Stricter Gun Control Research
Every year, over 500,000 crimes are committed using a firearm (Kleck 1). More than 100,000 people are shot every year, amounting to an average of 289 people per day. Of those shot each day, 86 of them die, 30 of them being murdered (Djansezian). Looking at gun violence in this light makes it very understandable why support of stricter gun control has increased drastically in the recent past. A 2015 Gallup poll found that 55% of Americans say we should have stricter gun laws, up a significant 8% from 2014. Ideally, intensifying gun control laws would keep the weapons out of the hands of criminals or other people that would use the weapons illegally. However, would creating stricter gun laws actually decrease violence in the United States? There
…show more content…
Washington has already managed to restrict guns in many cities and implement other controls such as the number of bullets you can have in a magazine. However the second amendment is clear in its defense of gun rights, “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.” The phrase, “being necessary to the security of a free state” reveals that the purpose of the second amendment is to prevent abusive governments from seizing and staying in power. “[W]hat we are talking about here is not gun violence and how to limit it. What we are talking about here is the power of Barack Obama. It increases his power and the power of the government to disarm the citizenry. That is why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution, to protect the power of the people” (Ferrara). Limiting firearms is a direct violation of the second amendment because it is infringing on our right to fight for the security of our state. In order to really decrease gun violence, it would be necessary to disarm every citizen and criminal alike. Whether or not this is even feasible is debatable, but one thing is certain, it is not constitutional.
Now that we have confirmed the unconstitutionality of gun restrictions, we can look at the reason the founding fathers saw the necessity of personal gun ownership. That is, the ability to defend your personal safety using firearms. According to Florida State University Professor Gary
Washington has already managed to restrict guns in many cities and implement other controls such as the number of bullets you can have in a magazine. However the second amendment is clear in its defense of gun rights, “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.” The phrase, “being necessary to the security of a free state” reveals that the purpose of the second amendment is to prevent abusive governments from seizing and staying in power. “[W]hat we are talking about here is not gun violence and how to limit it. What we are talking about here is the power of Barack Obama. It increases his power and the power of the government to disarm the citizenry. That is why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution, to protect the power of the people” (Ferrara). Limiting firearms is a direct violation of the second amendment because it is infringing on our right to fight for the security of our state. In order to really decrease gun violence, it would be necessary to disarm every citizen and criminal alike. Whether or not this is even feasible is debatable, but one thing is certain, it is not constitutional.
Now that we have confirmed the unconstitutionality of gun restrictions, we can look at the reason the founding fathers saw the necessity of personal gun ownership. That is, the ability to defend your personal safety using firearms. According to Florida State University Professor Gary