, 96 percent of law enforcement professionals said no. The survey also revealed that nearly three times as many former and active police believe that a federal ban would increase violent crime rather than help to reduce it. In addition, twice as many believe that they will be less safe than more safe because of he gun control provisions.

When asked what they thought was the best course of action to prevent incidents such as the recent Sandy Hook school and Aurora Theater shootings, almost one third of law enforcement professionals said “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians. ” In addition, 86 percent said that they felt a legally armed citizen could have reduced casualties at both incidents. Furthermore, a huge 91 percent said that they support concealed carry by honest/screened citizens, and a massive 80 percent of respondents also said they supported arming school searchers and officials with guns. Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility. ” said Doug Wyllie, editor of Pliocene. Com. As we have reported, many law enforcement officials have stated over recent weeks that they would refuse to enforce federal gun control laws. The Police One survey addresses this, with 71 percent Judging the effuses to be favorable or very favorable.

Only seven percent of the responding officers said that they found the refusal statements from Chiefs and Sheriffs’ to be “very unfavorable. ” In addition, a majority of 62 percent said that if they were a Chief or Sheriff they would refuse to enforce the new laws. Only 18 percent said they would happily enforce new gun control laws. “This survey captures the perspective of an audience that has an intimate professional connection to gun policies in our country, yet is rarely heard from as a group in discussions on the issue,” said Alex Ford, CEO of he Praetorian Group, Policemen’s parent company. Our standing as the leading online community in the law enforcement market enabled us to gather what we feel is the most meaningful sampling of police attitudes about gun control ever compiled. There is clearly a wide range of opinions to be heard. ” Ford added. The survey, which received over 1 5,000 responses, proves that police, first responders and those who deal with gun related crime every day are firmly against further government gun control, believing it would be detrimental to public safety, in addition to their own well-being.

Despite these facts, the president would have the nation believe that the only people opposed to the administration’s gun control policies are tin foil hat-wearing nut Jobs. The poll shows, without a doubt, that law enforcement professionals strongly believe that an armed citizenry is much more effective in reducing crime than any federal government restrictions to the Second Amendment. That is why contrary to popular belief stricter gun law wouldn’t do more good than bad and also is why I’m against the current gun control policies being pushed by our president and fellow politicians.