Gun ControlJoin now to read essay Gun ControlGun ControlGun control is a very big issue in the United States today. Many people don’t agree with the gun control laws that they have today. Gun control laws only take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Many people have their own reasons for owning a gun. Why would the government want to make it harder for people to own a gun? People that own guns are not very likely to be attacked by criminals. Owning a handgun is one of the best ways of protection. The second amendment states “the right to bear arms” does this grant everyone a right to own a gun? Gun control laws have not been proven to do anything for citizens. Gun control laws just make it harder for a good guy to own a gun. Gun control laws are not a good idea.
Gun control only takes guns away from law- abiding citizens and it does nothing to stop criminals from buying illegal guns, who are unlikely to obey the law and register their guns (Long 45). In many cases the term gun control is improperly used. The definition of gun control is; government regulation of possession and use of firearms by private citizens (Zimring 23). The government is using it as way to take our right to bear arms.
There are many reasons that people want to own a gun. One of the main reasons that people own a gun is protection. In a survey given about guns, “ self defense” was the primary reason for owning a gun (Nisbet 114). Guns provide a great source of psychological reassurance even among citizens who are not especially concerned about the fear of crime of being victimized (Long 53). The right of self-defense and the right to use firearms for defense of self and family are the cornerstone of individual rights enumerated in the U.S. constitution (Nisbet 89).
Why does the government make it harder for us to protect ourselves? Police cannot always protect everyone. There are only about 500,000 police officers throughout the country, which figures to around 125,000 police officers are on duty at any given time (Long 46). Other than a bodyguard or a law enforcement officer at one’s side twenty-four hours a day, the most effective deterrent to criminal attack is the criminal’s fear that the prospective victim is armed and prepared to defend themselves (Nisbet 14). Courts have ruled that there is no constitutional fight to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen, which means that police have no duty to protect the individual citizen (Long 55).
It is not very likely of being attacked when someone armed. Criminal’s fear armed citizens. Victims who used guns for protection were less likely either to be attacked or injured than victims who responded in any other way (Long 112). According to the U.S. Justice Department victimization studies, a citizen that uses arms stands not only a greater chance of avoiding injury than his or her unarmed counter part, but also increases his or her odds of failing the criminal assault (Long 104). The police force went on strike in Albuquerque, New Mexico. During this time the crime rate decreased because frightened citizens armed themselves and protected their homes and businesses (Media Watch). Criminals did not want to face indignant citizens protecting their own property with the same force the criminals used to steal it.
Handgun ownership stops thousands of victim injuries and deaths that would not have been avoidable given the advantages that criminals have over unarmed citizens (Zimring 93). Who would people rather have protecting them? In 1980, between 1,500-3,000 felons were legally killed by armed civilians in self defense and an additional 8,700-16,600 criminal were legally wounded under the same circumstances (Long 83). If these figures are accurate, then civilians kill and injure far more felons annually than do police officers (Long 83). Everyone knows that police officers are trained to ask questions first and shoot later, but people feel that if any one were in a bad situation they would probably shoot first.
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” (Long 25). Infringed means to violate or trespass. The constitution is not very clear, but the second amendment is probably the most unclear amendment in the U.S. constitution. It is a rallying cry of the National Rifle Association and its affiliated organizations, who insist that their stand is constant with the expressed intentions of founding forefathers in safeguarding American freedom (Long 7). It is not easy to understand why the Second Amendment, or the notion of liberty, should be viewed as creating a right to own and carry a weapon that contributes so directly to the shock
The NRA and the NRA’s other extreme (and, unfortunately, more recent) advocates for concealed carry permit requirements have become a source of confusion, as they claim that their position on this issue is based entirely on a misunderstanding. First, the NRA claims that they want to be “protectors of the Second Amendment” because this is not about the Second Amendment. The NRA says that they are not defending traditional states, because “it is not just the Second Amendment that the framers intended.”
Second, if the Second Amendment was intended as a protection against cruel and unusual punishment by a federal court or other law, the Second Amendment would require states to pass laws defining in detail what kinds of weapons can be carried with a concealed weapon license. It would, therefore, need to pass a federal court or a state court martial, because only a federal court would be required to rule against the states. Second, by arguing that a “legislative right” must precede and be dependent on a state legislature with a history of having supported concealed carry permit requirements, the bill would prevent local governments from enacting legislation providing for the expansion of local government regulation over the protection of the “liberty” of the people and the right of citizens to carry a weapon. Additionally, if the NRA were to argue that laws that restrict guns and ammunition would lead to an increase in crime—and, at this point, the entire Second Amendment seems to be in line with this view—their bill would actually prohibit such regulation, and the NRA would be more than welcome to fight back.
The NRA is, however, not suggesting that any state should be “protectors of the Second Amendment” because lawmaking by the state is based on these two fundamental notions of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” If a state’s gun laws are not constitutional so long as they do not involve a constitutional right to own and bear arms, the law is meaningless and would be unconstitutional. Additionally, if states are not, as the NRA contends, subject to a constitutional ban on firearms for certain crimes, then what is wrong with banning handguns and rifles altogether?
The NRA also seems to be claiming that only if a state’s handgun laws are “protectors” can the State use a license plate to conduct a background check on potential gun buyers and owners. In any instance, the NRA claims that their position is based entirely on the idea that a law banning handguns would not be constitutional, because law enforcement is supposed to have “a civil and constitutional duty to protect the innocent from their unlawful use.” This notion, it claims, does not imply that the Second Amendment protects police officers or law enforcement officers solely because they are armed. It merely means that police would be expected not to use their firearm for lawful reasons unless they have probable cause to believe that the person in question acted in a manner that would endanger life and limb. As the NRA points out, “there is no doubt that