Gun Control Gun control has become a much more controversial topic over recent years as we are surrounded by tragedies in the world. This argument is very entrenched in Americans even in embedded in the ideologies of American political parties. This argument is over whether to restrict guns and implement more restrictive gun control laws is a correct answer to protecting the lives of people and reduce crime rates. My stance is that no such restrictions and laws are not the answer and i’ll explain why. Most of these laws are not effective against people with the ill intent to get a gun.
These laws often just restrict those law abiding citizens. “The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women).” (The Las Vegas Shooting). And The amount of guns in the US has increased by about 10 million every years since the early 90s but gun violence has drastically decreased.(The Las Vegas Shooting). Providing evidence that the gun is not the direct problem in this equation but the intent and mindset of the people who seek to harm others.
Missouri as a state is a complete open carry state with little restriction in most areas besides in the City of St.louis as a whole. Most Metropolitan areas are more restrictive in their gun laws and even like Washington D.C the capital doing complete gun restriction in the district. (Doeden Matt). “But such cities like St.louis, Chicago and Baltimore sit atop the list for most violent gun crimes in the whole nation.(Doeden Matt).
” But gun control laws are there to stop that how could this be some might even ask. Because the gun is just a tool as guns do not directly kill people instead people kill people. Back to D.C being the capital of the nation where even the President resides it’s understandable that it is the most restrictive part of the Country in terms of gun restriction. ” The five states with the most gun control laws including DC saw in increase of of 20.2 from 17.3 police officer deaths per 100,000 police officers.” (Michael B.
Sauter). Back in 1997 in Britain the Firearms act was passed hoping to reduce homicide rates in the country. (Matt Doeden). Instead for years after homicides rate grew from .9 people per 100,00 to 1.8 per 100,000 doubling the rate from when they passed the firearm act. Further reinstating the fact that a gun does not cause an act of violence but a violent person does.
The taking away of guns from the people is so controversial though because it is a direct amendment in the Bill of Rights. During the crafting of our constitution the writers set out to make have embedded rules that allow the citizens to live their life freely. “Thirteen British colonies had asserted and established their independence because they declared the form of government under which they had been living was destructive of their “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”(Point). Now keep in mind it is important that the constitution was drafted six years after the War of Independence ,a war in which a majority of troops were members of volunteer militias, using their own personal firearms and with this knowledge the right to own a firearm was established in fear of a tyrannical government.. Freedom for the people had never been accomplished in a country before and now to keep it a certain frame would have to be crafted.
Namely the Bill of Rights and the second among those Amendments is the right to own a gun. “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.” (U.S. Constitution) Now i can understand the motive behind restrictive gun control laws and policies, as well as the ban on certain unnecessary attachments for civilian own guns. because in theory if you want gun homicides to decrease then take the guns right? But it’s not so straight forward of a situation. he FBI found that in 2013 arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).
37 A June 1985 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that “the weapons used in altercations… were those closest at hand.” An editorial published in the June 1985 American Journal of Public Health noted, “gun-inflicted deaths often ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns.” A 1993 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that “rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” (Pros and Cons). The presence of a gun does not immediately escalate the ultiercation to a killing a gun is just a tool the intent of the person using it is the real problem.Several Cases even those taken to the Supreme Court have ruled that citizens have indeed the right to own a firearm for self defense against violence or tyranny. Such cases like Printz vs U.S have had this dispute settled on the side of the citizens.
(Point). Now I do believe some regulation such as background checks before purchasing a gun are actually alright in the sense to protect the people from violent acts. But also these background checks namely the Brady Bill have been tried in the court of law and shown to be unconstitutional. (Las Vegas). It was ruled that States do not have to follow federal direction and local law enforcement does not have the jurisdiction to follow up research on a person’s place of work or their credit.
(Doden Matt) Guns are not a fun play toy of course but is a gun a direct killer. No it is not people kill people not the tools they use. Gun activist care very much about their rights and the safety of others, just as those on the other side of the argument in fact just they come at it from different angles. But statistically shown gun control laws are not as effective as people believe they would be in theory.
The restriction on firearm ownership is not only unethical for legal well rounded citizens but in direct opposition with the structure the country was based upon.