A Brief Summary Of Gun Control Laws

1090 Words 5 Pages
We, as citizens of the United States, have the right to bare arms - given to us in the second Amendment of the United States Constitution. This country has a rich history regarding guns. People have used them and continue to use them for hunting, sports or recreation, and protection. However, when a mass murder or a domestic terror attack occurs, the right to bare arms is put under discretion as people cause an uproar over the violent acts. Creating more gun control laws would not stop the crimes related to guns, but rather, ownership and people being educated does, as criminals would still find a way to have access to a gun and commit a crime.
When a state puts restrictions on the ownership of guns, they tend to have more gun-related murders.
…show more content…
Criminals are labeled as criminals because they do not obey laws, so making laws to limit the ownership and usage of guns would not help prevent gun-related crimes. The laws would only limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. Perfectly stated by Jeffery Miron, “Thus the classic slogan - when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns - isn’t only a word play, it is a fundamental insight into the folly of gun prohibition. Such an approach means that the bad guys are well-armed while the law-abiding citizens are not” (“Rebutting”). Miron mentioned the foolishness of gun prohibition, which one could relate to the failure of alcohol prohibition. When the 18th Amendment, prohibiting alcohol, which led to various speakeasy’s being opened across the United States. In comparison, the same will happen if guns were prohibited or national laws were placed on them. Criminals will find access to a gun and known law-abiding citizens will become “criminals” in order to preserve their sense of safety by owning a gun. Might I add, the 21st Amendment overturned alcohol prohibition because the government, Congress, came to the conclusion it was so ridiculous; we should not have to go through the same process with guns. We cannot, a a country, limit the rights of law-abiding citizens in an attempt to prevent the criminal, who won’t abide by the laws, from committing …show more content…
Stated by, President Obama, after the shooting in Oregon on October 1st, 2015, “We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths” (“Obama”). Nevertheless, there are instances where stricter gun control laws do not greatly, if at all,decrease the rate of homicides. As great as the idea that there’s a correlation between gun control laws and a decrease in gun-related homicides may sound, it doesn’t always happen as so. What people fail to take account for is that correlation is not causation. Just because there may be an interrelationship, or correlation, between two concepts does not mean that one is necessarily going to lead to the other. Establishing strict gun laws would put unnecessary restrictions on law-abiding citizens; therefore, they should not be enacted. Stringent gun laws do not always effectively prevent crime as criminals will still have their own connections to a gun in order to commit a crime; people need to stop playing the blame game and become educated about guns and the safety regarding them. Laws are put into place to give order; not to take away a basic right, such as the right to bare arms. If the right to bare arms were to be taken away, what would be taken away next, if that doesn’t solve the “problem”? The United States Constitution was made in a way to be able to be adjusted to the needs

Related Documents