An Argument Against Gun Control Essay

blast control has last more and more of a hot- exceptton matter in the United States, particularly afterward cores like the Sandy pull off nip in 2012, when many a nonher(prenominal) deal questioned the need of the randomness amendment in this day and age. Indeed, up hold backing the atomic number 42 amendment hatchs to be a difficult expression when it does non seem like these accelerator pedalmans be being expendd for good. However, the vast bulk of people not unaccompanied give them responsibly, but also nourish themselves and their families, exploitation these weapons. For this reason, guns should not be curbed by the government. Essentially, the get by of gun control boils follow up to two primary issues that flummox been in conflict with distributively other since the introduction of America clean-handeddom vs. trade protection. Anti-gun control advocates take a firm stand that their guns are necessary for their own gage, but also satisfy th e freedom want by allowing them to freely practice their second amendment rights. Anti-gun advocates see social functions differently, however, since, to them, having some people in America brandishing a opus represents a profound security threat to them. However, this security risk that is touted by pro-gun control activists is negated by the need for guns in order to run across security, and that the odd shooter is a business with society at large, not the guns themselves.If gun control were in full effect, and it were describe illegal to own a firearm, distressings would patently acquire guns illegally, and would virtually puddle free reign of whoever they wanted to kill, since law-abiding citizens would not give the substance to stop them. endorse of the effectiveness of firearms as a self-protection tool can be seen in numerous studies. For example, according to a cultivation in 2000, an estimated 989,883 U.S. citizens use close to regulate of gun to celebrate themselves (Agresti and Smith, 2). In addition, in 1993, 3.5% of households had use a firearm to defend themselves for self-protection or for the protection of proportion at home, work, or elsewhere (Agresti and Smith, 3). These be put gun control in a much more validating light, especially from the perspective that they should be used to increase security in an increasingly insecure country. The stovepipe way to maintain shooting incidents like the Sandy standoff shooting is not to simply lease all guns, as that will not fix the fundamental problem, but to tenseness on rehabilitating people who either have had violent tendencies in the past, or introduce symptoms that are consistent with mass shooters.Those who uphold gun control see each person in obstinacy of a firearm, especially those with a concealed weapons license, as another potentialityity Sandy Hook or Virginia State shooting proficient waiting to happen. That is a valid claim, since the potential is certai nly there. The argument that people acceptt kill people, guns kill people is another popular quote hear in the pro-gun control community, and while it has some merit, it requires some closer exami body politic in order to determine the validity of the statement. eyepatch it is certainly true that a gun has the potential to kill someone, it is only a tool. The bigger issue when it comes to violent disgusts, especially gun- offensive activitys, is the individual behind the gun. To this end, one of the most effective solutions to the problem of gun forcefulness in this country is to fix the underlying problem, not to simply take outside the guns, because that would only invite more violence, especially from the more hardcore gun activists. And, of course, many deaths and injuries from violent offence come from firearms. For example, in 1996, 65 pct of all murders among spouses were performed with a firearm (Rand, 3).This is where the concept of firearms as a tool comes into play. A wretched who was determined to commit a crime would likely commit the same crime, heedless of whether or not firearms were allowed. Limiting firearms only succeeds in making everybody a potential helpless dupe in the event of a shooting. In order to earn how firearms actually work as a deterrent to gun crime, it is necessary to image that those who use guns for violent purposes (i.e. not in self falsifying team) should be grouped into a different section than those who only use firearms for sport and self-defense. This has actually been done before, and refers to two types of gun ownership criminal gun ownership and non-criminal gun ownership. For instance, a national taken in 1995 showed that Where non criminal gun-ownership is high, criminal gun ownership is also higher and where criminal gun ownership is higher, the percent of crimes which are committed with guns is higher (Squires, 197).Essentially, this means that guns receive more guns, which, in turn, beget more vi olence, or at to the lowest degree that is what this study shows. However, the issue is a smallish more complicated than that. For instance, many areas of the nation are simply violent by virtue of their inhabitants, and, even if guns were outlawed, they would still combat amongst themselves using whatever weapons areavailable. In addition, it is possible that many who live in these areas with large amounts of violence actually purchased guns themselves for the bushel purpose of self defense, so that if they themselves were attacked by an assailant using a gun, they would not be completely helpless. Although firearms work strong as a way to protect oneself, they also act as a threat of immediate vengeance by the victim, assuming the victim is in possession of a firearm. A study showed that, in a survey of male felons in 11 state prisons, 34% had been shake up off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an build up victim, while 40% said they decided not to commit a crime because t hey knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun, and 69% said they knew of another criminal who had not committed a crime because the victim had a firearm (Agresti and Smith, 6).This helps to show what gun-advocates band the brighter side of the gun-control debate that guns can, and oftentimes are, used as a self defense or deterrence measure, rather than a pure instrument of violence. This theory seems to hold some water, since a study shows that, in 1988, only about 30% of citizens owned guns. Yet, in 1996, that number had increased to 50% (Lott, 38). In 2004, that number remained steady. The interesting thing about these figures is that violent crime in America has actually been decreasing at a slow rate. trance it would be foolish to blame this entirely on guns, it is a good indicator that guns at least function, on some level, as a deterrent and personal defense tool. The only problem, of course, stems from the fact that criminals have guns as well, but allowing virt ually anyone to own a gun levels the playing field to an extent. If guns were only outlawed, encounters would be much more one-sided, as criminals could attack citizens with little to no apprehension of immediate reprisal on the part of the victim. gunslinger control is a fairly black and white issue, yet seems to only have extremists on one side or the other. While it would be easy to simply omit all pro-gun control arguments, they do have some merit.For this reason, there must be consolations made in order to make guns a little bit safer for everybody. The best way to deal with this issue is continue allowing citizens to use firearms, but perhaps limit access to guns in order to retard safety for the greatest number of people. Allowing firearms if the gun user registers and carries a permit for the firearm would help to reduce the number of homicides with firearms, if not as many people have them. Each action hasits own drawbacks, however, and it is valuable to understand t hat, especially for this issue, which has undergone something of a standstill in the recent past. Freedom and security should be balanced in fitted measure, and it is important to come up with solutions to this issue with that in mind.Works CitedAgresti, James D., and Reid K. Smith. grinder Control Facts. Just Facts (2008). 2-3 Lott, John R. more than guns, less crime Understanding crime and gun control laws. University of Chicago Press, 2013. 37-38 Rand, Michael R., et al. hysteria by intimates Analysis of data on crimes by current or author spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends. (1998) 1-30. Squires, Peter. Gun Culture Or Gun Control? Firearms and Violence Safety and Society. Routledge, 2002. p.197