None_Provided
The debate over gun control is one of the most highly controversial issues of our society today. Perhaps the reason for this is because it deals with a fundamental issue. Gun restrictions and bans on some or all guns calls for a significant change to the social and constitutional systems that we live in today. Gun control is based on the incorrect concept that ordinary citizens are too clumsy and ill tempered to be trusted with weapons. An increase in gun control is not in the best interest of our society, it just provides the people with a false sense of security. Throughout history governments have used guns as a scapegoat to their problems with violent crime. Guns are not the problems when it comes to our society's problem with crime the people are the problem. Those in favor and against gun control have countless reasons for their stances. The argument against gun control is the most credible; therefore, gun control should not be administered in the United States of Ameri! To fully understand the reasons behind the gun control efforts, one must look at the history of our country, and the role firearms played in it. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes fi
gun. The simple definition of a criminal is someone who does not obey the laws. The simple definition of a law-abiding citizen is a person who does obey the laws. Therefore, if laws pass restricting ownership of firearms, which category would it affect? Of course the obvious answer to this question is the law-abiding citizen only. By their very nature, the criminals will continue to violate the new laws, they will continue to carry firearms, and they will find their efforts at crime much easier when they know that their victims will be unarmed. Innocent people are turned into victims when new laws make it impossible for them to fight back. An unarmed man stands little chance against an armed criminal. Innocent people are turned into victims when new laws make it impossible for them to fight back. There is a market for guns just as there is for marijuana. If guns were to become completely banned could one imagine the amount of "gun smuggling" that would occur. And if the prohibition of marijuana were any indication to gun prohibition, the law would not work. The availability of marijuana is enormous, as it would be for guns too. Gun control advocates, those who favor gun control, argue that the more guns there are, the more crime there will be. But there is no solid statistical correlation between gun ownership and homicide or other violent crime. In the first thirty years of the twentieth century, U.S. per capita handgun ownership remained stable, but the homicide rate rose tenfold. (Lunde 1) And between 1937 and 1963, handgun ownership rose by 250 percent, but the homicide rate fell by 35.7 percent. (Kates 23) So one can see that there is statistical evidence to show that there is not a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate. Therefore, the argument that more guns equals more crime, is be shown to be untrue in which case should lead to the end of gun control laws. It has been shown that the act of making it illegal to own firearms does little to prevent criminals from getting guns. These laws only restrict people who respect the law itself. And when the right to defend themselves is given to the people, criminals begin to fear becoming the victim themselves. It is obvious that gun control laws are not realistic. Gun control does not reduce cr
Some common words found in the essay are:
Institute Justice, United America, Disarming Americans, Bill Rights, gun control, United Ameri, ordinary citizens, gun ownership, gun control laws, control laws, gun owners, homicide rate, laws impossible fight, victims laws impossible, gun control law, united america, ownership firearms, favor gun, innocent people, people victims laws,
Approximate Word count = 1540
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
