Gun Control Laws
There are many reasons why the average citizen should own guns. Gun controls laws have long been a controversial topic in England, the United States, and just about every country that has guns. Gun laws should allow civilians to own to protect themselves from criminals. Many people and states have different perspectives considering gun control laws. Gun laws should not be increased because gun violence would increase due to civilians not possessing firearms.
Gun control laws should allow all citizens to protect themselves with guns. Crime rates would definitely decrease if most citizens were possessing firearms. Criminals tend to go after defenseless people or citizens that do not own guns. They simply do not like the thought of the …show more content…
More specifically, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states “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” (US Constitution, Art.II, Amendment 2.). This is very important to all United States citizens because of two reasons. Firstly, the government would have too much control over the people if the people did not have a way to fight back. Secondly, firearms are used to deter unwanted people away such as a rapist, criminal or intruder. Also, in a very drastic case, if a foreign army invaded the United States citizens would be able to protect themselves. Most people would have guns to fight back because of the rights stated in the Second Amendment. Some civilians take the Second Amendment quite seriously and an infringement on their guns rights using harsh gun control laws will stir up a large amount the populous. Joseph Blocher is a professor of law who studies the first and second amendment which make his opinion on the second amendment accurate. Joseph writes, “Some acts of violence—like some ideas—will be undesirable, but they will be deterred or stopped by desirable acts of violence, such as those involving justified self-defense” (Blocher 352). Guns are readily available to the general public, but whether or not the people who buy guns do good or bad with them …show more content…
David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, brings up many valid points that prove loose gun control laws are not favorable. David writes “Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense (Hemenway 1). This is absolutely true because some people use firearms for recreational uses. Two more important facts are stated on the Harvard Injury Control Research Center by David Hemenway. He writes “Criminals who are shot are typically victims of crime” (Hemenway 1). He is trying to say that criminals are not often shot by law abiding citizens but other criminals. He explains that “Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime” (Hemenway 1). This can be a bad use for a gun and furthermore strengthens the case that some citizens should not be allowed to own guns. Patrick J. Charles has written and edited many books on the Second Amendment which validates his knowledge about the right to bear arms. Patrick explained that in England in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, ““Such proposals failed, however, because they would “arm the mob” and thus were considered “not very safe for any government”” (Charles 1). Essentially, he is explaining that the England government gave too much power to the people by giving the people guns. The England government did not want the people to overthrow the government so they
Gun control laws should allow all citizens to protect themselves with guns. Crime rates would definitely decrease if most citizens were possessing firearms. Criminals tend to go after defenseless people or citizens that do not own guns. They simply do not like the thought of the …show more content…
More specifically, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states “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” (US Constitution, Art.II, Amendment 2.). This is very important to all United States citizens because of two reasons. Firstly, the government would have too much control over the people if the people did not have a way to fight back. Secondly, firearms are used to deter unwanted people away such as a rapist, criminal or intruder. Also, in a very drastic case, if a foreign army invaded the United States citizens would be able to protect themselves. Most people would have guns to fight back because of the rights stated in the Second Amendment. Some civilians take the Second Amendment quite seriously and an infringement on their guns rights using harsh gun control laws will stir up a large amount the populous. Joseph Blocher is a professor of law who studies the first and second amendment which make his opinion on the second amendment accurate. Joseph writes, “Some acts of violence—like some ideas—will be undesirable, but they will be deterred or stopped by desirable acts of violence, such as those involving justified self-defense” (Blocher 352). Guns are readily available to the general public, but whether or not the people who buy guns do good or bad with them …show more content…
David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, brings up many valid points that prove loose gun control laws are not favorable. David writes “Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense (Hemenway 1). This is absolutely true because some people use firearms for recreational uses. Two more important facts are stated on the Harvard Injury Control Research Center by David Hemenway. He writes “Criminals who are shot are typically victims of crime” (Hemenway 1). He is trying to say that criminals are not often shot by law abiding citizens but other criminals. He explains that “Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime” (Hemenway 1). This can be a bad use for a gun and furthermore strengthens the case that some citizens should not be allowed to own guns. Patrick J. Charles has written and edited many books on the Second Amendment which validates his knowledge about the right to bear arms. Patrick explained that in England in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, ““Such proposals failed, however, because they would “arm the mob” and thus were considered “not very safe for any government”” (Charles 1). Essentially, he is explaining that the England government gave too much power to the people by giving the people guns. The England government did not want the people to overthrow the government so they