Modern Government vs. Second Amendment

Say your worst fear comes into play; a robber has declared war onto your home. Someone has invaded your safe place to steal your belongings and hurt your family. What would you do? Would you want to be vulnerable and defenseless, or would you want to have a weapon to protect yourself? I for one, would like to possess a gun to protect myself. The Bill of Rights is the basic rights we are granted as American citizens. I disagree with the article “End the Gun Epidemic in America,” for a multitude of reasons. This article claims that the answer to stopping heinous crimes in America is to ban guns or at least have serious restrictions and regulations on them. On the contrary, I believe banning guns leaves citizens defenseless while presenting criminals with a greater field of opportunity.

Gun control is a very touchy topic in the US. mass shootings have made this subject harder to talk about, but Americas strong belief in the 2nd amendment make it impossible to completely take away our guns. The most recent mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado has sparked more interest in this topic from both activist and anti-gun advocates. Our culture has always heavily relied on guns for things like hunting, target shooting, and mainly personal protection. Would taking away our guns and to make a safer really work. This is the question will attempt to answer and my short persuasive essay.

In most cases even preventing the crime from taking place in the first place. While the second amendment protected these individuals, it has also harmed others; According to 2014 Crime in the United States, Expanded Homicide, roughly 14,000 murders committed in the United States during that year, of these, about 10,000, were committed with firearms. While repealing the second amendment would have decreased the deaths, the criminals who are doing harm, will still find a way to commit harm with or without a firearm. It would give the criminal the advantage of knowing that the citizens do not carry guns and would lead to the criminal to conduct the crime because the citizen cannot defend himself. The problem with repealing the second amendment is that criminals would still find a way to commit the crime if the second amendment gets repealed. As shown in Criminal Victimization 2014, roughly 5.9 million violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2014 these included assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. 10% were perpetrated by offenders visibly armed with a gun. This goes to show that 10% of these cases did the criminals require the use of a firearm to commit these offenses. Meaning that the criminal committing the crimes would have committed the crime with or without the firearm when only 10% of the criminals needed a gun to go through with their crime. Taking away guns would

Americans are faced with a big issue of violence in the streets, these streets where elderly people are beaten for their money and women are attacked and raped. Sadly, some people believe that the best way to deal with these violent occurrences is to pass gun control laws that take away legally owned guns from everyone. Not only does gun control end up disarming the innocent but it also violates the Second Amendment. By taking away guns from the American citizens, whom the Second Amendment bestowed onto us this act violates our rights. Unfortunately for those who have legally armed themselves for self-defense, gun control would eventually strip away their ability to fend for themselves. Gun control will also end up causing a rise in crime. By taking away arms from good law abiding citizens and leaving them defenseless, it makes things much easier for criminals by knowing that their victims are not armed. Although the gun ban would take away guns from stores, a criminal will find a way to get their hands on one, imagine that. Gun controls are taking away our rights as citizens. If a law abiding citizen happens to enjoy hunting, they will lose that right. Gun controls are also taking away weapons from citizens. Gun control is not having a positive effect on America because it violates the second amendment, takes away rights and it won’t reduce the crime rate.

Gun control does not lower crime but guns do lower crime. When gun ownership increased in the twentieth century murder rate decreased. Taking away guns does not stop crap, if anything it makes matters worse. Think about it, why would a law of no guns stop a criminal. Robbing a bank is illegal, why would it stop them now. They will find the guns no matter what they don’t give up. What taking away guns all do is leave the people who abide by the law with nothing to protect themselves with. We do have police to protect you but they will not make it as near as fast to save you. Over half the people who took a survey by Pew Research said they would not feel safe if the gun laws got stricter. You should have the right to protect yourself by anyway possible, you should have to listen to dumb law on how you cannot protect yourself. If it is a

The amount of crimes happening today will only increase with stricter gun control laws because there is a higher temptation to steal guns. An American citizen claims, “Ever since I first learned how to shoot, the issue with gun violence around the nation became clear: Guns are not the problem; people are” (Sherfenski). Police need to lock up these people committing the disastrous crimes that affect so many innocent lives. These blameless people are not prepared when they are being attacked, and that is because most shootings tend to happen in areas where guns are controlled. The former United States Secretary of Education, William Bennett, explains the reason that criminals decide to go to places that have controlled gun laws is because: “These murderers, while deranged and deeply disturbed, are not dumb. They show up to schools, universities, malls and public places where their victims cannot shoot back” (Bennett). Even if guns are controlled in public places including malls and schools, where there are uncontrolled shootings, why would it make a difference if they were controlled everywhere? It would not make a difference whatsoever because these crimes are done out of pure, revolting pleasure. Committing a crime is one thing, but taking away a right that was given to Americans in the 1790s is a whole different story.

