The question about gun control as necessity or obligatoriness always troubled society. Moreover, the gun control dispute always arise the main question: who is more reliable, the government or the ordinary people? There are still a lot of people who are against gun control. I am not an exception.
The importance of the gun as a mythical symbol in the United States can be demonstrated by any review of popular culture. The frontiersman, cowboy, soldier, private detective, and policeman have provided this country with most of its mythical heroes, and each has been conspicuously armed (Vizzard, 5).
First of all, gun control is based on the wrong understanding of American citizens mentality and behavior. They are considered to be too awkward and ill-tempered to have the right to possess weapons. However, in spite of all restrictions, there is a category of people who need weapons for self-defense. Blacks and women belong to such group.
The debate over gun control is skewed in favor of stricter laws because we almost never discuss the positive effects of guns: that they often save innocent lives. Everyone agrees that rules taking guns away from criminals ought to reduce crime. But do laws that take guns away primarily from law-abiding citizens also reduce crime? (Lott,4).
The second point is that several public policy argues were primarily based on emotions and misinformation concerning the question of gun control. The appeal for more gun restrictions or for categorical prohibits on some guns are evidence that our social and constitutional systems is on the threshold of considerable changes.
Registration laws may help the police solve crimes involving guns by providing them access to ownership records, but they drain police resources away from other law enforcement activities – such as patrolling streets and catching criminals. And besides, few criminals register their weapons (Lott, 4).
The third point to discuss is that different gun control proposals concerning obtaining a gun license, waiting periods, and prohibitions as crime-fighting measures do not affect a lot. To prohibit guns in order to diminish crime is the same as to prohibit alcohol to lessen drunk driving.
Categorized as arguments against gun control: gun control would not reduce crime; criminals, not guns are the problem; Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms; right-to-carry concealed weapons laws caused a drop in crime (Lott, 288).
However, there exists a certain problem even within the group of anti-gun-control programs.
A lot of gun owners posture about how they’re going to bury their guns for some sort of glorious day of confrontation with the forces of darkness when the authorities come to take their guns. But how can I take this seriously when almost all of them are afraid to show up at an anti-gun-control rally for fear that someone might figure out that they’re a gun owner? (Schulman, 80).
Besides, arguments supporting the anti-gun-control program were called myths and nothing more. Online criticism presents clear evidence.
Arguments against gun control:
- The firearm is THE ONLY piece of personal property specifically guaranteed NOT to be regulated by the government in the U.S. Constitution.
- Many of the 16,000 murders might have been prevented if the victim had been able to defend himself or herself with a gun.
- The number of murders would be higher with gun control because law-abiding citizens would have no way to defend themselves.
- Criminals will get guns whether we have gun control laws or not. Regulating guns will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will keep guns out of the hands of those trying to defend themselves from criminals (Arguments for and Against Gun Control).
While the estimation of pros and cons of gun control program there were revealed fatal cases that could be prevented by means of having a firearm. By the way, the number of such cases increased a lot.
The diverse situation provokes ambiguous events development: from the one hand because of the strict federal regulation it is hard enough for an ordinary citizen from a crime neighborhood to buy a gun for self-defense. On the other hand, thieves and other criminals continue to succeed in the arms illegal trade. Preventing crimes in one place, the government provides the base for its increase in the other.
However, there is a negative side of an against-gun-control position.
As Jacobs points out, “multiple killings (more than two victims in a single episode) must be considered part of the gun problem” (7). The evidence of this sad statement is a terrible massacre that took place on the Long Island Railroad on December 7, 1993, or multiple school shooting happening every now and then on the territory of the United States.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the position “against gun control” is quite understandable if take into account modern social laws and citizens’ behavior within the country. However, it has not only positive sides. Numeral cases of multiple killings, suicides and other horrible facts prove this opinion. That is why it is rather important to consider a lot of concomitant circumstances while making any decision because the decision would influence the common peace and welfare of the country’s citizens.
Arguments for and Against Gun Control. Concise Conservatism. Web.
Jacobs, James B. Can Gun Control Work? University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws. University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Lott, John R. The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong. Regnery Publishing, 2003.
Schulman, J. Neil. Self Control: Not Gun Control. Pulpless. 1995.
Vizzard, William J. Shots in the Dark: the Policy, Politics, and Symbolism of Gun Control. Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.