legal gun ownership

“The number of shootings (known as discharging of a firearm)［in Ireland］jumped by 54% between 2003 and 2007, from 211 incidents to 325”(“Gun crime alarm”). “In 2005, the most recent year for which official records exist, there were 11,346 gun-related killings in the United States. In England and Wales there were 50 homicides involving firearms during the reporting period from 2005-2006.” (“Recession”) In recent years we often hear about news of deadly shootings in what should have been peaceful times and cities. Consequently, there has been a heated and continuous debate on the limit of gun purchase and ownership. “Despite the increasing number of mass shootings in America, many voters still respect the right to bear arms as outlined in their constitution.”(Davis)Why? In this paper, I will analyze main reasons of the long-term legal gun ownership in western countries despite of the widespread doubts in recent years due to rising shootings. This paper proceeds in the following way. It begins with the most fundamental reason with respect to the law. It then goes on to say what guns enable people to do in daily life. Finally it ends up with the argument that we should not owe shootings to legal gun ownership but to the misusage of them. Founders of a number of western countries who introduced the constitution theorized that civilians should always be alert to the government, which may abuse its power or make mistakes. According to Article II of Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, “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.” In violent times, gun ownership is a basic element of civil defense and the US during the independent war is a good example. Obviously, you can do nothing without weapons, so oppressive governors can do whatever they want, whatever they like, whatever to their benefit. They can grab your belongings, they can pass