No to Gun Control; Yes to the Second Amendment The second amendment of the constitution states, “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” (cornell. edu). The purpose of our founding fathers making this was to ensure the protection of the individual person. Banning semi-automatic weapons will have several negative effects on the well being of this country. The government cannot protect every individual from the evils of murder; murder that preys upon the defenseless.
It is nearly impossible for a person to own a fully automatic weapon; therefore, banning semi-automatic weapons would merely take away the protection that citizens, according to the second amendment, have the right to own. When law abiding citizens have lost their source of protection, the only owners of semi-automatic weapons will be criminals; criminals who do not follow the law; the law designed to protect those who follow it. The government will not be there when a murderer breaks into a house and kills a whole family because they were not allowed to own a gun.
Different gun control policies all around the world will prove true that criminals are less likely to approach a person who most likely owns a gun themselves. Semi-automatic weapons should not be banned because removing guns will not stop the killing, removing the criminals will. In the meantime, let law abiding citizens protect themselves when the government cannot. A semi-automatic gun solely means it fires one bullet every time the trigger is pulled. This includes basically the majority of the guns owned by citizens except a revolver, a pump shot gun, and a bolt action rifle.
The process in obtaining any of the previously stated fully automatic weapons is both long and very expensive. They are also as, if not more, dangerous as semi-automatic weapons. Semi-automatic guns are being called assault weapons which of course makes uninformed citizens think of machine guns and a much more dangerous weapon when in fact the only difference is how it looks which is similar to the cosmetics of a military firearm (nssf. org). Any weapon used for inflicting harm on others is considered an assault weapon.
However, the technicalities of the names do not truly matter; only what each weapon does and is supposed to do matters; such technicalities mean nothing to criminals. Criminals do not follow the law so why would they follow laws about gun control? Banning guns will not stop a criminal, who will disobey the law for murder, from owning a gun. They are identified as a criminal because they disobey the law; therefore, gun control laws are directed at law abiding citizens. For example, Chicago has banned handguns and yet has at least one shooting per day (LearnAboutGuns. com).
Criminals are who they are because they find ways around the law; with this theory, they will find a way to have and use guns without the law behind them. The small amount of penalties that would arouse from possessing a gun are not going to stop them when the amount of harm they were going to inflict with that very same gun has a much higher penalty; a penalty such as death. Now people who actually do follow the law are now in danger because they will have no source of protection against a criminal with a gun in possession. Guns do not kill people; people kill people.
A gun is only a symbol. A symbol of death; and death comes in many ways. Referring to the illustrated chart “A Weapon Guide for the Uninformed” on page 6, more people die from auto accidents in homicide deaths than any of the objects shown. Is the answer to ban cars? Is the answer to have car control policies? Is the answer to ban certain cars? The same principle applies to guns because even if it deterred criminals from using semi-automatic weapons, there are plenty of other objects to use. For example, in China a man injured 22 children with a knife; not a gun but a knife (Thomas).
A criminal will not stop because of laws imposed but rather find another way to receive a gun or find other and more dangerous and painful ways to commit the crime intended originally with a gun. For example, Adam Lanza, mass murderer of Sandy Hook elementary school, was going to buy a gun legally but did not want to wait for the 14-day background check so instead stole his mother’s gun (Melton). Gun control laws were not going to stop that shooting but perhaps a person with a gun might have. Statistics prove that gun control leads to an increase in crime. As Melissa Melton informs us, the supposedly allegation that the U.
K. has the lowest crime rate in the world due to its strict gun policies is completely inaccurate. It actually has one of the highest violence rates in the world regardless of its ban on semi-automatic weapons and handguns. Melton also states that the Open Society Institute reported the conclusions of a state-by-state look at their gun laws and crime rates. The shocking finds was that the state, Maine, had the worst gun control laws and yet least violent crimes; however, Massachusetts had the best gun control laws but was ranked 12th highest for aggravated assaults (Melton).
The stats speak for themselves; a criminal is less likely to pull a gun on someone who might already have one at the ready. Gun control advocates believe if there was not such an availability of semi-automatic weapons than crime rate would be reduced. If it is harder to obtain a gun than criminals will not be able to have one right? But what is frequently not figured into the equations is that guns are used to prevent crime just as much as they are used for crime.
John Kullman asserts in his article Gun Control Myth One: Guns Cause Crime that Switzerland has males between age 20 and 50 have weapons issued by the military and yet has the lowest murder rate in the world. Israel requires military service from every able-bodied men and women and also has a very low crime rate. The same applies to Denmark and Finland. 1 out of every 123 handguns is used by criminals. This is less than 1% (Kullman). Concluding the previous statement, outlawing guns would be taking away from the 99% who do follow the law; the law would be for a minority. However, not banning guns also proposes a different dilemma.
Studies show that guns kept in home are more likely to be used to kill someone innocent rather than an intruder or criminal. Guns are also highly used for suicide. Having more gun availability gives criminals more access and easier access to semi-automatic weapons. Although some citizens enjoy the sport of hunting, it is not important enough or worth risking the many lives lost by gunfire (Scheiber). Guns are a very delicate subject. Many have had very unfortunate relationships with semi-automatic weapons and it has taken a toll on every life lost due to being shot and killed.
However, banning semi-automatics is not the answer. In order to protect citizens of the United States, each individual must be given the right to protect themselves and not rely on protection from the banning of guns and the possibility that it prevents a criminal from retrieving a gun. It is not forced upon any one individual to have no choice but to own a weapon of any sort but it is the thought of the possibility a person might have a gun that will stop a criminal from approaching, and possibly killing, an innocent life.