Mark Salib.

Prof. Anna Voisard

ENG 11000

March 30, 2022

 

How gun control puts your life at risk?

Every day people die at the hands of firearms, weather the cause is murder, self-defenses, or suicides, incidents like such play a vital role in the development of laws pertaining to gun control. Unlike any other county the United States has vast gun culture that is unmatched, with more than 32 percent of all Americans personally owning a firearm, which is the equivalent of more than 80 million individuals it presents the question of whether or not these guns are a good idea and if they should be limited. With this number of guns readily available to the public growing concerns for crime is leading to laws that potentially increase crime due to their lack of addressing the issue, it is almost without a doubt, guns are always blamed for all issues when it comes to violent crime. With the notion that more guns will always account for more crime the conclusion that guns should be banned is always drawn in response to tragic incidents.

          With the ever-growing concern of gun violence, the first typical solution is gun control which is implementing new laws that limit and controls the sale, regulation of firearms and also the type of guns that are available to the public. with some to believe that gun control is the only effective method to address such issues, however this couldn’t be further from the truth, in fact gun control puts more people at risk of harm than it does to prevent harm. legal gun ownership has                                                                                                                                                     no effect on crime rates, this is not only seen in the us but other countries as well. In Switzerland and Israel, the crime rate is relatively low despite the high numbers of gun ownership, in Mexico on the other hand it has low gun ownership but extremely high crime rates. This shows the inconsistency of the claim that low amount of guns will be accompanied by low crime rates as there is no correlation with the two. With 21 studies conducted on this subject 17 found that gun control laws had no effect on lowering crime. One particular law that was used for gun control is the Bradly bill, which put a mandatory five-day waiting period prior to acquiring a handgun. This bill brought a lot of controversy as it couldn’t be used in 28 states due to the strict nature of gun laws in these states. According to the article Gun Ownership Does Not Contribute to Violent Crime it states “These exempt states and D.C. accounted for 63 percent of the nation’s violent crimes and 58 percent of the nation’s murders. Two of the originally exempt states, California and New York, have the highest and second highest number of murders and violent crimes, respectively”. This further solidifies the idea that guns don’t cause an increase to crime or have an effect on it. New York and California being the first and second state with the highest crime rates despite having the strictest gun laws, making it impossible to get a firearm, yet it didn’t stop or lower crime rate. Also, in the article it states “Using crime rate data for all 3,054 counties in the U.S. between 1977 and 1994, John Lott completed an analysis of the Brady law’s impact during its first year. His research demonstrated that the law had no significant effect on murder or robbery rates, while rape and aggravated assault rates experienced significant increases.” Such laws have no practical benefit in controlling crime as seen with the Bradly law despite the research which showed that waiting periods to get a firearm doesn’t lower violent crime it still went into effect, this law and others like it put law abiding citizens at risk of being a victim to such crime since gun control strips them                                                                                                                                                           of the right to bear arms leaving them without the means to protect themselves, as seen in the study the Bradly law didn’t have a positive outcome on crime but in fact increased it, while it wasn’t gun related crimes, after the implementation of the law we saw a rise in rape and assault.

