The Failure Of Gun Control Laws Essay
, Research Paper
The Failure of Gun Control Laws Americans are faced with an ever-growing job of force. Our streets have become a battlefield where the aged arebeaten for their societal security cheques, where terrified adult females are brutally attacked and raped, where teen-age mobsters shoot itout for a spot of sod to sell their illegal drugs, and where guiltless kids are caught daily in the crossfire of drive-by shootings.We can non disregard the harm that these felons are making to our society, and we must take actions to halt these horrors.However, the attempt by some ill-conceived persons to extinguish the legal ownership of pieces does non turn to the existent problemat manus, and merely demilitarize the guiltless observant citizens who are most in demand of a signifier of self-defence. To to the full understand the grounds behind the gun control attempts, we must look at the history of our state, and the function firearmshave played in it. The 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States makes piece ownership legal in this country.There were good grounds for this freedom, grounds which persist today. Firearms in the new universe were used ab initio for hunting, and on occasion for self-defence. However, when the settlers felt that the load of British subjugation was excessively much for themto bear, they picked up their personal pieces and went to war. Standing against the British ground forcess, these Rebels found themselvesopposed by the greatest military force in the universe at that clip. The eighteenth century witnessed the tallness of the British Empire, butthe unsmooth set of colonial freedom combatants discovered the power of the Minuteman, the mean American gun proprietor. TheseMinutemen, so named because they would pick up their personal guns and leap to the defence of their state on a minute & # 8217 ; snotice, served a major portion in winning the American Revolution. The establishing male parents of this state understood that an armedpopulace was instrumental in contending off subjugation, and they made the right to maintain and bear weaponries a constitutionally guaranteedright. Over the old ages, some of the grounds for having pieces have changed. As our state grew into a strong state, we expandedwestward, researching the wilderness, and constructing new towns on the frontier. Typically, these new towns were far off from thecenters of civilisation, and the lone jurisprudence they had was dispensed by townspeople through the barrel of a gun. Crime existed, but couldbe minimized when the townsfolk fought back against the felons. Finally, these organized townsfolk developed policeforces as their towns grew in size. Fewer people carried their pieces on the street, but the pieces were ever at that place, ready tobe used in self-defence. It was after the Civil War that the first gun-control advocators came into being. These were southern leaders who were afraidthat the freshly freed black slaves would asseverate their newfound political rights, and these leaders wanted to do it easier tooppress the free inkinesss. This subjugation was accomplished by go throughing Torahs doing it illegal in many topographic points for black people toown pieces. With that attempt, they assured themselves that the black population would be capable to their control, and would nothave the ability to contend back. At the same clip, the people who were most captive on denying black people their basic rights walkedaround with their pieces, doing it impossible to defy their attempts. An unarmed adult male stands small opportunity against an armed one, and these armed work forces saw their programs work wholly. It was a full century before the civil rights militants of the sixtiess were ableto reconstruct the constitutional freedoms that inkinesss in this state were granted in the 1860s. Today & # 8217 ; s gun control militants are a somewhat different strain. They claim that gun force in this state has gotten to a point wheresomething must be done to halt it. They would wish to see felons disarmed, and they want the random force to halt. I agreewith their sentiments. However, they are traveling about it in the incorrect manner. While claiming that they want to take guns out of thehands of felons, they work to go through statute law that would take the guns out of the custodies of observant citizens alternatively. For thisreason the attempts at gun control do non turn to the existent job of offense. The simple definition of a felon is person who does non obey the jurisprudence. The simple definition of a observant citizen issomeone who does obey the jurisprudence. Therefore, if we pass Torahs curtailing ownership of pieces, which class of people does itaffect? The simple reply is that gun control Torahs affect law-abiding citizens merely. By their very nature, the felons willcontinue to go against these new Torahs, they will go on to transport their pieces, and they will happen their attempts at offense much easier
when they know
that their victims will be unarmed. The situation is similar to that of the disarmed blacks a century ago. Innocentpeople are turned into victims when new laws make it impossible for them to fight back. An unarmed man stands little chanceagainst an armed one. An interesting recent development has been the backlash against the gun-control advocates. In many states, including Florida andTexas, citizens have stated that they want to preserve their right to carry firearms for self-defense. Since the late 1980s, Floridahas been issuing concealed weapons permits to law-abiding citizens, and these citizens have been carrying their firearms to defendthemselves from rampant crime. The result is that the incidence of violent crime has actually dropped in contrast to the nationalaverage. Previously, Florida had been leading the nation in this category, and the citizens of that state have welcomed the change.Gun control advocates tried to claim that there would be bloodshed in the streets when these citizens were given the right to carry.They tried to claim that the cities of Florida would become like Dodge City with shootouts on every street corner. These guncontrol advocates were wrong. Over 200,000 concealed carry permits have been issued so far, with only 36 of these permitsrevoked for improper use of a firearm. This statistic is easy to understand. It is the law-abiding citizens who are going through theprocess of getting concealed carry permits so that they may legally carry a firearm. The people who go through this legal processdo not want to break the law, and they do not intend to break the law. The people who do intend to break the law will carry theirguns whether or not the law allows them to do so. Criminals will always find ways to get guns. In this country we have criminalized the use, possession, sale, and transportation ofmany kinds of narcotics, but it’s still easy for someone to take a ride and purchase the drugs of their choice at street cornervendors. Firearms and ammunition would be just as easy for these black-market entrepreneurs to deliver to their customers.Today, criminals often carry illegal weapons, including sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and homemade zip-guns, clearlyshowing their disregard for the current laws which make these items illegal. And when they are caught, the courts regularlydismiss these lesser weapons charges when prosecuting for the more serious charges that are being committed with the weapons. The gun control advocates have argued their case by demonizing the gun itself, rather than addressing the people who commitviolent crimes. This is the main fallacy in their argument. They slyly attempt to claim that possession of a gun turns averagecitizens into bloodthirsty lunatics. This theory falls apart under close scrutiny. If legal possession of a firearm caused this sort ofattitude, then why are crime rates highest in areas such as Washington, D.C. and New York City which have strict gun controllaws? And why are crime rates dropping in states such as Florida where private ownership of firearms is encouraged? Simplystated, legal ownership of a gun does not cause crime. The most recent efforts of the gun control lobby has been to claim that certain types of guns and ammunition are inherently evil.They assign emotional catch phrases such as “assault weapons” and “cop killer bullets” to broad categories of firearms andammunition in the hopes that people will believe that some guns have an evil nature. Most people who are unfamiliar with firearmsdo not fully understand what these phrases mean, and they accept the terms being used without question. What people do notoften understand is that the term “assault weapon” has been defined to include all semi- automatic rifles, and “cop killer” has beendefined to include any bullet that can penetrate type two body armor. It comes as a surprise to most people that a large number ofsimple hunting rifles can do both. Does ownership of one of these weapons cause people to become mass murderers? It does not,and we must not fall into the trap of blaming the sword for the hand that wields it. So I’ve shown that the act of making it illegal to own firearms does little to prevent criminals from getting guns. These laws onlyrestrict people who respect the law itself, the people who would only use firearms for legal purposes anyway. And when we givepeople the right to defend themselves, we find that criminals start looking for other victims out of fear that they will become thevictims themselves. We must work to reduce crime in America, but we should look at the problem realistically, and develop plansthat would be effective. It is obvious that gun control laws are neither realistic, nor effective in reducing crime. Therefore, wemust direct our efforts toward controlling crime, not controlling legal ownership of firearms.
