In society today, the issue of gun control has been becoming more and more relevant, especially with all of the recent shootings, including the Aurora, Colorado theatre shooting as well as Sandy Hook. People are blaming guns for these tragic happenings when really the irresponsible person holding the gun is at fault. We don’t blame cars for car accidents, so why blame guns for shooting crimes? The person in control is at fault. Taking away guns is going to do more harm than good in society and it should not happen. People of this country have the right to protect themselves and own guns, so long as they are capable and responsible. Even though guns are dangerous, being defenseless is even more dangerous and everyone should have the right to defend themselves, whether or not firearms are used.
As people of this country we should have the right to defend ourselves, and that should include defense by firearms. The gun owner does not have to pull the trigger of a firearm. Sometimes the threat of the gun and the possibility of it being fired is enough to send those who intend harm away. “Statistics show that in true life instances of self-defense with firearms, firing the gun was necessary only one third to one half of the time, the rest of the time the mere presence of a gun was enough to scare away the attacker” (Moore 5).Some people are more defenseless than others including the elderly and smaller men and women. People have the right to defend themselves, but sometimes they are limited in doing so by inadequate physical ability, age and other factors. Statistics show that people who are attacked by a criminal are safer if they use a weapon to resist their attacker than if they do not resist. In addition, those who resist with a gun are less likely to be injured than those who use a less effective weapon, such as a knife. (Moore 5) Although there are means of defense other than guns, they are the most effective form of protection from someone trying to harm you. A knife is threatening, but there is not much you can do from a long distance, and throwing it won’t be the best option, since you would essentially be losing your weapon if you miss. Self-defense such as karate and other martial arts techniques also really can’t be used at a long distance, and are of no match to a criminal threat with a gun.
Larry Pratt says, “Evil is in our hearts, not in the guns” (Burbaker1). Many advocates for gun restrictions and bans like to state that “Guns kill; people do not” (Zaremski1). I find this to be a faulty argument. It is people who kill, a gun will not kill unless the person holding it decides to use it to kill, and pulls the trigger. A gun lying around is not going to do any harm a gun is not making the decision to kill or to shoot its bullets; it does not have a mind. It is when a person picks up that gun that it is fired, the person with thoughts and a mind, he or she is killing not the gun. Anything can be fashioned into a weapon, and there are so many already made weapons out there. We should have the right to our guns, just as we have the right to any weapon out there. None of these weapons are doing any harm to us unless someone makes that happen. We should have the right to defend ourselves with a firearm if necessary if we are threatened by someone.
The second amendment of the constitution states that, “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.” Back then, a militia was comprised of ordinary, common male citizens, who not only had the right, but the duty to own guns to protect the country and form a militia. Don Kates states that, “The amendment, in guaranteeing the arms of each citizen, simultaneously guaranteed arms for the militia” (2347). The founding fathers set it up so that the people had means of defense from anyone, including other citizens, foreigners, and even their own...