          No matter what your belief, your social statues, job title or where you live when it comes to the safety of oneself, family and loved ones almost everyone if not all will unite under the same agreement, which is that they want to be safe and protected from crime, however the way they go about achieving this safety and protection is very different. With the vast majority of law maker having the perception that getting rid of guns for good will consequently cause a drop in violent crime it leads to a lot of people adapting the idea that they should dan guns to protect themselves, however this conclusion is unlikely to be true. With the agenda that protection from violent crime should be left to law enforcement “The United States has a population of 270,000,000, and 600,000 to 750,000 people are in law enforcement. It is not believable that each law enforcement officer can protect 360 to 450 people from violent criminals or answer every 911 call before the criminal fires a gun” (Schlafly). It is without a great idea as it’s the law enforcements job to serve, protect and enforce the law, police and other law enforcement agencies do a great job at this. However, its logistically impossible to stop all crime or prevent all violent crimes from causing great harm. “Charleston, South Carolina: A carjacking was stopped by a 27-year-old victim who then shot one of his attackers. The victim had paused to ask directions when several men, one with a lengthy criminal record, jumped into the car” (Lott). With an example like this calling the police is vertically impossible as the incident happened in a moment’s notice, it leaves the victim no choice but to defend himself, and by having access to that gun it meant that he had a chance to protect                                                                                                                                           himself and his property. And since the process to acquire a gun is a long and rigors one and usually involves multiple evaluations to see if the person is fit enough to possess a gun, this makes almost all legally purchased guns in the hands of legal gun owners a tool to defend and save lives as well as deter criminals from violent acts. Taking a closer look to see how criminals and felons view guns it is without a doubt the best indication against gun control. “In 11 state prisons across the USA found that 34% had been scared off, wounded or captured by an armed victim of their crime.” “40% of felons made a decision not to commit a crime because they feared the potential victim had a gun.” (Root). These findings suggest that there is a strong correlation between guns and the safety of the people who own them with a little less than half of felons deciding not to commit an act of violence due to the victim potentially carrying a firearm is a critical finding, it provides the important suggestion that instead of putting a ban on gun to reduce crime instead however, guns should be more accusable to law abiding citizens along with training, since it is shown to be far more effective at lowering crime.

          Another important aspect of gun control that doesn’t get much attention is total government control. This can be tied to the ban on guns as an initial start to a total government control. With public access to guns, it creates a system of checks and balances where the government is required to provide the constitutional rights of all citizens of the United States in the article Allowing Armed Citizens Reduces Gun Violence it states, “Thomas Jefferson put it best: “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” The issue of tyranny and dictatorship is seen throughout history where people were stripped of their guns and left defenseless at the hand of cruel government. In order to ensure that this never happens law abiding citizens must be armed and have them means to defend themselves. not too long ago the world faced potentially the bloodiest war in recent history, which was World War two and with it brought the holocaust. One major issue that was the leading cause to the holocaust is a cruel government stripping people of their right to self-defense as it would make it easier for them to go about their sinister plan. “That act on November 11, 1938, (one day after the infamous Kristallnacht) was the beginning of the end for Germany’s Jews. Millions of Jews were left defenseless from that day forward. Just like the criminals in the studies above, who were far less likely to break into a home or attack a victim if they feared the victim was armed, Hitler only started his murderous genocide after first ensuring his victims were disarmed, defenseless, and helpless” (Root).

           when the bill of rights was written and established the founding father took this into consideration to make certain that such issue never happens in the United States, this is thanks to the second amendment which gives the people the right to bear arms. The second amendment reads “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”. Although there are a few modifications that would make this amendment more applicable to days standards, like background checks and evaluation to limit the sale of firearms to criminals and or mentally unstable individuals, which are in affect today, however it should go without saying that banning guns and limiting their sale to law abiding citizens is unconstitutional and an infringement on their second amendment. This gives rise to a government that might alter or get rid of other amendments being that the people have limited to no mean of self-defense against such governments. “Should government and law enforcement be                                                                                                                                                     the only ones legally able to carry guns? Never. Not in America” (Root). To add on only allowing the government and law enforcement to be armed is a major step towards tyranny as it only empowers one system over the people.

