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.
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,
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.
A firearm is merely a tool, it is the individual that carries out the action with said tool, and a very small percentage of individuals who purchase firearms purchase them with intent to murder or wound another human being. As much as having an armed society would please the pro-gun circuit that is not the answer here either, we aren’t in a country where that is required (I.E. Israel) this country requires a more subtle approach when coming to the ownership and use of firearms. When coming up with ways to regulate firearms many ideas spring up; two of the most popular from the anti-gun circuit include universal background checks and public gun registry. Others include limitation on what types of armaments can be purchased, types of ammo, ET cetra.
When most people see an "assault" style of rifle, they assume that it is a killing machine, not a tool. There is a stigma sounding weapons like that and people who own them. Someone opposed to assault rifles may ask, why if you are not in the military do you need one of those kinds of guns? The answer is simple. It is a right guaranteed in our constitution.
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.
“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 ideals and dreams of the founding fathers are very simple and straightforward. The early leaders in America felt strongly about the rights of the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. As a result of recent mass violent incidents involving firearms, many people are calling for strict gun laws. Some of these proposals make it nearly impossible for the average law-abiding citizen to buy and own firearms for self-defense. Some lawmakers support these ideas and claim that gun-violence will decrease if strict limitations are placed on the purchase and ownership of firearms.
But this is not true, many gun enthusiast believe that the second amendment was created by the Founding Fathers to protect citizens from government tyranny. (Cothran) Thomas Jefferson being one of the Founding Fathers said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of firearms.” Why do people believe that stricter gun laws on private ownership will decrease the number of crimes in society? The fact of the matter is, criminals are more likely to attack a target who they know is unarmed and unprepared because they know that the victim will not put up a tough fight. If more Americans owned guns then attackers would be afraid to mug, rape, rob, and it would also prevent murders from happening. So why put a restriction on private gun ownership preventing the good guys from being able to protect themselves while the crooks are getting their weapons through black markets.
The founding fathers stated in the constitution that individuals are allowed to possess firearms. Ownership of firearms is essential for the general population. It is much better to own a gun and not ever need to use it than to be in a life or death situation in which a gun could save your life, but not have access to one. Home burglaries are a real occurrence and a firearm can ensure that you and your family aren’t harmed. If there was ever a larger terrorist attack, gun owners would be more appreciated.
One of the main reasons that people own a gun is protection for themselves and their family. In a survey given about guns, “self defense” was the main reason for owning a gun. Guns provide a great source of psychological reassurance even among citizens who are not particularly concerned about the fear of crime of being victimized. The right of self-defense and the right to use firearms for self-defense and the defense of your family is the foundation for rights written in the U.S. constitution. (Long, pg 28, 1989) Why does the government make it harder for average citizens to protect themselves?