When our fore fathers first came onto this land, they were
oppressed by their rulers. The educated men decided to stage a revolt
against their government and start up a new government, with a set of
rules, laws and rights. The revolt ended with bloodshed, yet the fore
fathers had risen to victory with the help of firearms. Following the
revolt the fore fathers decided to compose a bill stating the basic rights
that every man in the country could contain. There were ten of these basic
rights, among them were the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, the right of free speech, and most importantly, the right too
keep and bear arms in order to protect their families, gather food, and
preserve their rights from all threats. However, in our recent times of
increased violence, many believe keeping guns available is detrimental to
our society, and the only solution is to abolish the right to keep and bear
arms. However, there is no possible way to justify removing an amendment
that has been around for many years. Those that support gun control define
it as a way to better our society, however those that oppose it define gun
control as the infringement of their rights.

The opposition declares that that the Second Amendment was never
intended as a gun license for the American general public. The amendment
read, as it was originally drafted, does not grant any blanket right to own
a gun nor does it stand in the way of rational, effective gun
control(Crooker). The current anti-gun promoters cry out that if guns were
outlawed, then the violent crime rate would drop dramatically. Yet, a
criminal with a desire to attain a gun would still be able to obtain one,
because most violent criminals buy guns
2
from black market dealers. The crime rate does not result from the
availability of firearms but from the lack of respect in today’s society
for other people’s lives and property (Crooker).

Making guns illegal will have the same affect as de-legalizing
narcotics and alcohol; absolutely nothing. Individuals that want these
items can still obtain them without any trouble. In the March 1994 issue of
the Atlantic Monthly, writer Daniel Polsby wrote: “During the 1960s and
1970s the robbery rate in the United States increased six fold, and the
murder rate doubled; the rate of handgun ownership nearly doubled in that
period as well. Handguns and criminal violence grew together apace”(Polsby)
This statement has now become the battle cry of the anti-gun lobbyist;
increased gun ownership goes hand in hand with increased violence. Of
course it is easy for these lobbyists to count the bodies of those who have
been killed or wounded with guns, but its not easy for them to count the
people who have avoided harm because they had access to weapons. Uniformed
police officers carry handguns in plain view not in order to kill people,
but simply to daunt potential attackers. Though officers can expect to draw
their guns from time to time, few even in big-city departments will
actually fire a shot (except in target practice) in the course of a year
(Nagel). This observation points to an important truth: people who are
armed make comparatively unattractive victims. A criminal might not know if
any one civilian is armed, but if it becomes known that a larger number of
civilians do carry weapons, criminals will become warier. On the other
hand, criminals which are known to attack people most likely could not get
access to guns under strong anti-gun provisions (Patterson). This may be
true but statistics do show that most criminals that perform these kinds of
crimes do not use guns, but knives, bludgeoning weapons, or a “fake” gun in
order to gain what they want. The average Joe on the street
3
could not carry such a weapon in order to protect themselves, and so would
fall easy target to criminals.

Rational gun control requires understanding not only the relationship
between weapons and violence but also the relationship between laws and
people’s behavior. The purpose of a law and its likely effects are not
always the same thing. Also remember that guns are a major economic trade
item. Without the manufacture, distribution, and trade of firearms,
thousands of jobs would be lost (Patterson). If guns were illegal to own,
that would ultimately mean that sports hunting would be outlawed. This
would put thousands of game
wardens, and employees of the Department of Fish and Game out of work.

Taxidermy services would be obsolete, for there would be no animals to
provide these services to, not to mention the environmental impacts.

Without sports hunting, game populations would skyrocket. There is not many
habitats for wild game to live on, which causes over population,
starvation, and disease, which without sports hunting would cause major
declines in animal populations (nagel).

Eliminating guns would not solve any problems in this society, it may
actually end up causing more in problems than what it solves.

Strong gun control is a bad idea, and those who say otherwise are fooling
themselves by not looking at the big picture
4
Works Cited