Shhhhh, Im huntin’ wabbits! (Gun Control)
by Ncama1 on September 13, 2013 - 2:46am
The proponents which agree with gun control laws argue against the second amendment. The second amendment which basically says that “well-regulated militia, is necessary to the security of a free state, and therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (Gun Control, 3). Proponents argue that this is now out of date because we now have professional police forces, it was intended solely to guard against suppression of state militias and it does not guarantee an absolute right but one that’s limited by reasonable requirements. Proponents for gun control have supported laws on specific types of guns that they believe are used for criminal purposes and put risk on the safety of the public. On the other hand, Opponents of gun control vary in their positions because they have respect for some control but they don’t think that the laws serve the purpose of what they are intended to do. The opponents argue that it is hard to keep weapons from certain individuals and that if more stringent laws are applied it will create problems for citizens that obey the laws. Gun control opponents deny the assumption that the only real reason of owning a firearm is for hunting and target shooting. They say that they need firearms to protect their property and for self-defense the opponents also believe that firearm possession lowers the incident rate of crime. Criminology professor Gary Kleck conducted a National Self-defense Survey in 1993 and citing responses from 4,978 houses he estimated that handguns had been used nearly 2.1 million times for self-defense, and all types of guns were used 2.5 million times a year for self-defense from 1988 to 1993. In the eyes of gun control supporters the opponents misinterpret the second amendment and lack concern for crimes and violence, and in the eyes of gun control opponents, the advocates are unwilling to compromise and listen to their side of the argument and just want to solve social problems and believe that the advocates are all tied up on disarming American citizens for ideological reasons and motivated by irrational hostility toward firearms and gun enthusiasts.
First of all why shouldn’t citizens be able to have guns especially with the Brady act of 1993 which makes it required to have a background check to purchase a handgun. If advocates for gun control don’t want citizens to have guns then the criminals have the black market, so that means criminals will have guns and law abiding citizens will have nothing to protect themselves with? I personally think that the stat of how many times a gun is used to protect property or used in self-defense explains it all. There is no getting rid of handguns in the united states, in 2009 there was 310 million guns total for sale in the USA, if you want protection in today’s modern society you need a gun, especially with all the thugs and criminals out there.
APA References: Gun Control Overview. (2013). Congressional Digest, 92(3), 3-7.