Argumentative Essay
December 12, 2003
Americans are confronted with growing acts of violence. Our streets
have become a place where the elderly are picked on, women are attacked and
raped, where teen-age gangsters shoot it out for a “patch of turf” to sell
their illegal drugs, and where innocent children are caught in the
crossfire of drive-by shootings. We cannot ignore the harm that these
criminals are doing to our society, and we must take actions to stop these
acts. However, the efforts by individuals to eliminate the legal ownership
of firearms disarms the innocent citizens who are in need of a form of self-
defense.

The simple definition of a criminal is someone who does not obey the
law. The simple definition of a law-abiding citizen is someone who does
obey the law. Therefore, if we pass laws restricting ownership of firearms,
which category does this affect. Gun control laws affect law-abiding
citizens only. By their very nature, the criminals will continue to violate
these new laws, they will continue to carry their firearms, and they will
find their efforts at crime much easier when they know that their victims
will be unarmed. Innocent people are turned into victims when new laws make
it impossible for them to fight back. An unarmed man stands little chance
against an armed one. An interesting recent development has been the recoil
against the gun-control advocates.

The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States makes
firearm ownership legal in this country. There were good reasons for this
amendment in the constitution. Firearms in the new world were used for
hunting, and occasionally for self-defense. However, when the colonists
felt that the load of British oppression was too much for them to bear,
they picked up their personal firearms and went to war. Standing against
the British armies, these people found themselves opposed by the greatest
military force in the world at that time. ( MACROBUTTON HtmlResAnchor
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/)
The 18th century was the height of the British Empire, but a group of
colonial freedom fighters discovered the power of the Minuteman, the
average American gun owner. These Minutemen, named because they would pick
up their personal guns and jump to the defense of their country on a
minute’s notice, served a major part in winning the American Revolution.

The founding fathers of this country understood that armed citizens was
instrumental in fighting off oppression, and they made the right to keep
and bear arms a constitutional right.

( MACROBUTTON HtmlResAnchor
http://theamericanrevolution.org/battles/bat_lex.asp)
Over the years, some of the reasons for owning firearms have changed.

As our country grew into a strong nation, we expanded westward, exploring
the wilderness, and building new towns on the frontier. These new towns
were far away from the centers of civilization, and there was little law.

Crime had taken place, but the crime could be minimized when the
townspeople fought back against the criminals. Eventually, these organized
townspeople developed police forces as their towns grew in size. Fewer
people carried their firearms on the street, but the firearms were always
there, ready to be used in self-defense.

Gun-control advocates came around the time of the Civil War.

Southern leaders, who were scared that the freed black slaves would take
advantage of their new political rights. These Southern leaders wanted to
make it easier to oppress the free blacks. This oppression was successfully
met by passing laws making it illegal in many places for black people to
own firearms. Souther leaders made sure that the black population would be
under their control, and the blacks would not have the ability to fight
back. These people who were the biggest fans of denying black people their
basic rights walked around with their firearms. This hypocrisy made it
impossible to resist their efforts. An unarmed man stands little chance
against an armed one. It was a full century before the civil rights
activists of the 1960s were able to restore this constitutional freedom to
the blacks. ( MACROBUTTON HtmlResAnchor
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/11/slotkin.htm)
Gun control activists today are slightly different. They claim that
gun violence has gotten to a point where something must be done to stop it.

The activists would like to see criminals disarmed, and they want the
violence to stop. There is nothing wrong with these activist ideas,
however, they are going about it in the wrong way. Activists want to take
guns out of the hands of criminals, but they actually work to pass
legislation that would take the guns out of the hands of law abiding
citizens instead. This is the main reason that the efforts of gun control
activists does not address the real problem. (Roleff)
The gun control advocates have argued their case by insulting the gun
itself, rather than addressing the people who commit violent crimes. This
argument is the main misconception in their arguments. They attempt to
claim that possession of a gun turns gun owners into unaverage citizens. If
legal possession of a firearm caused this sort of attitude, then why are
crime rates highest in areas such as Washington, D.C. and New York City
which have strict gun control laws? This is one simple case, where strict
gun control laws have been enforced, and positive results have not been
shown. (Roleff) In many states, citizens have stated that they want to
preserve their right to carry firearms for self-defense. States such as
Michigan has been issuing concealed weapons permits to law-abiding
citizens, and these citizens have been carrying their firearms to defend
themselves from rampant crime. This right in Michigan has “made many people
believe that responsible and law-abiding citizens should not be denied
their constitutional right to bear arms to provide for their own protection
and security outside of their homes. In addition, they point out that the
proposed bills would require a 12-hour training course to ensure that a
permit holder understood gun safety requirements and the laws governing the
use of firearms for protection and other purposes.” Therefore an
inexperienced person can not carry a firearm. They need to be taught safety
of the weapon first if indeed they feel it is necessary to have slef
defense.

(http://www.senate.state.mi.us/sfa/Publications/Notes/1998Notes/Juau98nn.htm
l)
Criminals will always find ways to get guns. In this country, there
is the use, possession, sale, and transportation of many kinds of
narcotics, but it’s still easy for someone to take a ride and purchase the
drugs of their choice at street corner vendors. Firearms and ammunition
would be just as easy as drugs for these black-market entrepreneurs to
deliver to their customers. Today, criminals often carry illegal weapons,
clearly showing their disregard for the current laws which make these items
illegal. And when they are caught, the courts regularly dismiss these
lesser weapons charges when prosecuting for the more serious charges that
are being committed with the weapons.

The most recent efforts of the gun control has been to claim
that certain types of guns and ammunition are evil. They assign emotional
catch phrases such as “assault weapons” and “cop killer bullets” to broad
categories of firearms and ammunition in the hopes that people will believe
that some guns have an evil nature. Most people who are unfamiliar with
firearms do not fully understand what these phrases mean, and they accept
the terms being used without question. What people do not often understand
is that the term “assault weapon” has been defined to include all semi-
automatic rifles, and “cop killer” has been defined to include any bullet
that can penetrate type two body armor. It comes as a surprise to most
people that a large number of simple 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. (Roleff)In conclusion the act of making it
illegal to own firearms does little to prevent criminals from getting guns.

These laws only prevent the people who respect the law itself, the people
who would only use firearms for legal purposes anyway, to use firearms.

When we give people the right to defend themselves, we find that criminals
start looking for other victims out of fear that they will become the
victims themselves. We must work to reduce crime in America, but we should
look at the problem realistically, and develop plans that would be
effective. It is obvious that gun control laws are neither realistic, nor
effective in reducing crime. Therefore, we must put our efforts toward
controlling crime, not controlling legal ownership of firearms.

Work Cited
Roleff, Tamara L. Gun Control, Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven
Press,
MACROBUTTON HtmlResAnchor
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
http://www.senate.state.mi.us/sfa/Publications/Notes/1998Notes/Juau98nn.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/11/slotkin.htm
MACROBUTTON HtmlResAnchor
http://theamericanrevolution.org/battles/bat_lex.asp