Gun Control is Oppression
When our fore fathers first came onto this land, they were
oppressed by their rulers. These wise men decided to stage a revolt
against their government and start up a new government, with a set of rules,
laws and rights. They did not stage this massive revolt by negotiation, or
arbitration but with blood shed on both sides. When the revolt was over,
the fore fathers had risen to victory through the use of warfare and guns.
They then decided to make a bill stating the basic rights that every man in
the country could have. There were ten of these basic rights, among them
were the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the right of
free speech, and most importantly, the right too keep and bear arms in
order to protect their families, gather food, and preserve their rights,
from all threats. However, in these times of increased violence with guns
and wild over population, is keeping guns available too dangerous to be
continued? If so, how can we justify taking away one of the most
basic and sacred rights that has been held throughout the ages? If we do
this, are we any better than our previous rulers who used control as an
excuse for oppression?
The opposition of gun rights say that the amendment states that The
Second Amendment was never intended as a gun license for the entire
American populace. As originally drafted—and as consistently interpreted by
the courts for more than a century—the Amendment does not grant any blanket
right to own a gun nor does it stand in the way of rational, effective gun
control. They also say that the idea of gun ownership as an American
Birthright is just a myth. However, this is not true. The amendment
states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Clearly stated,
this says that the right of people to have and use guns shall not be taken
away.
The modern day anti-gun advocate cries out that if guns were
outlawed, then the violent crime rate would drop dramatically. Were this
true, I would agree with them, however, this is the true myth in the
situation. Were guns still outlawed, the criminal with a desire to attain
a gun would still be able to get them. In the first place, most violent
criminals do not buy guns legally in the first place, they usually buy them
from black market dealers. Second, the crime rate does not come from the
availability of firearms but from the lack respect in today's society for
other people's lives and property. Were guns make illegal, the same affect
as de-legalizing narcotics and, in the 20's, alcohol had, absolutely
nothing. Those individuals that wanted to get these things, would still
get them without any trouble at all.
In the March 1994 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, writer Daniel
Polsby wrote this:
During the 1960s and 1970s the robbery rate in the United States
increased sixfold, and the murder rate doubled; the rate of handgun
ownership nearly doubled in that period as well. Handguns and
criminal violence grew together apace, and national opinion
leaders did not fail to remark on that coincidence. It has now
become the battle cry of the anti-gun lobbyist that increased
gun ownership goes hand in hand with increased violence. This
is however not true. Again, over population, disrespect, and greed
are the main contributors to increased violence in today's society.
Everyone knows that possessing a handgun makes it easier to intimidate,
wound, or kill someone. But the implication of this point for social policy
has not been so well understood. It is easy to count the bodies of those
who have been killed or wounded with guns, but not easy to count the people
who have avoided harm because they had access to weapons. Think about
uniformed police officers, who carry handguns in plain view not in order to
kill people but simply to daunt potential attackers. And it works.
Criminals generally do not single out police officers for opportunistic
attack. Though officers can expect to draw their guns from time to time,
few even in big-city departments will actually fire a shot (except in
target practice) in the course of a year. This observation points to an
important truth: people who are armed make comparatively unattractive
victims. A criminal might not know if any one civilian is armed, but if it
becomes known that a larger number of civilians do carry weapons, criminals
will become warier.
However, most small time thugs, which are known to attack people
singly most likely could not get access to guns under strong anti-gun
provisions, which is probably true. However, statistics do show that most
criminals that perform these kinds of crimes do not use guns, but knives,
bludgeoning weapons, or a "fake" gun in order to gain what they want. The
average Joe on the street could not carry such a weapon in order to protect
themselves, and so would fall easy target to criminals.
Which weapons laws are the right kinds can be decided only after
considering two related questions. First, what is the connection between
civilian possession of firearms and social violence? Second, how can we
expect gun-control laws to alter people's behavior? Most recent scholarship
raises serious questions about the "weapons increase violence" hypothesis.
The second question is emphasized here, because it is routinely overlooked
and often mocked when noticed; yet it is crucial. Rational gun control
requires understanding not only the relationship between weapons and
violence but also the relationship between laws and people's behavior. Some
things are very hard to accomplish with laws. The purpose of a law and its
likely effects are not always the same thing. Many statutes are notorious
for the way in which their unintended effects have swamped their intended
ones.
We also must remember that guns are a major economic trade item.
Without the manufacture, distribution, and trade of firearms, thousands of
jobs would be lost. You probably don't think it would be that many,
however, how many thousands of people make and sell guns? It sure isn't
more that 2,000. But what about the other people that would be indirectly
affected by gun control? If guns were illegal to own, that would
ultimately mean that sports hunting would be outlawed. This would put
thousands of game wardens, and employees of the Department of Fish and Game
out of work. Taxidermy services would be obsolete, for there would be no
animals to provide these services to. Not to mention the environmental
impacts. Without sports hunting, game populations would skyrocket. Many
would say that they were not that bad before humans, which is true enough.
However, because of development, there is not as many habitats for wild
game to live on, which causes over population, starvation, and disease, wh
ich without sports hunting would cause major declines in animal populations.
In short, guns may be a problem in today's overcrowded cities, but
it is not the fault of the guns. Eliminating guns would not solve these
problems in the cities, and may end up causing more problems in the cities than what
it solves. In addition, the environmental and economic impacts that it
would cause would far exceed what problems it may or may not solve. Strong
gun control is a bad idea, and those who say otherwise are fooling
themselves by not looking at the big picture.Partner sites: Study Spanish in Spain, Pug, and Free Argumentative and Persuasive Essays