In the past few decades, firearms have had a big impact on society. These impacts have been both good and evil, and have caused controversy on the topic of gun ownership. Some groups, such as the Brady Campaign, would like to see gun control laws take away some rights and restrict others, whereas the National Rifle Association would like to protect gun rights and educate society on the use of firearms. Both sides want to stop the problem of gun violence, but protecting gun rights is the only way to truly insure public safety. Gun control will not be able to stop the use of guns, and it will put citizens in an unfair situation where they cannot protect themselves. The way to stop gun violence is to protect and elevate gun rights and educate
…show more content…
It is a right given to us in the second amendment. It states “the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (“Second Amendment”). The government would need to erase the amendment to ban firearms. This decision would be very unpopular with many citizens in America who consider firearms a part of their culture. The government also cannot remove all firearms from society, because there are many guns that are not registered. The government could go door to door demanding that we give up our firearms, but people could get away with keeping the guns that are not registered. This effort would leave a very large supply of firearms in society, and mostly in the hands of the criminal element. A more obtainable law would be to ban the sale of all firearms and ammunition, but that would still leave tens of thousands of guns in society. It is estimated that there are between 270 million and 310 million guns owned by civilians in America (“United States-Gun Facts, Figures and Laws”). With this many guns in society, would gun control be controlling anything? Going back to the idea that the government could take away all the firearms from civilians, we have to face the fact that even that would not protect anyone. Instead, it would put many people in danger. The law to take away guns would not affect criminals, because criminals do not follow the law. Without guns for protection, the law-abiding citizens would be helpless to defend themselves against the criminals who would now be the only citizens with guns. The law that was meant to protect would actually lead to the victimization and possible death of law-abiding citizens. This victimization of the defenseless is even prevalent if the criminal does not have a gun. The government of the United Kingdom banned handguns, and over the following years, not only did murder go up, but more people were being killed by knives and strangulation
It is a right given to us in the second amendment. It states “the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (“Second Amendment”). The government would need to erase the amendment to ban firearms. This decision would be very unpopular with many citizens in America who consider firearms a part of their culture. The government also cannot remove all firearms from society, because there are many guns that are not registered. The government could go door to door demanding that we give up our firearms, but people could get away with keeping the guns that are not registered. This effort would leave a very large supply of firearms in society, and mostly in the hands of the criminal element. A more obtainable law would be to ban the sale of all firearms and ammunition, but that would still leave tens of thousands of guns in society. It is estimated that there are between 270 million and 310 million guns owned by civilians in America (“United States-Gun Facts, Figures and Laws”). With this many guns in society, would gun control be controlling anything? Going back to the idea that the government could take away all the firearms from civilians, we have to face the fact that even that would not protect anyone. Instead, it would put many people in danger. The law to take away guns would not affect criminals, because criminals do not follow the law. Without guns for protection, the law-abiding citizens would be helpless to defend themselves against the criminals who would now be the only citizens with guns. The law that was meant to protect would actually lead to the victimization and possible death of law-abiding citizens. This victimization of the defenseless is even prevalent if the criminal does not have a gun. The government of the United Kingdom banned handguns, and over the following years, not only did murder go up, but more people were being killed by knives and strangulation