Is gun control really the right solution to gun abuse? Will this really be effective? Will the American society be safer when guns are banned? Though there are many questions, there is only one answer: ÃÂNO!!ÃÂ Liberals have tried to argue that banning guns from civilians is the best way to solve this problem. However, this is not the right way to solve this problem for many reasons:First, to get facts straight, guns do not kill people; people kill people 100% of all homicides are committed by people. Secondly, banning would only leave criminals with guns, since they obtain them illegally anyway and law-abiding citizens would have no means of protection. Criminals now are committing less violent crimes that have minimal contact with people, knowing the fact that they might own guns, so if guns are banned criminals would commit more violent crimes. Banning guns would give the government complete control over the people, by stripping them from their natural rights.
United States
Burning Money is Financial Crime and Waste in Chin...
Map of violent crimes in 2005 in Chicago community...Lastly, guns have caused more benefit than harm. According to statistics, in 2005 gun ownership by citizens had stopped 2 out of 3 rapes. The majority of people want gun ownership, polls in 2006 have shown that about 86.25% of Americans do not want guns banned.
Second, guns mostly used by law-abiding citizen have mostly been used for self-defense. Mr. Thomas Harrison, 60, says ÃÂ One time a robber broke into our house and tried to molest my daughter fortunately I got my gun from my drawer and popped a cap right into his kneeÃÂ. Guns are weapons of oppression, if guns were banned only oppressors would have guns and the oppressed would even be more miserable. The founding fathers of this nation have made ÃÂ the right to bear armsÃÂ in the Second Amendment; the same founding fathers...
Gun Control
This essay contains a number of points that merit consideration, but two that raise concerns. First, it invokes the "founding fathers" against gun control. This is a very questionable argument. It is questionable not because the original meaning of the Constitution is not important - it is. It is questionable because the Supreme Court has ruled that the founding fathers meant something when they put in the critical phrase "a well-ordered militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."
In 1939, while the Supreme Court was still a relatively conservative institution, the Court had a case about gun control, United States v. Miller. Miller was not a fine, law-abiding citizen. He was a bootlegger. He smuggled whiskey around the lower mid-West, until he was caught by federal agents. He was caught with a sawed-off shotgun, a weapon that was and is a favorite of outlaws rather than law-abiding hunters. He defended himself in court) on the grounds that the Second Amendment protected his right to keep and bear arms. The Court, invoking the founding fathers said, "No." So at least as the Supreme Court read the founding fathers in 1939, they weren't so pro gun.
Second, this essay refers to "natural rights." In law, there are few slipperier slopes than the concept of natural rights. What rights are "natural" rights? What rights are "unnatural" rights? For better or worse, the concept of natural rights is invoked to justify or attack just about anything, and on analysis, it usually proves only that people can argue about natural rights.
These criticisms are not to dismiss the essay completely. It shows a considerable amount of thought. Interestingly, given its support of rules that would restrict access to guns, it actually comes down where gun control advocates do rather than on the side of gun control opponents.
1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.