“Gun control” is a phrase that means different things to different people. It has been a serious topic of debate that this author now intends to prove as being right or wrong. There is no in-between on this issue. Both sides have received adequate attention and will be treated in an objective manner.
For all the attention that gun control has received, there are two basic opinions that are to be discussed. To its proponents, gun control means prevention of crime. This, they say, should lead to peace. Charles Krauthammer wrote about this in “The Washington Post” in an article titled “Disarm The People.” He wrote, “…a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility…” Pro-gun activists, on the other hand, see gun-control as a threat not only to their self-defense, but also to their Second Amendment right. In an issue of American Survival Guide, Howard J. Fezell wrote an essay: “Your Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” during which he made plain this fact: gun-prohibitionists have completely ignored numerous rulings of the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court has stated the Second Amendment as an individual right, not a collective right. Also, they believe it to be a failed experiment. This is obvious in a statement by David Lampo: “The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason.” According to statistics, gun bans - the ultimate goal of gun control activists - has failed completely.
Gun control activists make their claims that gun control is a good idea because it has succeeded in other places, two of which we shall now examine. Britain has become a country where it is nearly impossible for a law-abiding citizen to obtain a firearm. Gun control has succeeded there -- or has it? Examining the crime in Britain, statistics show that since the banning of guns in 1997, crime has risen considerably. In fact, from 1996 until 2004, crime has risen 69%, robbery 45%, and murder 54%. This certainly contradicts gun control activists, especially since, before the gun ban, robberies were down 50%. Now violent-crime in England and Whales is twice that of the U.S. where guns are in demand. Australia has seen a crime rise similar to that of Britain after it’s 1996 Port Arthur gun control laws were passed. In a six-Year period from 1997 - 2002, violent crime has gone up 32% and robbery has soared to 74%. It is obvious that something has gone terribly wrong with the theory of gun control.
Now a look will be taken at the other side of the coin, namely, pro-gun activists. Here we shall bring the focus upon two countries where one can easily obtain a license to own a gun on demand. Guns are also very easy to obtain. According to the theory of gun control, crime should be at an all-time high in these countries, and yet they are not. Even Dr. Arthur Kellerman, an avid advocate of gun control, admits in reference to these two countries, Israel and Switzerland, that they “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.” Gun-control activists have suffered a major blow here. An impossible phenomena, a completely outrageous, and yet startling reality! It is so stunning that one of their leaders had to admit it, and still they strive for their cause.
There are many reasons why gun-control activists say that their measures have failed, but one of their most popular is, “We need more gun-control.” One of their favorite grounds for this is the shooting at Columbine, so this author will bring this into...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document