Gun Control

Gun control has been a controversial issue for years In the United States. Some say that with stricter gun control laws there will be less crime. Others disagree stating that there would not be less crime with stricter gun control laws, and that It Is our constitutional right as Americans to keep and bear arms. But which party is correct? Too much gun control would impose on our rights as a free people and not necessarily result in the desired outcome. But if there were too little gun control and anyone could carry a gun, things also would not pan out the way that they should.

Recognizing both sides, there should not be more gun control laws because they Impose on our constitutional rights; they decrease the safety of our families, schools, and society; and they focus on the wrong problem which Is not the guns, but the people carrying them. Recognizing that the main priority is to keep America safe, it is vital that we do not undermine our constitutional right to carry a gun. 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. ” Many

Americans do accept our constitutional right to own guns for self defense, hunting, shooting, or collecting (Guilford and Schneider). But the Founding Fathers did not lust make the Second Amendment so that people could go shoot a deer. Access to firearms also serves as a noteworthy check on the government (Incas and Palazzo). Already, the government is making it unnecessarily hard for anyone to own a gun. In New York, John Stole had to fill out a seventeen page form in which he not only had to know about guns, but also the definitions of other weapons such as a switchblade knife, a gravity knife, a gung if star, etc.

It took hours to fill out and was often hard to understand. Then after he was done he had to go, In person, to police headquarters where they fingerprinted him, asked him the reasons why he wanted to own a gun, and then charged him a four hundred and thirty dollar fee (Stole). Because the government cannot refuse to give people guns, they just make it extremely hard to get one. But how will this help to lower crime? The answer is, it won’t. If a criminal wants to get a gun, he is not going to be the one filling out the hours of paperwork, ex.’s going to take it from someone else.

So why restrict the good people who want guns to protect them and their families from getting a gun? While some people say that it would be safer to ban all guns, they neglect to recognize the safety that guns hold. For instance, if a killer was stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing “This home is a gun-free zone” (Lott)? The answer is no. We have to take into account that guns are also used for protection and self-defense, not just crime. There are certain precautions that families have the right to take.

In many ways guns are similar to home Insurance. Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America said, m{oh hope your house Is never going to burn down, but you still buy insurance. You hope you are never going to use your gun, but it’s there if you need it. ” (Unmans). Schools, in most cases are taking that sign that says “This is a gun-free zone” and waving it around for everyone to see. Just think about how many less criminals would be targeting the schools if we take this opportunity and use our resources, such as the teachers and staff at the schools, to our advantage.

But let’s the lights, and hoping for the best is Just not a good enough plan. ” (Herald). If teachers were educated on how to properly use a gun, and were only permitted to use it in an emergency, the schools would be a lot safer. In a number of cases, the potential shooter was confronted by an armed defender who was at the scene (Kopje). Whether it is a teacher, a principal, or another member of the staff, schools need to have more protection, even if that means carrying a concealed weapon. But if we really look at the issue at hand, we realize that it isn’t the guns that are the robber, it’s the people holding them. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” (Unmans). Our focus does not need to be on whether everyone should or should not have a gun, but instead, who should have the gun. One answer to this could be better background checks, and this would be fine, but they cannot be so nearly impossible that no one would want to go through the process. But the fact is, no matter what we do, or what laws we make, some way or somehow the wrong person is going to get a gun eventually. So the only thing we can do to increase our safety is to have more good guys with guns (Kopje).

Acknowledging our constitutional rights, ensuring our safety as American citizens, and focusing on the real issue at hand, we realize that tighter gun regulations are not the answer. In the future, we should see families being able to go hunting, or going to a shooting range, not families standing there helpless while a criminal walks in their door with a gun. Let us not take away everyone’s safety and rights Just because of the few who decide to make a bad choice. Let us have the right to protect our freedom and families against those who would harm them.