Arguments Against Gun Control

1406 Words3 Pages

The United States, the nation having the highest prevalence of private gun ownership among wealth countries over the world, imbues the private possession of guns with great social and historical significance. The Americans’ earliest attachment toward guns emerged when the nation fought for its independence. The American Revolution owed its success to the militia, people who took up arms against the British despot and served for the Continental Army. While guns represent liberty, they cause great damage and intensify violence at the same time. The misuse of guns accounts for more than 30,000 deaths per year in the United States. Recognizing the inherent dangers and staggering number of killings with handguns, the elected representatives in the …show more content…

From their perspective, individuals can protect and defend themselves if more civilians possess handguns, in which, in turn, saves lives. However, a considerable number of experts doubt this claim. According to 2007-11, actually less than one percent of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported that they used a firearm to defend themselves during the incident. In the event of an emergency, the victims do not even have time to pull out their handguns in response and they may end up causing more dangers. In addition, Harvard economist David Hemenway’s survey concludes that a majority of the reported self-defense gun uses are probably illegal, including intimidations and murders. Since handguns usually fail to serve to defense against attack and usually end up causing more violence, there is no reason for individuals to carry them as more violence follows. Furthermore, based on disparate interpretations of the Second Amendment, historians and legal scholars debate over whether the legal clause gives individuals the right to possess guns. The Second Amendment reads: “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.” Supporters of individual possession of handguns interpret the phrase “well-regulated militia” in a way that they view individual groups in terms of “private militias” that can initiate rebellions against tyranny. As this interpretation extends the right of the militia beyond the national government, the understanding no longer legitimate for that instead of rising up against the federal government in a peace era, an insurrection should only come in under a tyranny. The Framers put up armed rebellions against Britain, but they did not want individual civilians to fight against this already better union they created. Under the circumstance that individuals

Open Document