About Gun Control

Gun Regulation: A Contentious Issue

Gun regulation is still a contentious issue of differing viewpoints. However, as weapons are regulated, good citizens are restrained and criminals are encouraged. The legality of carrying weapons demonstrates that people have the freedom to possess firearms for their own safety. Law-abiding residents will also be required to follow amendments that have the essence of protection. Criminals, in any condition, would never obey the rules. In reality, it's as if you're encouraging them to commit more crimes. In this article, I would only present one side of the contentious issue of gun control. I'll also explain why gun bans and restrictions are ineffective. Moreover, I will have a counterargument of putting laws in guns and whom it will protect, but eventually, we will see that limiting the ownership of guns does not stop the criminals from getting one.

The Role of Guns in History

When we look into the history, the role of guns according to the second amendment of gun ownership was guaranteed as a right and legal. There were very good reasons for owning a gun because most of them were used for hunting and sometimes as self-defense in a few circumstances. However, when the British rule ended, the colonists decided to have their guns which they used in wars (Gerber 144). This later installed a mentality to our forefathers that if everyone were armed, he or she would win the wars. Over the years the reasons for owning guns eventually changed as every crime started happening by using these weapons. They eventually made laws that would bar the use of a weapon. Eventually, crime still happened but not as much because townspeople were hunted down by criminals who had access to firearms. The police were forced to put laws that restricted people from carrying weapons, but this did not happen since criminals had their guns. This is what brought about the emergence of gun laws.

The Impact on Law-Abiding Citizens

Who is a criminal? A simple definition of a criminal is a person who breaks every law. A law-abiding individual, on the other hand, is a person who strictly follows the law that is passed. Therefore, when law strictness of ownership of guns is passed, the law-abiding citizens are the ones who suffer. By nature, criminals will always find ways of breaking the law mostly by carelessly carrying their firearms even in restricted areas. Innocent citizens at the end turn to be victims because of their inability of fighting back. In America, during the assimilation of the 18th amendment of gun control, they believed that the law would work but eventually did not work (Carter 24). Moreover, having guns in restricted areas increase the chances of criminals to have weapons since the providing evidence shows that 'no guns equate to less crime.' Criminals in this situation have the upper hand of carrying these weapons because they know they will not be suspected since it is a secured place.

The Effectiveness of Restricting Gun Laws

Sometimes, the argument may also state that restricting gun laws may lower the rates of crime. This proves to be wrong because as much as criminals will still get access to these firearms, there will be a crime. For instance, if there were a gun ban, there wouldn't be things like mass schooling shootings and theater shooting. As said by Brett Lunceford through an article he wrote: "It is always impossible to differentiate between an armed person who is exercising their rights and an individual who is bent on shooting many people at a go" (Lunceford 340). Therefore availing guns to everyone exposes easier availability to criminals. No one will, therefore, tell if there is a sane person who might lose control when situations are bad. The same people will also argue that when military weapons are banned, then criminals will not get access. As much as these weapons are of high capacity and were nor designed for self-defense, the criminals can still get access, and if they do so, they will have the ability even to kill more people.

The Need to Arm Citizens

Even if the law of restricting guns was passed, criminals would never abide. Through Mark Gui's studies, it shows that between the years 1980-2009, the banning of weapons still did not lower the murder rates since the crime that was committed was through guns (Guis 187). The solution to this case, therefore, is not unarming citizens but arming them more. When citizens are allowed to carry guns, then criminals will be less likely to carry theirs because they cannot use them. Moreover enforcing gun laws as seen will only affect the law-abiding citizens more while unarming the law will take away the citizen's right of defending themselves in dangerous situations. Therefore, it would not be great when these laws are strictly abided and also smart when everyone is unarmed, but the fact remains that criminals will always find their ways of getting these weapons, and citizens, on the other hand, will always be defenseless. In conclusion, I still stand by my argument that restricting gun laws will not limit the criminals to have guns.

Works Cited

Carter, Gregg Lee. Gun Control in the United States: A Reference Handbook. 25-304: ABC-CLIO Publishers, 2016.

Gerber, Larry. The Second Amendment: The Right to Bear Arms. 100-250: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2011.

Guis, Martin. An Examination of the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws and Assault Weapons Bans on State-Level Murder Rates. 147-267: Applied Economics Letters, 2014.

Luncford, Brian. Armed victims: the ego function of second amendment rhetoric. 110-345: Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 2015.