Gun Control Essay, Research Paper
?Guns don?t kill people, people kill people.? It has been said millions of times by too many people to quote. For almost as long as guns have been around gun control has been a major issue throughout the world. As we look back on the past we find that gun control doesn?t really help reduce crime. Another down side of gun control is that if the government takes away the right to own weapons then they will start to think they can take other rights away.
With every new anti gun law passed the crime rate in the United States escalates. For example if you look at the state of Texas or any other state where pro gun laws were recently passed, that allow non felon citizens to purchase and carry a handgun, you can see that crime rates have gone down in these states. It appears that if criminals feel threatened, because their victims may have a gun, they are less likely to attack people. This example shows how gun laws that restrict guns are ineffective because when a law that allows guns is passed crime rates don?t go up but actually go down when more people have guns.
?Gun laws fail because they do not address the issue. The issue is not possession of firearms, but misuse of firearms. We cannot expect criminals to abide by gun laws when they have already shown a disregard for law and order by their criminal activity. The only people ever affected by gun laws are peaceful, law abiding citizens, who never abuse their firearms right. Recent research is finding gun laws do not reduce the amount of violent crime in our society. Gun laws have succeeded only in disarming the law abiding and making the criminals? work environment safer I submit that our concern should be to make the environment for honest citizens, and this, gun laws have failed to do.? Thomas Jefferson predicted these same results when he 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 prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.?
If someone is a criminal they either don?t really care about breaking the law or they don?t plan on getting caught. It is absurd to pass laws that restrict law abiding citizens from owning weapons because it isn?t the citizens, that are obeying the laws, that should be punished for the wrong doing of the criminals. A robber is not going to stop and think wow I better not hold up this store, with this gun, just because it is illegal. Robbing a store is illegal in the first place, but the robber is still going to rob the store, so what is the point of making guns illegal. The law shouldn?t be on the gun it should be against the person using the gun. The gun itself did nothing wrong. If a robber robs a store the gun is not thinking or moving by itself so it can?t be blamed for the crime. Allowing concealed handguns doesn?t make it likely that otherwise law-abiding citizens will harm each other. The threat of citizens carrying weapons primarily deters criminals.
If we look at other countries gun laws we can find that gun restriction dose not work. In 1974 Jamaica passed a series of gun laws that prohibited citizens from even possessing a single bullet. The government strictly enforced these laws. The Jamaican government went as far as to have random house to house searches and if they even found a single bullet a mandatory life prison sentence was issued. Violent crime in Jamaica dropped significantly for about six months but, within a year violent crime rates in Jamaica went back up to the same level as before and has been increasing since.
?Gun control laws increase the power of government and the criminal element over the average citizen and serve no other purpose.? England and other monarchies have gun control laws that prevent their citizens from having guns to prevent uprisings from the citizens toward the government. In 1518 The Holy Roman Emperor Maximillian the first, banned wheel-lock firearms to reduce crime, but the ban on the weapon was ineffective because the gun was too expensive for criminals to use so it didn?t reduce crime.
?Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen’s possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings provides an open window through which a corrupt government will crawl to steal away the remainder of our firearms and our liberties. Any law, which prohibits or limits a citizen’s possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, being directly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, is harmful to the Constitution, to the United States of America, and to its citizens.? This quote sums up the fact that if the government takes away the peoples guns then the people have no way of defending themselves against a tyrannical government that may try to take other existing rights away.
Instead of putting restrictions on the ownership and possession of firearms I believe that the government should put larger punishments on gun related crime. Harsher penalties against gun related crimes would make people think twice about committing these crimes in fear of the penalties. Another way for the people of this great nation to lower crime rates is to begin by creating tighter family values and encouraging children to learn other ways, besides crime, to be successful in life.
Through this paper I have shown that gun regulation dose not lower the amount of gun related crimes but actually increases violent crime because it gives criminals confidence when attacking their victim. I have also pointed out that if citizens do not have guns then the citizens loose their power to over throw a corrupt government, and if the citizens of the United States really wish to lower crime rates and create a better nation they need to teach family values and stop treating their families as part time jobs.