Gun Control Laws

Gun control has always been a controversial issue. Many people believe that if you put constraints on the law-abiding citizens who own guns that the crime levels will decrease because there are fewer guns in circulation. But if one takes guns away from the law-abiding citizens, how are they supposed to protect themselves? The supporters of gun control laws have forgotten about the hundreds of thousands of lives guns save each year, when used defensively. Gun control laws are not beneficial to the United States of America.

First, gun control is unconstitutional and denies citizens of their rights. According to Joseph Sobran, “Gun control isn’t listed among the federal government’s powers, either in the body of the Constitution or in the later amendments, and they have never been amended to enable the federal government to limit the right to keep and bear arms” (1, 2). This means that the federal government doesn’t even have the power to enact gun control laws. Secondly, the Second Amendment protects the citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms. “The Second Amendment clearly forbids the federal government to ‘infringe’ that right” (Sobran 2). Many people misinterpret the meaning of the Second Amendment, and believe that it only implies to the National Guard, but it implies to every citizen (Detweiler 2). Lastly, the Bill of Rights was created to limit federal power, and according to Sobran, “The Second Amendment ensures that the federal government will never get a monopoly of weaponry, just as the First Amendment ensures that it will never monopolize religion or the press” (2). This means that the Second Amendment and all the other Amendments of the Bill of Rights were made to ensure that the federal government did not obtain too much power, and they ensured citizens’ their rights.

Another reason that gun control laws are not beneficial is that gun control laws do not act as a deterrent to crime. First, no statistical data supports gun control acting as a deterrent to crime. “After using regression analysis, state data, and a vector of social and economic variables, Dr. Murray concluded that gun control laws have no significant effect on the rates of violence beyond what can be attributed to background social conditions” (Moorhouse, and Wanner 2). This means that the gun control laws had no effect on the amount of violence at all. Also, another study conducted by the Open Society Institute found that “Using a vector of demographic, economic, and law enforcement control variables, the empirical analysis presented here provides no support for the contention that gun control reduces crime rates” (Moorhouse, and Wanner 3). This means that the gun control laws did not affect the crime rates in the area, even in a completely controlled test. Moorhouse and Wanner also state, that “The fact remains that no careful empirical study, regardless of the type of data used, has found a negative relationship between gun control measures and crime rates” (3). These tests have shown that gun control laws do not work and they do not work possibly for a couple of reasons. First, criminals do not always purchase guns legally. According to Moorhouse and Wanner, “Law-abiding citizens can be expected to conform to the law and obtain permits, register guns, and enroll in firearm safety courses. In contrast, it should come as no surprise that criminals regularly violate the law by purchasing guns on illegal black markets or by stealing them” (3). This means that when law-abiding citizens obtain firearms legally, the criminals are probably obtaining them illegally and thus dodging any gun control laws. Lastly, guns are long-lived capital assets. They are passed down throughout family generations, bought and sold, traded, parted out, and given away among friends and according to Moorhouse and Wanner, “It would be difficult, if not impossible, to constrain and regulate the transfer of firearms between non-dealer private parties” (3). This means that no matter how many gun control laws the government passes, they will not be able to control these transfers of firearms.

Lastly, gun control laws are not beneficial to the United States because citizens use guns for self-defense and to save lives. According to Cottrol “Research by Florida State University Gary Kleck and others indicate between two and three million cases of self-defense per year”, and most of the incidents did not even involve the firing of the weapon (2). One example of the use of firearms for self-defense can be found in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, in April 1998, where a school shooting took place which left one teacher dead, and in which the shooting was stopped when a bystander pointed of shotgun at the shooter when he started to reload his gun, and the police didn’t arrive for another ten minutes (Lott 2). Many people could have been killed in those ten minutes if it wasn’t for the bystander carrying his firearm. Secondly, if gun control laws are enacted, citizens would not be able to defend themselves. One example of this is:

“Some years ago, George Hennard, Jr., walked into Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, and opened fire, killing 23 patrons and wounding 28 others. Suzanne Gratia Hupp was having lunch there with her parents and saw them murdered. It so happens that this woman usually carried a handgun in her purse (which at the time was illegal to do). But on this day, fearing revocation of a recently received occupational license, she left the gun in her car when she and her parents went into the cafeteria. She is convinced that if she had taken the gun with her, she would have stopped the shooter. Her parents, and others, might have been spared. They can be counted among the victims of gun control” (Richman 2).

Because of the gun control laws of Texas, 23 people were killed, some of whom could have been saved. Lastly, only one gun policy was found to reduce deaths and injuries from these shootings: allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. According to John Lott “The effect of “shall-issue” concealed handgun laws, which give adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness, was dramatic” (2). Lott also stated, that “When states passed them during the 19 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84%. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%” (2). This means that after these concealed handgun laws were passed, the number of public shootings rapidly decreased. Richman explains why this is when he states, that “Since criminals can’t know in advance who’s carrying and who isn’t carrying a gun, they have to assume anyone might be-if not the potential victim, then someone nearby” (3). This means that criminals won’t conduct public shooting so quickly now because they do not know who is in possession of a gun and a possible threat.

Gun control laws are not beneficial to the United States of America. First, it is debatable whether they are even constitutional in the first place because they deny citizens their rights to carry and bear arms. They also do not act as a deterrent and there are no statistics to prove otherwise. Lastly, firearms are used defensively by citizens around 2.5 million times a year and many lives are therefore saved. The United States would be a better and safer place without gun control laws.

There are many people supporting gun control laws for many reasons. First, they believe that if one reduces the amount of guns in circulation that the rate of crime will decrease. But if one takes guns away from the law-abiding citizens, how are they supposed to protect themselves? The supporters of gun control laws have forgotten about the hundreds of thousands of lives guns save each year, when used defensively (Cottrol 2).

Another reason that they support gun control laws, is that they says that gun control laws reduce crime rates. However, there is no statistical data to back this up. Many controlled tests were taken and yet no results were found in support of the gun control laws (Moorhouse, and Wanner 2).

Also, gun control law supporters always bring up how many lives are killed by guns each year, but the fail to mention how many lives are saved each year by guns. Research by Florida State University Gary Kleck and others indicate between two and three million cases of self-defense per year (Cottrol 2). That's a lot of lives saved and yet the liberals who support gun control laws never mention that. I wonder why?

Lastly, gun control laws supports state that the Second Amendment doesn't protect each citizen's right to own a firearm. But, what they fail to mention is that gun control isn’t listed among the federal government’s powers, either in the body of the Constitution or in the later amendments, and they have never been amended to enable the federal government to limit the right to keep and bear arms (Sobran 1, 2). This means that the federal government doesn’t even have the power to enact gun control laws, in the first place.

These are the reasons why liberals support gun control laws.