Controlling Our Guns is not the Way to Go
Being a daughter of a game warden and also growing up in the rural southern parts of Tennessee, I have always been exposed to firearms my entire life. There is a famous quote that is relevant to gun control, “there are no bad guns, only bad men” (Squires, 2002). Placing restrictions on firearms has been one of the biggest political affairs in not only America but other countries as well. Firearms in America make up $24 billion of our economy, therefore, we can say that guns play a major role in the U.S. Many people believe implementing gun laws and regulations seems to be more of a disadvantage than an advantage to our country, because gun control has failed in places like Ireland and the United Kingdom. People argue that gun control will lead to fewer crimes, however, it is not the gun itself that is committing the crime, rather, it is the unruly citizens who abuse the use, laws, and rights of owning the firearms. Not all Americans participate in the gun culture; of those who do possess guns, not all intend to use them for felonious reasons. For example, some citizens do not even feel the need to own guns, while others only own guns for sports purposes like hunting or shooting competitions. Criminals have access to guns through trafficking, which is where dealers illegally sell guns to those who cannot purchase them in stores (Parnell, 2009). That being the case, banning guns will not have an impact on criminals. The right to bear arms, which is stated in the Second Amendment, is just as important as any other amendment and should not be revised. This will always be a major social issue in America, but awareness can be raised about the side effect of controlling our guns.
Many people try to compare the United States to other countries when debating about gun rights. One example is Ireland which has had many restrictive gun laws and regulations. Ireland started implementing gun control laws in the early 1970s (Library, 1981). Before gun regulations were proposed, the gun murders stayed steady in Ireland, but once legislation passed a ban on guns, the murder rates increased and have stayed on the higher side of the spectrum than before gun regulations. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, bans on guns were put into place starting in 1996. After the ban, the gun murder rates peaked and then has slowly started to drop, however, the gun murder rates have still never dropped below what is was prior to the ban. This is significant in proving that removing firearms or heavily restricting them has no actual positive effect in reducing crime and violence. Since having tighter gun laws does not work, people should not scramble to have such laws after every shooting that gets covered by the media. The media has been used to highly publicize any form of gun violence, which has distorted many people’s views about guns and also led to the strength of some states’ arguments to put a ban on guns. When governments of other countries such as Ireland and the United Kingdom, add gun control laws, they are only disarming the law-abiding citizens, in which they are more defenseless against criminals. The United States should not follow this same path because no benefit will come from it. Simply by human nature, we will never be able to end war on terror and reach a peaceful state. Criminals are a minority in our society, and of that group, a minority of the crimes committed are violent. One in eight crimes committed involves the use of a firearm. We spend a substantial amount of time debating gun control, when in the end, it will have no effect on our society.
Since the beginning of America, settlers have used guns to hunt game as a source of food and also as a mean of protection against animal predators and Native Americans. Now that we have an urban society the need for hunting and the possession of guns has declined (Spitzer, 1998). In spite of the decline, the hunting for wild game as a sport still survived and today, about seven percent of our country classifies themselves as hunters. The citizens who support guns and partake in hunting are primarily white males that live in southern rural areas (Spitzer, 1998). Hunters are already regulated enough. America has adopted the Brady law, which we when a background check is required for those who wish to purchase a firearm. This law has virtually no effect on us and the NRA is trying to weaken the impact of the law on the state level (Worsnop, 1994). Some other restrictions include they type of guns’ hunters are allowed to use and when and where they are allowed to shoot. If by turning in all guns that hunters and other citizens owned would end violence and crime, most would do so. By making the possession of firearms illegal for law-abiding hunters and citizens, would take away people’s means of self-defense, and we, the law-abiding, would at the mercy of the lawless.
The U.S. Constitution was written to ensure that our country has certain directions to ensure that our country stays whole. Making changes to the Constitution will only hinder our country. In his State of the Union speech, President Clinton summoned the firearms community to help him with resolving the issue of violent crime. Instead of guns being taken away to reduce crime, the United States should consider the other ways to deter crime. The job the of the government is to maintain order, which is why our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution (Spitzer, 1998). The belief that everyone in America should have the right to bear arms to secure the rights of citizens, which was incorporated into our Constitution, originated from Niccolò Machiavelli who was an Italian Philosopher, English politician Algernon Sidney, and a British philosopher James Harrington (Charles, 2015). It is stated in the Second Amendment, “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.” Those in favor of gun control and regulation points out that the second part of the Amendment states “A well-regulated Militia”, and argue that firearms should only be possessed by military personnel or police force (Charles, 2015). They claim that guns cause violence and citizens should not have handguns or assault rifles. Anti-gun control advocates state that the Second Amendment protects individual rights, similarly to the First Amendment which protects free speech. I concur with the anti-gun control advocates and do not think revising the Second Amendment will reduce crime in America because it is not guns that cause violence, but rather the people behind them. Criminals will find ways to possess guns even if they were outlawed, therefore, crimes involving guns will continue. The debate is often centered on whether the possession of firearms is part of liberty, or if there is a connection between guns and crimes. When the Eighteenth Amendment was passed, which forbid the production and sale of alcohol, it led to many small-scale, nationwide uprisings. This amendment did not stop alcohol, therefore, gun control would not stop gun violence. History often repeats itself, therefore, we should take into consideration what happened during the prohibition era and compare it to gun control. Prohibition failed because it tried to resolve a problem in society without many peoples’ consents. People still wanted to be able to drink, thus, they did. Not all Americans want to give up their right to keep and bear arms. If the government were to outlaw rights to guns, citizens will regardless find a way to buy and possess them. Many people would retaliate, and guns sale would then go underground and criminals would still have access to them, in comparison to what happened during the 1920s with alcohol. If the government bans or heavily restrict firearms, it will be limitless on what else the government will decide to regulate.
In conclusion, gun control laws and highly restrictive regulations do not actually control guns in stopping the violence. The definition of gun control involves politics, legislation, and how the use of firearms is being restricted (Charles, 2015). The main arguments over gun control is mainly a relationship between the state’s powers to regulate public order over citizens (Spitzer, 1998). Controlling our guns does not reduce crime and violence which has been demonstrated by other countries such as Ireland and the United Kingdom and the United States government should look to those countries as examples. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they wrote it based on justice and what was fair to the American people. The purpose of the Constitution is to be the law of the land, therefore, it establishes and maintains order for that provides a guiding hand for citizens (Spitzer, 1998). Laws banning firearms would only be followed by the law-abiding. Citizens living in the United States have had access to guns since the beginning when they were used to hunt and gather food and as a mean of protection. Nowadays, hunting is still a sport enjoyed by millions, who already have many regulations that they must follow. When the Second Amendment was written, it was meant for everyone is the United States. Its intentions were for Americans to be able to protect themselves in times of need.