|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,424
|
Quote:
Originally posted by The Heron
?Gun control? is a term that people use often, sometimes without even thinking about what it really means. The fact that this term has become a flash point in political debates does nothing to help the general public understand what it really means to them. ?Gun control encompasses a broad range of legislative measures which place various restrictions on the acquisition, possession, use, sale and production of firearms?(Robin, 11). The basic argument that gun control advocates make is that guns are dangerous and cause crime; therefore guns should be controlled or outlawed completely. Unfortunately to the uninformed general public that argument is very persuasive and seems to provide a simple answer to reducing crime and deaths. What the general public does not realize is that the issue of gun control is not that simple and actually has direct repercussions that can affect everyone in our society beyond just the simple idea of controlling guns. Gun control advocates tend to ignore or minimalize the facts that show gun control does not reduce crime or deaths, but instead reduces Americans constitutionally protected rights as citizens. The fact that gun control simply does not work is a statistical fact that can be proven and even our founding fathers realized that the right to defend oneself was important and the government should not limit that right.
The fact that gun control is a bad idea might not make a lot of sense on the surface. However when you consider the statistics that show gun control does not reduce crime and in some cases crime increases then gun control is obviously not doing what advocates claim. Consider the idea of gun control from the perspective of a criminal, if you know that your potential victim cannot legally own a gun then you have much less to fear from that victim attempting to defend him or herself. Many times, the threat of self-defense with a firearm will stop criminals before a crime is committed or even mid-way into a crime (Lott, Bias against guns, 10). Some people might argue that instead of reducing gun control there needs to be more police to help manage crime. While this is certainly a good idea one must also consider the potentially huge increase in taxes as the government attempts to pay for the added police protection. Even then surveys of convicted felons in America concluded that during break-ins they are more greatly concerned with coming across armed victims, than encountering officers of the law (Lott, Bias against guns, 140). So even with more police the deterrent is not as great as if the homeowner could own a gun. Gun control advocates claim that guns make killing easier and more guns mean more murders but historically statistics show the opposite affect. ?Our article?s findings include such facts that the homicide rate decreased 27.1 percent over the 25 year period 1973-94 despite increases of 160 percent in the number of civilian handguns and of 103 percent in guns of all kinds.? (Kates, qtd. in Cothran, 27) So while the percentage of gun ownership increased the homicide rate actually decreased. If one wanted to extrapolate further you could assume that if everyone were armed then homicides and probably most crime would disappear, as the risk to benefit ratio for criminals would increase dramatically. Robert A. Heinlein said, ?An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.? in his book Beyond This Horizon published in 1942, and that quote makes a strong point for the reduction in gun control laws. Consider a society where everyone was armed and could defend him or herself. In such a society one could assume there might always be rogue elements that would lash out violently but they would be stopped by regular citizens who would be empowered to use their own weapons to apprehend the criminal elements. While this makes sense in theory there are some statistics that can be used to illustrate the point. For instance, ?While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed-carry laws cut death rates from public multiple shootings by a whopping 69 percent? (Faria, qtd. in Cothran, 44). While concealed-carry laws are still a form of gun control they show that a loosening of the laws (before you could not carry a gun at all) can cause a large reduction in the amount of deaths from people committing shootings in public. Another interesting fact to consider is that when Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987 Dade County police began recording all arrests and incidents involving concealed carry licensees, which lasted until 1992. During that time only 4 crimes were recorded and none resulted in injuries so they discontinued the recording keeping because there was not anything to record (Just Facts). This shows that people can be trusted to use their guns in a safe way.
Gun control advocates also make claims about how guns are dangerous for children and they tend to point to school shootings for support of their arguments. If you look at some scenarios though it becomes evident that it is not gun control we need more of but better parental supervision and education. The following excerpt is a good example to prove that gun control laws actually hinder the protection of children, ?In the 1997 Pearl, Mississippi school massacre, sixteen year old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then proceeded to school where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. An assistant principal using a gun stopped Woodham. The assistant principal kept the gun locked in his car outside the school zone and ran to his car to obtain the gun. The assistant principal controlled Woodham for four and a half minutes before the police arrived?(Just Facts). Had the principal been able to carry his gun on his body in the school it seems very likely he could have contained the violent student more quickly and possibly saved more lives. One could also argue if gun control worked perfectly that student would not have had access to a gun, but the student started his rampage by stabbing his mother to death which indicates more than likely he would have continued on his killing spree and stopping a knife wielding student would not be easy if the principal had no gun at his disposal. Another claim often made supporting gun control points to children and accidental deaths caused by firearms. The numbers show a different picture though. In 1996, accidental firearm deaths accounted for only 42 children (under 9 years old). Consider though that during the same year 1,915 died in car accidents, 489 died when struck by cars, 805 children drown, 738 died in fires (Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, 9). So why don?t the anti-gun lobbyist start trying to pass laws banning cars and water because obviously those pose a greater danger to children than firearms. So the basic theory of gun control does not make all that much real world sense and there are even statistics to back up the claims that less gun control actually seem to reduce crime and deaths.
To further explore the idea of gun control and its failures there are even more statistics taken from other countries where strict gun control and even elimination of guns completely has been in effect for many years. One year after the mass confiscation of handguns in Australia, homicide rates increased by 3.2 percent (Francis, qtd. in Cothran, 133). This means without guns people in Australia committed more murders than before, perhaps if all Australians were armed the rate would have been lowered. England banned handguns in 1997 but in a study done two years later it was found the use of handguns in crimes rose by 40% (BBC Online). In England the problem was that the criminals were still able to get guns while law abiding citizens had no defense and the government failed to provide adequate protection. It can be seen in other countries as well that when more gun control laws are passed crime increases, while in other countries that have less gun control laws crime is more easily contained.
The United States should have less gun control because it does not reduce crime or deaths, other countries have proven it can cause more problems, and because it is a citizens Constitutional right to bear arms.
--COPYRIGHT 2004 THE HERON--
|
Get some fucking layout you lazy ass  |