Many prominent leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy, were assassinated by deadly weapons-- firearms. Guns’ very existence can either harm or use to defend. The issue lies on who exactly gets hold of these weapons. Who should we trust? How should such laws be justified? If correct implements are taken, many invaluable, American lives would be saved. In order to decrease potential harm, guns should be distributed only with special regulations. During the Boston Marathon of 2013, there was an unexpected explosion, followed by shootings, leaving many civilian casualties. Those guns were evidently in the wrong hands. Long before this incident, gun control advocates have tried to regulate gun use by filing
…show more content…
This is supported by the fact that police protection is actually not guaranteed as a citizenship right, contrary to the typical belief. Thus, it is your responsibility to protect own life. Some might state that when someone’s life is at stake, they don’t need training to act. Moreover, the Second Amendment also promises such rights: the right to keep and bear arms. However, in response to the role of self-defense, gun control supporter Paul Hyde stated, “Gun advocates always talk about their supposed constitutional rights--as if the mere purchase of a gun immediately makes an individual part of a well-regulated militia.” Hyde means that merely possessing a gun does not make an individual use it correctly to exercise right to be armed. Being armed does not mean self-defense. The sole purpose opposing gun control is people’s safety. But, using guns without experience also causes casualties, possibly including user themselves and bystanders. According to Firearms statistics, “A study of 626 shootings in … a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).” Thus, regulations must specifically counter the inexperienced and crime-associated people, when self-protection allegedly comes from gun
This is supported by the fact that police protection is actually not guaranteed as a citizenship right, contrary to the typical belief. Thus, it is your responsibility to protect own life. Some might state that when someone’s life is at stake, they don’t need training to act. Moreover, the Second Amendment also promises such rights: the right to keep and bear arms. However, in response to the role of self-defense, gun control supporter Paul Hyde stated, “Gun advocates always talk about their supposed constitutional rights--as if the mere purchase of a gun immediately makes an individual part of a well-regulated militia.” Hyde means that merely possessing a gun does not make an individual use it correctly to exercise right to be armed. Being armed does not mean self-defense. The sole purpose opposing gun control is people’s safety. But, using guns without experience also causes casualties, possibly including user themselves and bystanders. According to Firearms statistics, “A study of 626 shootings in … a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).” Thus, regulations must specifically counter the inexperienced and crime-associated people, when self-protection allegedly comes from gun