Although America has seen a significant increase in mass shootings over the years, it is best that gun laws should not be amended. Even though guns are dangerous when they are placed in the wrong hands, it is best that our gun laws should not be infringed, causing Americas Second Amendment of the Constitution to be messed with. The Second Amendment was added to our Constitution because the founders believed in the private ownership of guns was necessary for protection of our liberties. In addition taking away guns would punish our honest citizens, and if they were outlawed, criminals would still find ways to arm themselves. Do we really feel that taking away guns all together, would prevent these mishaps? When

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads that: “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.” According to Nelson Lund, “Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard,” however, this question did not come to people’s attention long after the Bill of Rights were adopted. Although there has been a lot of controversy over whether keeping the Second Amendment would be beneficial, many believe that getting rid of it would not be a massive step forward compared to where it stands now. Stricter gun control may slow down the likelihood of people obtaining guns, but it will not reduce the amount of gun violence that happens throughout the world. What outcomes do people believe will happen if they take away our gun rights? While the Second Amendment helps in preventing the number of crimes from increasing, it has been found that armed citizens are very helpful in reducing crime. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect, the homicide rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent, according to John Lott, author of “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.” However, having armed citizens walking out and about it makes it very difficult for policemen to identify the criminals from the responsible citizens with legal firearms.

American citizens have been given a right to firearms, and this right should not be infringed. Opponents of this right to firearms argue that, citizens should not be allowed the right to firearms. Their main reason is that, it will help curb violence cases by guns. This has been challenged because; criminals will still acquire firearms illegally and continue terrorizing citizens because, they are fully aware that, they are not armed. Moreover, according to Winkler (89), “Guns do not kill people; it is people who kill people,” and so, denying citizens the right to own guns will not stop any violence. Likewise, the society will not be safe as there will be an increase in violence and criminal activities because the citizens have no firearms to defend themselves.

“gun owner Kevin Silver, a 47-year-old tech executive from San Jose, admits ‘10 rounds is satisfactory for me in recreational, hunting and defense situations,’ but he said a 10-round nationwide limit on magazines wouldn’t do much to reduce gun crime or lower the body count at mass shootings. Besides, ‘if something like the L.A. riots broke out in my neighborhood, I would definitely want to have access to a few 30-round clips to protect my family and neighbors.’”

The first thought that comes to mind when most people think of “handguns” is death. A handgun is described as a firearm that can be held with one hand, such as a revolver or a pistol. Because of it’s size a handgun can be easily concealed and therefore one of many weapons used in violent crimes particularly within inner city communities. Will banning handguns decrease crime? Should handguns only be carried by law officials and military personnel? Handguns do not kill people; “people kill people”. In this article I will address the above questions and express why I feel handguns should not be banned.

Some pro-Second Amendment people claim that banning guns would be more dangerous to civilians. Critics of gun control contend that, “If guns were illegal, only those willing to break the law would be able to wield the power of a firearm” (Gun Control Laws). However, many mass shooters get their guns completely legally: and the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012 was a prime example of this. According to the FBI,“[The shooter’s]'s guns had been purchased legally and registered by his mother, whom he shot and killed before carrying out the attack at the elementary school” (Gun Control Laws). If guns were restricted further, many of these shooters wouldn’t be able to get these guns legally, and it would be a lot harder for them to commit these crimes: many mass shooters stay under the radar before they commit their crimes. Potential mass shooter or not, however, there are certain guns that people shouldn’t be able to own. An associate professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, Sonja West, states that “Protecting the right to keep and bear arms is not the same as forbidding all regulations on that right. We can protect that right and still require background checks, permits, and training. We can still regulate when,

With about 200,000,000 home burglaries that re reported in the US each year, it will make it significantly harder for people to protect there houses and families from criminals that most likely have illegally obtained weapons. Banning guns in he US will do the complete opposite of what some people think it will do; instead of lowering the homicide rate it will increase it. For example, the United Kingdom was the first place to ban handguns in 1997 after a man shot and killed 216 elementary students then followed by shooting himself. A year before the ban, in 1996, the murder rate was 1.12 per 100,000 people. In 2002 the homicide rate went up to 2.1 homicides per 100,000 people (Altucher). We are in the situation that the UK was in ten years ago and by the numbers; it is proven that there chose was the wrong one. During violent attacks only three-percent of the

Banning guns will leave many citizens defenseless. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. For example, Stephen Willeford One of the two heroes from the Southernland Springs shooting that took place in Southernland Springs, Texas. Willeford is a neighbor to the Southernland Springs Church heard the gunshots ringing

The banning of guns at the hands of the American government would leave law-abiding citizens defenseless against armed thieves. In America, many criminals use guns to commit an inconsiderable amount of crimes, such as murder and robbery. To prepare for a worst-case scenario, people who have a gun license arm themselves with multiple firearms to protect their families. By arming themselves, gun owners feel some sense of security, should they be involved in a gun-related incident. In the article “The NRA Is Right, But We Still Need to Ban Handguns,” the author 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). If the