FREE ESSAY ON AN ARGUMENT AGAINST GUN CONTROL

AN ARGUMENT AGAINST GUN CONTROL

An Argument Against Gun Control
As long ago as 1789, the creators of the Constitution realized the importance of guns in
American society. The Second Amendment 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. 
No loopholes, or legal caches exist in this statement. The Founding Fathers allow for no
restriction of the private ownership of firearms. Yet, in recent years anti-gun
politicians have
attempted to control guns in the name of crime prevention. Gun control makes no effort
to
control criminals, does not reduce crime, takes guns from responsible sportsmen and
recreational
shooters, and allows criminals to possess firearms superior to those of the public.
Advocates that support the cause of control claim that controlling firearms will lesson
criminal action. Gun control does nothing to control criminals. The fundamental flaw in
the
thinking of anti-gun polititions is that guns don't kill people. People kill people. The
same logic
that leads one to control firearms could also lead one to endeavor to control automobiles
and fast
food simply because they are instrumental in millions of deaths per year. Why when
Americans
reject such an absurd theory as Automobile Control, which do not infringe the
constitution,.
would these same individuals embrace an idea as gun control? People accept gun control,
but if
a politician would suggest controlling fast food restaurants because the fatty food
causes heart
problems and deaths, the public would scorn his insane proposal. Ultimately, people's
choices
lead them to drive recklessly, overindulge in unhealthy food, and use firearms to commit
violent
crimes. So, criminals should be controlled, not the guns which they share with millions
of
law-abiding citizens.
Gun control supporters claim that gun control lowers crime rate. Gun control does
nothing to reduce crime. A study conducted by the Urban Institute regarding The Clinton
Gun
Ban Law of 1995, finds that because the banned guns and magazines were never used in
more
than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive
effect
of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically...
Joseph
Constance, the Deputy Police Chief of Trenton, New Jersey, states: Assault weapons are
used in
an underwhelming .026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are
more
likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo, than to confront an assault rifle
in the
hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets. West Virginia stands as an example of the
inaccurate thinking of gun control advocates. This state has the highest number of guns
per
person in the nation, yet it has the lowest number of crimes per person in the nation.
Gun
control has little or no effect on crime. 
Gun control advocates believe that gun control has no effect on the law-abiding
citizens.However, gun control takes recreational firearms from law-abiding citizens. Many
of
the guns used today for hunting and recreational shooting originate as military weapons
(e.g., 6.5
x 55 Mauser, 8mm Mauser, and 7mm Remington). Gun control advocates like to make
statements such as this one from a New York Times editorial: No Federal law limits
military
assault rifles that are semi-automatic. They overlook the fact that military rifles are
not
semi-automatic they are automatics. The guns which gun controll advocates seek to
regulate
conform to statutes that keep the public from owning military, fully-automatic weapons. 
Average Americans responsibly shoot these completely legal semi-automatic guns for
recreation. 
Gun control takes firearms from hobbyists and hunters.
Finally, limiting the right of a citizen to own certain guns puts him at a disadvantage
when dealing with criminals and protecting his family. If a criminal needs a gun, he
purchases it
on the street, and can acquire whatever type of firearm he chooses. Yet, when a
law-abiding
citizen wishes to procure a gun, he must choose from those which the government deems
fit. So,
when the criminal breaks into the citizen's home or business, bearing any type of firearm
he
chooses, the citizen must defend himself, his belongings, and his loved ones, with an
inferior,
legal firearm. In this scenario, gun control serves to give a criminal an advantage over
a
law-abiding, armed citizen.
In conclusion, no substantial reason for gun control exists. It fails to control
criminals
and crime, while taking guns from law-abiding Americans who use them for defense and
recreation. The time is at hand for Americans to stand and defend their Second Amendment
rights, and make liberal, anti-gun politicians aware that gun control has no place in
society.