An Argument Against Gun Control

This essay has a total of 753 words and 4 pages.


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
Continues for 2 more pages >>