Gun control s unreasonable for the following reasons: 1) the right to own and carry weapons is granted by the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court, 2) the majority of U. S. Gun owners do not represent a threat to society, 3) and many of the states that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that do not. The Second Amendment states, “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 infringed” (US Cons. Amend. 2). The amendment was adopted for a number of seasons, ranging from wanting to give U. S. Residents the right to protect themselves in case the government waged war against the people, and the right to provide for their families by hunting with firearms, to ensuring their right to defend their homes against invaders. Basically, the second amendment was mainly put In place for our protection. The 2008 Supreme Court decision In District of Columbia v. Heeler, upheld that right (No. 7-290. Supreme Ct. Of the US. 6 June 2008)_ The Court’s ruling led to the lifting of a ban on handguns that had existed for 32 years. In an interview with the Washington Post, Lawyer Alan Guar noted that there had been “all sorts of predictions that there would be blood on the streets and carnage and all kinds of Wild West stuff if people in the District of Columbia were allowed to legally own guns. Obviously, that has not come to pass” (Gun Control Reform). Despite what critics of the case may say, this court case put to rest all of the doubts of our right In a legal fashion.
Nevertheless, many supporters of gun control reform soul exist and many claim: the large rate of violent shootings in the U. S. Can be traced to the country’s lazy stance on gun legislation (Gun Control). These people believe that the banning or more restrictions on our second amendment right would mean it’d be harder to get guns… Seriously? One example that comes to mind Is the Prohibition Act of 1920, we see how well that played out, and It certainly TLD stop people from drinking. It only made people that would sell It richer.
Also, what about Illegal drugs? Just because It is illegal doesn’t mean that people are doing it. Even kids, nowadays, can get their hands on many illegal drugs. Therefore, the banning of our second amendment right wouldn’t keep guns out of the U. S. According too Police foundation study in 1996, Americans currently own an estimated 230 million guns–almost one gun for every U. S. Resident (Kopje). Therefore, the majority of U. S. Gun owners do not represent a citizens and give criminals more of an advantage over unarmed citizens.
Criminals don’t care if they break the law, or they wouldn’t be considered criminals in the first place. Isn’t that the reason why we are trying to ban guns, to reduce crime? That old leave us law-abiding citizen in more danger and it could hinder citizens’ abilities to defend themselves against such criminals. There will be no law that can keep guns out of the hands of criminals or to stop criminals from using them illegally. Gun buyers and sellers are already subject to many government regulations, and those who break gun laws already face harsh penalties.
Instead of trying to pass new laws, the government should focus on prosecuting people using crime laws that are already in place. However, a frequent example, that supporters of gun reform use, is he Tucson, Arizona shooting, where U. S. Representative Gabrielle Gifford and eighteen other people were shot during a public meeting. Gun reform supporters claim that if bans on high-capacity weapons had been in place, the Tucson shooter would not have had access to a 33-round handgun, and some of the bloodshed could have been prevented (Gun Control Reform).
Contrary to this, the shooting in Tucson is mainly the fault of the shooter, not the laws that allowed him to bear arms. There are numerous knife killings, does that mean we should ban or make stricter laws for owning knifes? Why should the American people have to sacrifice their right because of a mentally-ill person, such as the shooter in Tucson, abusing his right? Reform supporters also point out to the strict regulations in other countries. They claim that other countries, with less crime because of strict regulations, are examples the U. S. Could follow (Gun Control: Update).
This is highly unreasonable because expanding upon gun ownership, in the U. S. , has actually decreased violent crime. A 2010 article published by the NEAR and the ILL notes, “Forty states have Right-to-carry, and 48 dates prohibit cities from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law. And, since 1991, the total violent crime rate has declined over 40% to a 35-year low, and the murder rate has declined by halloo a 45-year IoW’ (Gun Control Reform) Therefore, the evidence proves that many of the states that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that do not.
One example of broadening gun ownership would be the concealed carry law. In 1987, Florida enacted a concealed carry law. Before the law, Florist’s homicide rate was 1 1. 7 per 100,000. By 1991, it dropped 20% to 9. 4 per 100,000. Since adopting a concealed carry law, Florist’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58% (Stearns). Besides Criminals, Floridians are safer due to this law and Florida isn’t the only one. Texas’ violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law (Stearns).
A report by John Lott, Jar. And David Mustard of the University of Chicago released in 1996 found “that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths” (Stearns). Further, the Lott- Mustard study noted, “If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly’ (Stearns).
Those who choose to carry in one of 42 states that permit concealed weapons generally go through required background checks and training, therefore the concealed carry law because of the concealed carry law. Also, it’s not plausible or realistic for the public to Ely on law enforcement for their protection. Representative Ron Paul (R, Texas) has remarked about the shooting in Tucson, “Eyewitness reports indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day!
Since police cannot be everywhere all of the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves” (Gun Control Reform) Depending only on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. More often than not, citizens in trouble dial 911 … And die. Therefore, a concealed carry right is more ape for us than to always rely on the police. Finally, the 1994 assault weapons ban, included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms (Veneered).
This is unreasonable because a ban on assault weapons would only decrease the potential for more safety. For instance, if every bank was armed with assault weapons, then wouldn’t a criminal have second thoughts about robbing that bank? Same can be said in any situation that involves protection. Critics of assault weapons claim they’re too deadly, but wouldn’t having a more deadly weapon exult in safer protection? So, should U. S. Gun control laws be reformed, or would that result in the violation of constitutional rights?
It’s clear that the negatives of banning guns heavily outweigh the positives. These three reasons will be defending our gun rights for years to come: 1) the right to own and carry weapons is granted by the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court, 2) the majority of U. S. Gun owners do not represent a threat to society, 3) and many of the states that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that do not. A gun is imply an object or a tool that benefits the owner.