An Argument Against Gun Control

As long ago as 1789, the creators of the Constitution realized the importance of guns in

American society. 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."

No loopholes, or legal caches exist in this statement. The Founding Fathers allow for no

restriction of the private ownership of firearms. Yet, in recent years anti-gun politicians have

attempted to control guns in the name of crime prevention. Gun control makes no effort to

control criminals, does not reduce crime, takes guns from responsible sportsmen and recreational

shooters, and allows criminals to possess firearms superior to those of the public.

Advocates that support the cause of control claim that controlling firearms will lesson

criminal action. Gun control does nothing to control criminals. The fundamental flaw in the

thinking of anti-gun polititions is that guns don't kill people. People kill people. The same logic

that leads one to control firearms could also lead one to endeavor to control automobiles and fast

food simply because they are instrumental in millions of deaths per year. Why when Americans

reject such an absurd theory as "Automobile Control," which do not infringe the constitution,.

would these same individuals embrace an idea as gun control? People accept gun control, but if

a politician would suggest "controlling" fast food restaurants because the fatty food causes heart

problems and deaths, the public would scorn his insane proposal. Ultimately, people's choices

lead them to drive recklessly, overindulge in unhealthy food, and use firearms to commit violent

crimes. So, criminals should be controlled, not the guns which they share with millions of

law-abiding citizens.

Gun control supporters claim that gun control lowers crime rate. Gun control does

nothing to reduce crime. A study conducted by the Urban Institute regarding The Clinton Gun

Ban Law of 1995, finds that "because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more

than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect

of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically..." Joseph

Constance, the Deputy Police Chief of Trenton, New Jersey, states: "Assault weapons are used in

an underwhelming .026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more

likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo, than to confront an assault rifle in the

hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets." West Virginia stands as an example of the

inaccurate thinking of gun control advocates. This state has the highest number of guns per

person in the nation, yet it has the lowest number of crimes per person in the nation. Gun

control has little or no effect on crime.

Gun control advocates believe that gun control has no effect on the law-abiding

citizens.However, gun control takes recreational firearms from law-abiding citizens. Many of

the guns used today for hunting and recreational shooting originate as military weapons (e.g., 6.5

x 55 Mauser, 8mm Mauser, and 7mm Remington). Gun control advocates like to make

statements such as this one from a New York Times editorial: "No Federal law limits military

assault rifles that are semi-automatic." They overlook the fact that military rifles are not

semi-automatic they are automatics. The guns which gun controll advocates seek to regulate

conform to statutes that keep the public from owning military, fully-automatic weapons.

Average Americans responsibly shoot these completely legal semi-automatic guns for recreation.

Gun control takes firearms from hobbyists and hunters.

Finally, limiting the right of a citizen to own certain guns puts him at a disadvantage

when dealing with criminals and protecting his family. If a criminal needs a gun, he purchases it

on the street, and can acquire whatever type of firearm he chooses. Yet, when a law-abiding

citizen wishes to procure a gun, he must choose from those which the government deems fit. So,

when the criminal breaks into the citizen's home or business, bearing any type of firearm he

chooses, the citizen must defend himself, his belongings, and his loved ones, with an inferior,

legal firearm. In this scenario, gun control serves to give a criminal an advantage over a

law-abiding, armed citizen.

In conclusion, no substantial reason for gun control exists. It fails to control criminals

and crime, while taking guns from law-abiding Americans who use them for defense and

recreation. The time is at hand for Americans to stand and defend their Second Amendment

rights, and make liberal, anti-gun politicians aware that gun control has no place in society.

Word Count: 770