More Guns Less Crime

Banning guns would be a poor choice for the United States

Introduction

According to the CATO Institute, a Concealed Carry Act passed three years before, prevented a massacre in 2007. It was stopped when a volunteer security guard for the New Life Megachurch in Colorado shot down someone who had begun to open fire in the church ("Concealed Guns Pros and Cons"). Without the Concealed Carry Act, many lives could have been taken and a tragedy would have taken place. Gun Control has been a major argument in the United Sates for many years. Some people believe that taking away guns would solve the problem, but in reality, putting a ban on them would cause major issues. Guns have always been used to protect and defend the people and the country. Not are they only used for protection though, it is a person's right to own them and to use them for any legitamate reason. "States with more restrictive CCW {Carry Concealed Weapons} laws had gun-related murder rates that were 10 percent higher." ("Concealed Guns Pros and Cons"). Just by looking at the statistics provided, it becomes clear that less guns at hand brings more trouble for everybody.

Claim

Gun control should be limited in the United States because it is a persons' right to bear arms for their protection and because putting a ban on guns would not prevent the criminals from getting them and hurting the people.

Concession

Many say that banning guns or putting a great restriction on them would keep most criminals from harming or doing anything dangerous with them.

Concession

Some people say that even though the second amendment states that people have the right to bear arms, it does not apply to all citizens besides participating in a militia. They point out that the second amendment also states, "A well regulated militia," (Barbara 38).
Taking away the guns would be a complete violation of the second amendment. It says that "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). It pretty much says that it is the people's right to own guns. There is a bit of argument on the first part of the statement, "A well regulated Militia," but it honestly sounds like since there aren't always people around to protect the citizens, they have the right to own a gun for their own protection. It is also very true, hand guns or any gun protect people who can not always rely on the police. An Arizona sheriff, Richard Mack, said, "Police do very little to prevent violent crime, we investigate crime after the fact." It has also been ruled by the supreme court more than once that police do not have a legal duty to protect the citizens from crime ("Concealed Guns Pros and Cons"). Alexander Hamilton, one of the framers of the constitution, wrote that there would be two militias, one that was "organized," or the soldiers in the military, and one that was "unorganized," or the rest of the citizens of the United States (Dolan 26-27). These views from Hamilton make it quite clear that the Second Amendment was meant to give the right to own guns to all citizens for their own protection.

A Girl Speaks of How Banning Guns Will Affect the People

15 year old girl leaves anti-gun politicians speechless
To take away guns from the citizens would be basically telling the criminals, "Go ahead, give it your best shot, the people can no longer protect themselves. It's unfair game." Just because the guns are taken away, does not mean the criminals will no longer be able to get guns and use them. They could easily be put out on the black market, or in any shady area of work. So in the end the criminals have the guns, and the people are left with nothing to protect themselves with. In many cities with stricter, harder, gun laws, murder rates actually went up, not down (Dolan 59). What the government needs to do is make stricter people laws not gun laws. Putting a restriction on guns would make it easier for the bad to strike, but intensifying the punishment for those people might slow them down (Dolan 55). Hey, if the government were to take away guns and were able to successfully stop people from getting them, they would just sharpen broom sticks, smash with hammers, and stab with knives. Are we seriously going to start banning the things we use in our every day lives next? Criminals do not follow rules, that is why they are called criminals, when the government takes away the peoples' rights to have guns, they are sentencing the people who do follow the rules to a life of danger.
Big image
The fact that criminals will always be able to have guns and that it is the citizens' right to bear arms are only a few reasons why gun control should be limited in the United States. Guns are the last problem we have here. They do not do anything, it is the people who are dangerous and should be taken care of. The government needs to focus on helping the people with mental disorders and those who have a great amount of trouble in their lives, not taking away the thing that keeps citizens safe. It was even stated by Hitler, a terrible tyrant, "To conquer a nation, first disarm it's citizens." Guns are a very important thing, and I believe that we should always be allowed to have guns for our own safety and for the safety of others. If Hitler believed that there should be gun control, than everyone should agree that completely banning guns is the last thing we should do for our Nation.

Work Cited


"Concealed Guns ProCon.org." ProCon.org Headlines. Procon.org, 21 Nov. 2014. Web. 12 Feb. 2015.


Dolan, Edward F. Gun Control: A Decision for Americans. New York: F. Watts, 1982. Print.


Long, Barbara. Gun Control and the Right to Bear Arms. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow, 2002. Print.


"Second Amendment." Second Amendment. Legal Information Institute, n.d. Web. 5 Feb. 2015.