Common Misunderstandings of “Gun Control” vs. “Crime Control”
Firearm Ownership:
Common Misunderstandings of “Gun Control” vs. “Crime Control”
The movement for stricter gun control in the United States would not permit civilian ownership of firearms. However, there are arguments that give a plethora of reasons that gun control is irrational and people should be allowed to own and use guns for recreational use and personal and home protection.
Those for stricter gun control “if guns were not legal then there would be less killings and mass shootings”. There are many rebuttals to this statement. By making guns illegal it would just be taking guns away from a law abiding citizen. There will always be people who possess guns illegally. Criminals will always be able to get guns to use for illegal activities. Secondly, guns do not shoot by themselves they have to have an operator to shoot; therefore a crime is committed by a person, not by the gun.
Gun control activists may ask, “What is the point of owning a gun?” The Constitution states in the Second Amendment that citizens should have the right to bear arms. This Amendment was particularly considered by the framers of the Constitution as a means of ensuring the citizenship the ability to confront oppressive governments. If history is any teacher, we have learned one irrefutable truth, repeated throughout the years: power corrupts. A citizen’s right to bear arms to enforce his right to be free from tyrannical oppression was deemed to be fundamental by the framers. This truth is as true today as the day it was drafted.
There are differences of opinions on numbers that are reported by gun control activists and citizens that are for gun ownership. Gun control activists would argue that 13 children die every day by a gunshot wound. This number is deceiving because it includes teenagers and young adults who are involved in gangs. If we look at the statistics more closely, and focus on children under the age of 14, the number drops to 1.7 children per day.
Common Misunderstandings of “Gun Control” vs. “Crime Control”
The movement for stricter gun control in the United States would not permit civilian ownership of firearms. However, there are arguments that give a plethora of reasons that gun control is irrational and people should be allowed to own and use guns for recreational use and personal and home protection.
Those for stricter gun control “if guns were not legal then there would be less killings and mass shootings”. There are many rebuttals to this statement. By making guns illegal it would just be taking guns away from a law abiding citizen. There will always be people who possess guns illegally. Criminals will always be able to get guns to use for illegal activities. Secondly, guns do not shoot by themselves they have to have an operator to shoot; therefore a crime is committed by a person, not by the gun.
Gun control activists may ask, “What is the point of owning a gun?” The Constitution states in the Second Amendment that citizens should have the right to bear arms. This Amendment was particularly considered by the framers of the Constitution as a means of ensuring the citizenship the ability to confront oppressive governments. If history is any teacher, we have learned one irrefutable truth, repeated throughout the years: power corrupts. A citizen’s right to bear arms to enforce his right to be free from tyrannical oppression was deemed to be fundamental by the framers. This truth is as true today as the day it was drafted.
There are differences of opinions on numbers that are reported by gun control activists and citizens that are for gun ownership. Gun control activists would argue that 13 children die every day by a gunshot wound. This number is deceiving because it includes teenagers and young adults who are involved in gangs. If we look at the statistics more closely, and focus on children under the age of 14, the number drops to 1.7 children per day.