For many years the controversial topic of gun control has sparked countless passionate debates. The arguments posed in these debates vary widely concerning the possible solutions to solving the problem of violent crime due to the possession of firearms. This paper introduces three different views concerning gun control. The first illustrates the freedom to own firearms. The second view advocates the complete restriction of firearms owned by citizens, and the last one presents a modified freedom of possessing firearms. Each faction seeks to have its position supported by national legislation.
One of the big supporters of owning firearms is The Future of Freedom Foundation, known as FFF, who wants the absolute right to own any weapon. Their reasoning is that people in America can only protect themselves from stronger dangers if they own firearms. They point out that weak people like women on the street can defend themselves against an attacker, and fewer hostage situations would happen when people in America can carry guns with them. People of FFF freely say that more guns equals less crime, and that in some of the states where gun ownership is not highly controlled, lower crime rate is experienced. (Benedict D. LaRosa, October, 2002)
Their argument is that after the government passed a gun control act in 1968, the crime rate climbed up in robbery cases from 138,000 in 1965 to 376,000 in 1972, while murders with guns increased from 5,015 to 10,379 in the same period according to the Census Bureau. They cite an example about New York, where the restrictions on guns are strong; the crime rate is higher than in Vermont, where gun controls are low. Also, they state where gun control is strictly enforced, illegal gun ownership is much higher. By allowing guns for citizens, the crime rate will decrease. They also considered this an economical solution for protection. (Benedict D. LaRosa)
They support multiple gun ownership for each person so they can...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document