A irresponsibility and ignorance of gun owners

A irresponsibility and ignorance of gun owners

A proposed federal law to outlaw all guns would be more effective at disarming law-abiding citizens than at disarming the criminals who abuse them.

If guns were outlawed, the criminals would not stop carrying guns, but the good, law-abiding citizens would. It would do nothing about the illegally obtained handguns in the possession of criminals. In The NRA is Right, Josh Sugarmann states that “One tenet of the National Rifle Association’s faith has always been that handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns” (Sugarmann 185). Criminals simply aren’t discouraged, they just ignore bans. The only two things passing a law of this nature would accomplish would be to take away the honest citizens’ ability to protect themselves and their families in their homes and give criminals a safer work environment. There are dangerous people everywhere and they will find ways to hurt others no matter how many means of doing so you take out of their reach.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Banning guns will not stop gun violence, on the other hand, it would just ensure that criminals with stolen or smuggled guns would have no fear that their innocent victims would be able to defend themselves.Reducing violence would be extremely difficult for gun control to do; in fact exactly the opposite would occur. Guns do not commit crimes alone. It is the irresponsibility and ignorance of gun owners that cause it. Guns do not have a mind of their own and if there are owners, who fail to act responsibly, do not punish other law-abiding citizens who are responsible when owning guns. If a student makes an error in their writing, do we blame the pencil they use to write? Highly unlikely.

Gun control would not prevent criminals from obtaining guns. In The NRA is Right, Sugarmann argues ” The black market that has fed off the legal sale of handguns would continue for a long while” (Sugarmann 190). Most criminals get guns through informal off-the-record swaps, purchases and trades with relatives, friends, drug-dealers, or other street sources. Spending millions of dollars on a fail proof checking system would cause felons to stop buying guns from a shop, and send them to buy their weapons from the streets. Guns are effective forms of self-defense. Taking them away would leave civilians defenseless and easy targets. Guns, when stored and operated correctly and safely can create a sense of safety.

When used for protection, guns provide a psychological buffer against the fear of crime. When protected by a gun, people often feel safer because if something should arise they have some sort of security. Criminals will avoid situations where there is a possibility that their target may be armed.

Guns can save a potential victim from becoming one. Victims who use guns for protection are less likely to be attacked or injured than victims who respond in any other way. Since guns empower the weak against the strong, and because victims are generally weaker than felons are, gun ownership is a benefit for society. Outlawing all guns would only punish the law-abiding citizens such as myself. I own a gun and know plenty of people who own guns also. In White Man’s Law, Tonso states: “To these Amercians, guns mean freedom, security, and wholesome recreation” (Tonso 209). The people I know would never use their guns for anything other than target shooting, hunting, or an extreme case of self-protection.

I feel that just because a few psychos abuse a gun doesn’t mean that they should be prohibited. GUNS DON’T KILL, HUMANS DO THAT! We cannot blame an inanimate object for the crimes and actions of human. If that was the case, than automobiles should be outlawed too. Our country has problems with drunk drivers, but I have yet to hear anyone suggest that all automobiles be confiscated. Far more innocent children will be killed by cars this week yet we never see anyone calling to ban cars, do we? We seem to be trying to deal with the problem of drunk drivers by stiffer laws for abusers not banning all automobiles.

This should also be the case for criminals who commit crimes using guns. Banning guns to reduce crime makes as much sense as banning alcohol to reduce drunk driving. Ultimately, it is the people’s choice to use a firearm to commit violent crimes. So criminals should be controlled, not the guns which they share with millions of law-abiding citizens. I, as a gun owner, am not about to surrender my rights to bear arms and liberties. A law to confiscate guns could become one of the most destructive pieces of legislation ever enacted in the United States.

Enforcing it would immediately abolish the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which states: “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” (Polsby 198). This would only encourage criminals to commit more crimes, since their victims’ rights to own guns were taken away leaving them defenseless without affecting their own ability to obtain one. The freedoms we enjoy today as Americans were written in the blood of our forefathers and should never be taken lightly. These freedoms are what makes us, and keeps us, the most powerful nation in the world. Gun control would threaten America’s structure of individual liberty.

No Comments

Add your comment


I'm Alfred!

We can help in obtaining an essay which suits your individual requirements. What do you think?

Check it out