Is Gun Control the Answer?

While using a point-counterpoint style to argue against gun control I will show guns are best controlled by good aim. The government must keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally ill, and they must not limit the rest of the society from owning them. Gun control advocates will argue that gun ownership is not a right and is not protected by the 2nd amendment. They further believe guns are harmful to society. Gun control advocates also believe guns are not needed for self-defense.

The continuing Mass Shootings in the United States has caused the gun control debate to intensify. While anti-gun control advocates say the Second Amendment guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, the pro-gun control group reads the Second Amendment as a collective right to bear arms; meaning organized militia are the only ones with that right. This essay will analyse the effectiveness of several different articles which present arguments for and against gun control. Charles W. Collier’s article, “Gun Control in America: An Autopsy Report”, dives into the controversial topic of gun ownership and gun control in the United States. He uses recent shootings, including the George Zimmerman case and the Connecticut elementary school shooting, to present his case that gun violence will remain in the United States as long as guns remain high in number and low in regulation.

Those who are against change are saying that the Constitution cannot be changed because the guns aren’t to blame but the people that are using them. Finally, the type of gun a person can own is a huge issue between both sides. Those who agree in changing the laws are saying semi automatic guns should be banned. While those who are against changing the laws are saying semi automatic guns can be used for hunting and sport. The only way to reach a compromise between both sides are to have a proper vote throughout the Untied States and come to a conclusion on what guns should be banned.

Rather than put more restrictions on guns and gun owners, we should be able to freely protect ourselves and our fellow man. As we look at the way pro gun control parties are planning on enforcing gun control, you may begin to question why we would even consider using such drastic means. The idea that limiting the size of a magazine or regulating the type of gun you can purchase or even doing something as simple as a background check can stop murders like the Connecticut shooting from happening is very far-fetched. In Making Gun Control Happen the author, Patrick Radden Keefe, writes from a pro gun control standpoint. He describes that one obvious change would be to “mandate a criminal background check for all gun purchases” as it would obviously stop criminals from getting their hands on a weapon (Keefe).

There have been no studies of the effectiveness of gun laws that have shown any positive effect, yet some studies have shown a negative effect of gun control laws. The obvious effect of gun bans is to deny the law-abiding citizens access to firearms for their defense. Many people argue that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens doesn’t prevent the possessions of guns by criminals, because if criminals really want to get guns, their going to get them. If guns were eliminated from the scene, more knives, clubs, axes, pieces of pipe, baseball bats, brass knuckles, or, for that matter even fists would be used to kill people. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.

They could ban gun sales all together and it would not stop criminals from obtaining guns. One thing everyone needs to remember is if not guns, then criminals will find other weapons to use to to commit crimes. Will more stringent gun control laws create less crime? Will stiffer gun control deter known criminals from committing their heinous acts? Gun rights and gun control have long histories.

N.p., 2014. Web. 30 Oct.

Guns can be hazardous, but only if they are in the wrong hands. Owning a gun is a right that every American should take pride in having. Guns are used for self-protection, hunting, law enforcement and other practices. However, recent incidents, like mass shootings, have caused a change in opinions and demand for gun control. Obama’s proposals sought to reform the national firearm purchase check system, so that offenders and the mentally ill could not buy guns legally, and close down the unregulated secondary gun market which is such a handy supply line for the criminally inclined.While critics dispute that enacting restrictions on gun sales is imperative to keep Americans safe, gun control restricts citizens’ rights to the 2nd Amendment, proves ineffective in other countries, and neglects to lower the crime rate.

Despite the efforts to prevent gun violence by changing laws about the type of weapons we can carry, magazine capacity, and where we can carry guns; people are still using guns for violent crimes. First of all, does the government really think that changing gun laws will actually prevent people from using them in crimes? Many politicians believe this but they are completely wrong when it comes to this. People that use firearms in a crime do not acquire the guns legally anyways; it is the law abiding citizen that cannot get guns or ammunition to protect their family because of prices or law changes. Bieler stated that “Criminals will always get guns."

Neil Munro, “Obama accuses gun control opponents of fighting to allow ‘dangerous people’ to own guns” DailyCaller, 22 September 2013 Web. 27 September 2013