Gun Control

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 70
  • Published : April 11, 2014
Open Document
Text Preview

In the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment in the Constitution reads: “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.”(Bill of Rights) There are many effects and Consequences of Gun Control. The right for of all Americans to bear arms is a right even the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Whether or not gun control laws work, the fact of the matter is that these kind of laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they increase the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence, I think would ultimately fail. I am not against gun control, just the current law being proposed. All Americans, including gun owners, support responsible gun laws which keep criminals from buying guns. But just because a law is passed, doesn't mean that every person that owns a gun wants more laws. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The reason I choose this topic is because gun control is a very controversial topic going on in the United States and also around the world. Gun control has been an issue for a long time in history. Given the previous experiments of gun control around the world, a good example of this would be with Adolf Hitler in Germany, Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, or with Fidel Castro and Cuba. It makes no sense to me why people would want to give up their constitutional right because they believe in the disillusion of a safer society without guns. But in reality it is the opposite.

One of the main topics on gun control, is whether or not they are an effective way of self-defense. Who is to say whether or not a gun is a good mean of self-defense or not. Well some of those questions were answered by a report done by a criminologist working at Florida State University. A criminologist by the name of Gary Kleck researched data from the Department of Justice while attending Florida State University. He learned that victims which have defended themselves with a handgun during a robbery or an assault, have the least chance of being injured, or the crime being finished out. Anti-gun people say you don't need a gun to help save your life. You can just try and escape, reason with the offender, or use physical resistance (other than a handgun), and that will work. That is not true. Gary Kleck discovered by doing all of those things, there is actually a larger chance of injury and the crime being completed. (Kleck). These statistics are the same when it comes to burglaries. Most of the time when the victims resisted with a handgun, there was a less chance of the crime being committed or the victim being hurt. In Kleck's study only 33 percent of the surviving robbery victims were hurt, about 25 percent did not resist, and 17 percent who used a handgun, were injured. The same comes with assault victims. Of the 30 percent that survived with injury, 27 percent gave to resistance, and only 12 percent that resisted with a handgun were injured. (Kleck) There were no sites to be found that had anything to say against these statements. The major point that Kleck shows is that people were less likely to be injured when they defended themselves with a handgun, than do those who give no resistance at all. Another topic that is discussed over and over is that of accidental gun shots. Many of the anti-gun groups say that is a major problem with guns. Again Gary Kleck the criminologist...
tracking img