Downside to Gun Control

Downside to Gun Control Have you ever wondered what it would be like if you could no longer protect your family, yourself, and help in being part of the militia? Well that’s the direction some of our politicians are trying to go towards. I am talking about the negative results that imposing harsh gun control laws and regulations would bring if the government passes gun control laws. I am going to talk about three reasons why. First, crime rates would go up. Second, it is in the second amendment where it says we have the right to protect our rights and families. Thirdly, the second amendment protects us against our own government. In today’s society there are people who obey the law and people who do not. The people who obey the law would give up their guns if legislation was passed. Would they be happy? No, they would not, but they would have to. Criminals on the other do not obey the law in the first place, so what makes you think that they will obey new control laws. The answer is quite simple. If you disarm the civilians then many innocent people will be murdered, robbed, and punished by people who do not obey the law. This is because criminals will be the only people besides the police with weapons. Examples of this have been seen in cities such as New York, Chicago, and Washington D.C. Crime rates in these cities are much higher. The murder rate in Washington D.C. has risen 134% since the strictest gin control act ever created was enacted on the city. The reason that the rates in these cities has gone up is because hand guns have been banned in these cities and the people cannot protect themselves against criminals. The only people that gun control laws would affect would be people who obey the law. Criminals would actually want gun control because then they would not be afraid of anyone because the law abiding citizens would have no protection against them. According to a 1995 study entitled, “Armed Resistance Against Crime,” law abiding citizens use fire arms 2.5 million times a year against criminals to protect themselves. That is 60 times more often than they use guns against them. If these citizens hadn’t carried firearms they could have been robbed, shot, or maybe even killed. In an article entitled “Are We a Nation of Cowards,” that police have an 11 percent error rate when it comes to accidental shootings, the citizens have only a 2 percent error. What do you think a criminal with a weapon is more afraid of, a person who is carrying a firearm or someone who is not? You can be the judge of that. If we continue at this rate the U.S. will eventually be a criminal’s dream, a society where nobody can defend their rights. If a criminal knows everyone in the city doesn’t carry a handgun he is going to be more likely to commit a crime against them. The second amendment clearly states 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.” This means that the people have the right to own and bear arms for the protection of themselves and their country. Also, the government shall not infringe upon them. The whole purpose of this amendment was to ensure the safety and rights of the people. By taking guns away the entire second amendment would be useless. The people have the right to form and regulate a militia, hold and keep arms, and protect their rights. If they take guns away it would be like telling someone that they can go do something one day and then telling them the next day that it is illegal. All of what I have just said brings me to my next point. How does the second amendment protect us against the U.S. government? The right to bear arms protects us against our own government because they are afraid of armed rebellion if they ever try to enforce strict or tyrannical policies on its people. In our society the government has to be very cautious about what they do because the citizenry is armed. In other countries such as North Korea and Russia government can pass all the laws it wants because the people have no insurance against their leaders, weapons. Do we really want to be going in that direction? I know I don’t. The United States would not want to start a war with its own people, like the Revolutionary war with England, which is what would happen if they tried to disarm the people, restrict rights, etc. But they don’t do that yet because they know the people are armed. There are so many stories about innocent people being saved by a bystander with a gun from a criminal. I was watching a TV show about the world’s dumbest criminals one day. A criminal enters a hotel and shoots a bullet into the ceiling. He demands money from the register. As the clerk is reaching for what the criminal thinks is money, the clerk pulls a pistol and shoots the criminal in the chest and the then the back twice. He efficiently protected the rights of about ten innocent people because he was carrying a firearm. The counter argument to my position is shootings in schools. Though the chances of a school shooting are very small they do happen. I know it is a horrific thing to happen, but I don’t believe enacting strict gun control everywhere is the answer. Instead what should happen is that there should be more security in schools and programs to teach kids about what to do in serious situations in school. The second thing that should happen is that there should be a background check on anyone who buys and owns a gun. Also there should be a waiting period before you can buy a gun. This would be useful in halting people from committing a violent gun crime because they aren’t thinking things through. It gives them time to cool off. A law abiding citizen won’t mind the small waiting period. In conclusion I would like to restate what I have said. Crime rates would go sky high if gun control was enforced because criminals would not be afraid of the innocent people. The second amendment gives us the right to own and keep arms. Finally, the militia is put in place to protect the rights of the citizens, outside attack, riots, and against its own government.