Essay, Research Paper: Gun Control

An Argument Against Gun Control
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: 778