Why would the government want to make it harder for people to own a gun? People that own guns aren’t very likely to be attacked by criminals. Owning a handgun is one of the best ways of protection when used correctly. The second amendment states “the right to bear arms”; does this grant everyone the right to own a gun? Gun control laws have not been proven to do anything for citizens.
Taking guns away from United States citizens that use them for many reasons, shooting practice, competition, hunting and self-defense, should not be punished for the acts of criminals. As stated by Mytheos Holt, “Guns in the right hands help public safety. Guns in the wrong hands harm public safety”. Research shows that defensive use of guns discourages criminals and reduces crime (Holt 2). Not only is it wrong to penalize law-abiding citizens, it is against the Second Amendment.
Guns aren 't living objects that can pick their victims and shoot at will. Guns require a person to pull the trigger. On the topic of ideal gun control, instead of banning gun use, Karl Simon writes, "...the 'ideal ' gun control program is one that does not pose serious barriers to the possession of handguns for legitimate purposes, but does effectively inhibit the use of handguns in crime by a method which has low cost to the criminal justice system and to society at large" (Simon,
The power to defend yourself is the reason that people have guns. The government should not ban rifles, shotguns, and handguns, because the truth is, there is no reason to take away guns as long as there are criminals out there waiting for that to happen. Let’s take a look at what gun control laws are in effect right now. In North Carolina, you can own a rifle or a shotgun without a permit. You can own a handgun after completing a thorough background check (which includes making sure that you aren’t insane and that you aren’t a convicted felon, among other things), and it is illegal to own a machine gun.
Guns, Crime, and Freedom states that, no gun law which restricts the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns has been proven to reduce crime or homicides, not even the Brady Law and the “Clinton Crime Bill.” These two laws st... ... middle of paper ... ...f federal law enforcement agencies did their jobs with respect to guns and convicted violent felons using only GCA’68, as reformed, gun control would not be an issue and we would be a long way toward solving the violent crime problem. We would be getting criminals off the streets and into jail. Americans want violent criminals off the streets and out of their neighborhoods. The bottom line is Americans are upset about crime and soundly reject government solutions that infringe on their rights and liberties. Ultimately, it is a person’s choice to use firearms to commit violent crimes.
They should do background checks for any mental illnesses, past criminal activity including petty crime, and whether or not they contribute to the community. Government should not be able to dictate that a normal law abiding citizen who owns a gun for personal protection of home and property is responsible for all of the crime. What the law makers do not understand is that criminals are going to get guns no matter what. It does not matter how strict the laws are. They could ban gun sales all together and it would not stop criminals from obtaining guns.
Gun restriction is all about control. It is not about protecting people from criminals at all. If gun restriction was about safety, it would actually show statistics for a safer society. The term “infringe” means limit or regulate (Beck xiv). The second amendment provides for a freedom against regulations to be placed on the people’s right to bear arms.
Infoplease.com states, “The Federal Firearms Act would regulate anyone selling and shipping firearms through interstate or foreign commerce channels.” The Gun Control Act instituted in 1... ... middle of paper ... ... goal. Taking guns away is not the answer to the problem and neither is putting over restrictive laws and regulations into effect. Alternatives need to be researched and put into effect immediately to solve the ongoing problem of gun control. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, which will never change. Works Cited http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm#The%20Second%20Amendment http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2587 http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gunlaw.htm http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html http://www.christiangunowner.com/worst_gun_laws.html http://www.speakout.com/activism/guncontrol/ http://www.bradycampaign.org/ http://www.newsbatch.com/guncontrol.htm http://home.nra.org/#/home
Gun control is not effective as it has not been shown to actually reduce the number of gun-related crimes. Instead of considering a ban of private firearm possession, and violating individual ownership rights, it may be more practical to consider the option of partially restricting firearm access. The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “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("The Constitution of the United States," Amendment II)." This means that citizens of the United States have the right to privately own and possess firearms. However, this has created controversy because some believe that there are many who abuse this right to commit criminal acts.
This is not the case, as the amendment does not explicitly state restrictions cannot be placed on owning guns; it only takes away the power to ban all gun ownership in the United States. The decision that the second amendment does not protect citizens in all cases was upheld in United States v. Miller, where the court ruled that charging Jack Miller for transporting an unregistered firearm was in fact legal under the second amendment. The decision was made because there was no evidence supporting that a firearm with a barrel less than eighteen inches had any link to preserving a regulated militia (UNITED STATES v. MILLER Et Al.). The precedent set by this case shows how gun control laws can exist without viol... ... middle of paper ... ...ly examined, it reveals that nowhere does it say that all people are granted the right to bear any arms they want, wherever they want. The law only makes it illegal to take away the right to bear arms altogether.