Gun Control Sucks Essay Research Paper Whenever

Gun Control Sucks Essay, Research Paper Whenever some terrible act of violence occurs such as the horrible Columbine Shooting, people start looking for answers and

Gun Control Sucks Essay, Research Paper

Whenever some terrible act of violence occurs such as the

horrible Columbine Shooting, people start looking for answers and

pointing fingers. They want to put the blame on something

saying, ?It was the parents fault,? or, ?It is television and the

Internet?s fault,? but the blame is most often put on an

inanimate object that does only what the person operating it

tells it to do. The Gun. In the next few minutes one should

realize that it is not the gun?s fault and more gun control laws

are not the answer. Gun control violates rights given to us by

the Second Amendment, guns have proven to be extremely effective

in deterring crimes and protecting private property, gun control

does not work in controlling violence, and gun control goes

against everything the founders of this country stood for.

Gun control violates the rights that the founders of this

country shed their blood for. Our constitution is the rights

that the framers of this country put together because they felt

it to be necessary for a strong nation. In it 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. One would think that the men

who wrote the Constitution knew and understood the importance of

allowing a free people to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Some would say that today?s well regulated militia was the

National Guard, but even if that was true the Second Amendment

still protects individuals rights to keep and bear arms. As

Thomas Jefferson so emphatically put it, ?No free man should ever

be disbarred the use of arms.? (Quotations 1) Thomas Jefferson,

being a huge supporter of the right to bear arms, also said, ?The

beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed

until they try to take it.? Jefferson also said, ?The strongest

reason for the People to retain the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in

government.? He definitely realized, as did the other writers of

the constitution, the importance of letting a free people have

the right to Bear Arms.

It has been said that guns just cause violence and are never

a benefit to society, nothing could be so far from the truth.

Statistics have shown time and time again that guns are used

hundreds of thousands of times a year in the defense of one?s

self, property, and family. In fact, according to Dr. Kleck, a

criminologist at Florida State University, 75% of all uses of

guns in crime related incidents are defensive uses by would be

crime victims. (Lee 2) That is a huge percentage. That turns out

to be more than 2 million times a year that citizens use lawfully

owned firearms to defend themselves and their families. Studies

have even been done by anti-gun groups that prove the same fact.

One anti-gun survey said that handguns were used in defending

more than 645,000 crimes per year. (Kates 12) All of this and

more disproves the notion that guns are one of society?s evils

and need to be rid of completely.

Without citizen gun ownership their would be more violent

felons on the street. The FBI has collected data that shows that

armed citizens lawfully kill more violent felons per year than do

the police. (Kates 1) When one says they want more gun control

they do not fully realize what they are saying. Gun control will

not be a benefit to society but rather a downfall.

Past and present citizens with guns have always had a

positive affect in society. In fact, going back a hundred years

to the Wild West if one would look into it, contrary to what

books and movies of the old west portray, violence was far less

prevalent than it is today. Contrary to myths, bank and stage

coach robberies were few. Would be criminals knew with certainty

that if they would try to rob a bank the tellers and managers

would have firearms and would be able and willing to protect

themselves. (Lee 6) The young, the old, and the female—those

most vulnerable–were far safer in the most wild and woolly

frontier towns than they are in any American city today. People

had arms, knew how to use them, and were willing to fight with

deadly force to protect their persons and property. (Lee 6)

A good example of how citizens with lawfully owned guns have

been effective in deterring violence recently is Florida. Since

Florida enacted their concealed carry law their murder rate has

dropped by 29%. Nationwide during this same time the murder rate

has risen 11%. One could then say that when criminals know that

when they go to commit a crime they could very likely run into a

citizen with a lawful firearm they are not so quick to commit the

crimes.

Gun control laws are one of the best things criminals could

hope for because gun laws don?t have any affect on criminals.

Criminals are going to get and use guns illegally whether they

are available to law-abiding citizens or not. The more gun

control rules and regulations there are, the happier the

criminals will be, for they know the more gun laws there are the

less chance they have of having a crime victim defend themselves

with a lawfully-owned firearm. One just has to stop and think to

realize how true this is. No matter how many weapons the

government tries to take away they are still going to be on the

street. Thomas Jefferson said,? Laws that forbid the carrying of

arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined

to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted

and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage

than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked

with greater confidence than an armed man.? (Howerter 2) If

anti-gun activists have their way, the government will be able to

confiscate the weapons of law abiding citizens, but not of

people most likely to go on a shooting spree. (Smith 2) What good

is taking away guns from innocent people and leaving them to

criminals? 34% of felons themselves said, that in contemplating

crime they either ?often? or ?regularly? worried that they might

get shot by a would be victim, and 57% agreed that ,?most

criminals are worried about meeting an armed victim than they are

by running into police. 34% of convicts interviewed also said

that they had been, ?scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by

an armed victim,? and about two thirds had at least one

acquaintance who had the experience. (Kates 12) So of course

criminals are going to be the ones wanting gun laws. They don?t

obey them, only law abiding citizens do.

