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