Not only it would leave people defenseless, but they are also more susceptible to violent crime. “About 80 percent of the citizenry, in possession of over 230 million guns, with nearly half the households having a gun, are going to come face to face with a violent criminal one day. This situation makes one think that there would be many instances of defensive gun use in this country. In fact, thirteen studies conducted between 1976 and 1994 estimated that there were between 770,00 and 3.6 million civilian defensive gun uses per year” (Otero). Each year millions come face to face with a violent criminal that intends to cause harm and the only thing that stops the individual is the use of a firearm by the victim as a mean to protect themselves. This is evident in the many instances where guns meant the life or the death of the individuals who only intended on having it to protect themselves. “July 16, San Diego. A man armed with a knife broke into a home and began stabbing the 54-year-old homeowner until the homeowner’s son was able to intervene, shooting and killing the attacker with his father’s gun. The home invasion caused some residents to question the logic of a proposed local ordinance that would require gun owners to keep their firearms locked in a safe or left inoperable when not on their person” (Swearer and Lucas). Another example of gun laws that work to hurt law abiding citizens, in this instance the gunowners son was able to stop the attacker which was determined to carry out his act of violence, with nothing having the ability to stop him accept the use of a firearm, provided that this family had no access to a fire arm things would’ve turned out much different in fact it would be in the favor of the perpetrator                                                                                                                                                  as there would’ve been no means to stop him. In another instance “A retired military law enforcement officer acted quickly to defend himself and his family against a home invasion, drawing his handgun from his bedside table and chasing the intruder out of the house. After running, the suspect broke into another home and attempted to sexually assault a woman before being arrested by police, who the first homeowner had called” (Swearer, Amy, and Lucas Drill) with the presence of a gun the first homeowner was able to safely defend this family, with the second person who was unfortunately the victim of a such an inhuman crime would’ve been able to defend herself provided she had access to a firearm. With that being said gun control laws only work to hurt these law-abiding citizens by putting them in harm’s way without the necessary self-defense.  the number of legal guns use for self-defense far exceeds the illegal use of a gun by about 4 times, which further highlights the importance of armed citizens because “between 1988-1993 civilians used guns in self-defense 2.2-2.5 million times per year, saving between 240,000-400,000 lives each year”(Otero) showing that it not only acts as a way to stop criminals from committing acts of violence but also can be used to save lives and prevent personal harm.

 

Overall to conclude while firearms may be used to inflict awful violent attacks, and it should be noted that everything should be done to ensure that those who present risk to harm themselves or others are disarmed long before they commit such crimes and. However, the large majority of law-abiding gun owners will never use their guns for illegal purposes. As stated, the words of a father who had to draw his firearm to protect himself and his children “I don’t carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to neutralize threatening situations” (Swearer and Lucas) there                                                                                         is no intention for law abiding citizens to hurt someone, it’s only a measure to relay on in a moment’s notice to defend oneself.

 

Citation metad)

Citation me

 

 

 

 

Work cited

 

 

Lott, John R. “Gun Ownership Reduces Crime.” Crime and Criminals, edited by James D. Torr,            Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010119246/OVIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=6333ab90. Accessed 29 Mar. 2022. Originally published as “Half-Cocked: Why Most of What You See in the Media About Guns Is Wrong,” American Enterprise, vol. 14, 2003, p. 28.

 

 

Schlafly, Phyllis. “Gun Control Will Not Reduce Gun Violence.” How Can Gun Violence Be Reduced?,

edited by Laura K. Egendorf, Greenhaven Press, 2002. At Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing              Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010186202/OVIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=bookmark-     OVIC&xid=5cb04ede. Accessed 29 Mar. 2022. Originally published as “The Media Campaign     Against Gun Ownership,” Phyllis Schlafly Report, June 2000.

 

 

Root, Wayne Allyn. “Allowing Armed Citizens Reduces Gun Violence.” Gun Violence, edited

by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010223279/OVIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=bookmark-

OVIC&xid=2d193865. Accessed 12 Mar. 2022. Originally published as “Guns Save Lives,”                                           Townhall, 23 Dec. 2012.

 

 

Otero, Glen. “Gun Ownership Does Not Contribute to Violent Crime.” Gun Violence, edited by

James D. Torr, Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010223210/OVIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=bookmark-

OVIC&xid=1482c072. Accessed 12 Mar. 2022.

 

Swearer, Amy, and Lucas Drill. “Guns Saved These Americans From Assault and Robbery in

July.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2022. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/ARXXWN395321850/OVIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=bookmark-

OVIC&xid=e4e2f594. Accessed 12 Mar. 2022. Originally published as “Guns Saved These

Americans From Assault and Robbery in July,” The Daily Signal, 7 Aug. 2019.