Gun control laws will not stop violence. One does not have

to look very far to see how true this is. It has been proven over

and over abroad and here in our borders that more laws do not

mean less violence. In such countries as Taiwan and South Africa,

the two nations that most severely restrict gun ownership

(violators are subject to the death penalty), the murder rates

are far higher than in the United States. Just the opposite, in

countries such as Switzerland, Israel, and New Zealand where guns

are much more available than they are here in the US crime and

homicides are virtually nonexistent (Lee 3). This disproves the

theory that guns cause violence. A good example is Israel. Almost

every house hold has weapons of some sort. It is very common for

Israeli households to have more than one fully automatic weapon,

and also to have such things as missile launchers or even bigger

weapons. There they realize that allowing their citizens to have

guns of any kind is a huge asset to the benefit of their country.

History has proven that every nation which has disarmed its

citizenry has ended up with a dictator and a police state with

countless and horrible atrocities. (Howerter 1) One of the most

warped and wicked minds of all time, Adolf Hitler, was a huge

advocate of gun control. Hitler said, ?History shows that all

conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms

have prepared their own downfall.? (Gun Control Hall of Fame 4)

What he basically meant is that if citizens are allowed to own

guns with out government restrictions than it is virtually

impossible for dictators like himself to get into power. Hitler

also said, ?This year will go down in History, for the first

time, a civilized nation has full gun registration, our streets

will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will

follow our lead into the future.? Is that what our country wants?

Hitler?s idea of safe was rounding up countless millions of

innocent people and slaughtering them just because of their

religion and race. A civilized nation he called it, a more

efficient police. The Gestapo were Hitler?s idea of an efficient

police. He knew that after he had full registration of guns he

could get by with the horrible atrocities that he got by with and

not have to worry about any retaliation from his governed people

because they had no way to go against him.

Mahatma Gandhi, the peaceful protester from India who led

his country to independence from Great Britain, said, ?Among the

many misdeeds of the British Rule in India, History will look

upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the

blackest.? (Howerter 1) Great Britain realized that when they

took away guns from India they didn?t have to worry about India

trying to fight for the independence they deserved. When the

citizens of a free nation own guns, it is almost impossible for

the government to take over and become a dictatorship or

socialist.

One would say that what has happened in the past does not

apply to today, or what has happened in other countries that

taken guns away from their people won?t happen in America. They

need to realize how true it is that we either learn from History

or History will repeat itself.

Even in our own country states and cities that have tried to

enact strict gun laws have found them to be ineffective. The

places in the United States where gun control laws are toughest

tend to be the places where the most crimes are committed with

illegal weapons. (Lee 6) Out of the 15 states that have the

highest homicide rates, 10 have very restrictive gun laws. (Lee

6) New York, for example, which has one of the most restrictive

gun laws in the nation has 20 percent of the nations total of

armed robberies. New York is big but not that big. Gun control

does not work. Another example, Washington D.C., since guns were

banned in 1976 the murder rate has risen 200 percent. (Howerter

2) How much proof does one need to know that gun laws do not

effect criminals. Criminals don?t care what the law says. More

gun laws will not reduce crime. The more gun laws there are the

more gun-related crimes there will be. That is a fact.

One should realize after reading this paper that first of

all gun control violates rights guaranteed us by the Second

Amendment, guns prevent crime a whole lot more than they cause

crime, gun control has proven ineffective in stopping crime here

in our country and abroad, past and present, and gun control goes

against everything the forefathers of this country stood for.

George Washington put it like this, ?Firearms are second only to

the Constitution in importance: they are the people?s liberty

teeth.?(Howerter 3) One should stop and think the next time they

go to the ballot box before they start making the little X?s just

who are the people they are voting for. Are they going to try to

enact more rules and regulations on guns as a sort of scape goat

for problems in society, or are they going to uphold the

constitution and go after the real causes of the violence that we

face in our society today. As one man put it so well, ?We have

four boxes used to guarantee our liberty, The soap box, the

ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. (Howerter 3)

Another man who was vital in founding this country, Benjamin

Franklin, put it this way, ?They that can give essential liberty

to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.?

(Quotes from the Founding Fathers and their Contemporaries 2)

?Gun Control Hall of Fame.? Members 6. Online. Internet. 14

Feb 2000 Available:

http://members.localnet.com/~bobglifab.htm

Howerter, Mark E. ?Gun Control Isn?t About Guns, It?s About

Control.? Otherside(1996) 3. Online. Internet. 15 Feb

2000. Available: www.otherside.net/guncntrl.htm

Kates, Don B. Jr. ?The Value of Civilian Arms Possession As

a Deterrent to Crime orDefense Against Crime.?

Shadeslanding (1991) 52. Online. Internet. 15 Feb 2000.

Available:

www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kates.defense.html

Lee, Robert W. ?Shooting Down Faulty Arguments.? The New

American(4 April 1994) 10. Online. Internet. 16 Feb.

2000. Available:

www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1994/vol/vol0no07.htm

?Quotations.? Second Amendment Stuff 3. Online. Internet. 16

Feb 2000. Available:

http://secondamendmentstuff.com/quotation.htm

?Quotes from the Founding Fathers and their Contemporaries.?

Guncite (12 Jan 2000)4. Online. Internet. 16 Feb 2000.

Available: www. guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

Smith, Carly. ?Guncontrol Supporters Aiming at Wrong

People.? Generation Y (15 Oct1999) 2. Online.

Internet. 15 Feb 2000. Available:

http://generation-y.com/stories/101599/new_guncontrol.s

html.