Essay:Gun Control Essay "Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This essay is an original work by MiddleMan. Please comment only on the talk page.

'Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark'

The allocation and availability of firearms to Americans has caused numerous heated arguments, as guns are associated with the proliferation of illicit activities. However, this privilege was granted to us by our founding fathers during the formation of our country, via the Bill of Rights. The second amendment of this foundational document states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Is this entitlement, which was created a little over two centuries ago, obsolete and in need of reformation? A rescinding of this dispensation to American citizens by the government would be imprudent and unwarranted and would need to be met with the uppermost means of protestation. Citizens should be allowed to convey armaments because it is a betterment of their protection on several fields, should not suffer because these practical apparatuses are misunderstood by several politicians, and are useful and recreational if employed responsibly.

A superior means of defense for the population is the first reason why guns should be carried by citizens. Contrary to popular belief, armaments are not just purchased by lawbreakers; they are acquired by upstanding citizens whose only thought in the obtaining of the weapon is self-defense. A prohibiting of the distribution of firearms would cause the population to become more vulnerable to crime. Protection is sorely needed in America, which had 11,350 murders by shooting in 2005[1], compared with 50 in 2005/06 in the UK, which restricts the possession of handguns.[2] Passing stricter laws on gun distribution (such as in the UK) would only cause more difficulty for law-abiding citizens who wish to arm themselves, as criminals use illicit means of obtaining firearms. Also, muggers, rapists, and murderers possessing the knowledge that the individual they are attempting to take advantage of owns a gun, are less likely to attempt the illegal action. As Cesare Beccaria, an 18th century Italian Criminologist stated, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” A secondary protection for the general public conveying arms is the safeguard against tyranny from a corrupt government. Because of its armed citizens the administration of the United States cannot enforce its laws upon the people by the use of the sword. If the actions desired by these politicians were taken, only the military would be armed, causing our democracy to become a dictatorship. This was the case in the formation of several totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the Soviet Union. As United States Senator Hubert Humphrey correctly believed, “The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which…historically has proven to always be possible.” In essence, the bearing of firearms establishes our freedom to have a voice in legislative decisions.

Second, the viewpoint of firearms in America has become bigoted and citizens wishing to arm themselves should not suffer because of this negative standpoint. A fact that many who support gun management fail to realize is that weapons themselves are not bad; it is their misuse that is corrupt. A generalization on all armaments should not be made just because a firearm previously purchased was utilized in a recent crime. As the cliche states, “Love the sinner; hate the sin.” Next, it appears that these activists believe that since guns pose a potential threat, we should have stricter laws in place. However, doesn't any object have the potential of becoming hazardous if utilized incorrectly? With that mindset, should not also we censure all household objects that could possibly cause injury, such as pencils, staplers, and little sisters? Also, many of the arguments made by pro-gun advocates are faulty and contain misinformation. For example, a primary claim made is that 13 children die per day because of handgun misuse. However, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the top child killer in America is the motor vehicle. Should we then abolish their use? Also, the claim made that the registration of guns would lead to fewer deaths is false because there are still accidents with licensed cars. Opposition to this point would be that we can’t compare guns to cars because only cars are useful. However, aren’t weapons useful to people for self-defense? In most cases, just the revealing of a firearm is enough to dissuade an assailant.

Lastly, guns can be employed recreationally if utilized properly and their use should not be repealed. Firearms are employed in several entertaining fields, such as hunting and target practice. Why should a few paranoid senators be able to repeal the leisure of many because of the mistaken decisions of a few? Also, if we allow stricter laws on armaments, pro-gun control activists could begin viewing other entertainments as “potentially dangerous” such as paintball and cap guns. This could lead to the squelching of more civil liberties such as the right to assemble, as it could cause the public to gain “dangerous mindsets” or the right to a trial by jury because the judge “knows what’s best for the plaintiff.” As the author Lyle Myhur said, “When they took the 4th Amendment I was quiet because I didn’t deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment I was quiet because I didn’t own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment and I can only be quiet.”

Citizens should be permitted to bear arms because they offer securities, the populace should not be subjected to the liberal standpoint on the gun control issue, and firearms can be used recreationally. Guns protect us not only from the common criminal, but from the creation of a tyrannical government. Armaments are viewed negatively and citizens should not be subjected to these faulty arguments. Finally, weapons are employed in several legal recreational activities. Therefore, we should defend our right to bear arms for the protection of ourselves and our basic liberties in this country.

Fact is the vast majority of gun related violence and casualties are gang/drugs related, crimes of passion, accidents, suicides or incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech (you can't slaughter a bunch of people with a knife.) Incidents involving "law abiding" citizens defending themselves against criminals make up only a small portion of the total.

The image of the limitless source of the black market, open to any common thief is an illusion: most thiefs and burglars don't even wear guns while on the job and most of the guns on the black market are guns stolen from citizens.

If there would be a federal gun prohibition, the black market would dry up to a small pond within a couple of years, which would only be accessible to major criminal organizations who usually don't involve themselves with burglaries and such, kinda like the way things are in Europe.

Also, guns won't protect the people from a totalitarian government: even the most totalitarian regimes always have a sizeable group of civilian supporters, besides, are you gonna stop a tank with your hunting rifle? If you don't want a totalitarian government then don't vote for the wrong people, because these regimes always start out with popular support.

Furthermore, guns are not recreational toys, they grant their owner the power to take a human life by merely curling one finger, and that's just too great a responsibility for most people. There just is no place for weapons of war within a civilized society.

America should have banned guns before the rise of the Crips and Bloods and other such organizations, it could have been like the UK and the rest of Europe, but maybe it's too late to end the vicious circle by now...