Should America
have more gun control and place more restrictions on firearms? How could the
answer possibly be no? Isn’t national security a top priority for this
government, an institution constitutionally delegated to “promote the general
welfare” of the civilian people of America, and hence mustn’t the government at
the least place better control of these dangerous weapons of destruction in
America? The number of shootings in past years has just kept increasing and
unless we act now many more innocent lives will be taken or harmed by these
firearms. Annually more than 30,000 people are killed by firearms annually, and
yet some would even attempt to argue for looser restrictions on guns. Obviously
firearms are in the wrong hands if there is such a ridiculous amount of gun
violence annually. Hence it is the government’s duty to keep such weapons of
destructions out of these wrong hands, and the only plausible way to do that is
by increasing gun control and hence keeping the nation safe. There cannot be
any question in that these guns are used for violence and result in high
numbers of deaths and injuries as statistics prove that relative to other
nations America has some of the worst gun violence. Seeing as 40% of gun sales
in America have no background check, logic proves that gun control and
restrictions, such as far more background checks, are the right way to keep
firearms out of wrong hands and keep America safe.
When it comes to arguments
for less gun control, the real statistics show that these ‘arguments’ do not
even make sense. The most popular argument is that firearms should not be
restricted because it is a guaranteed constitutional right by the Second Amendment.
Those who make this argument forget that America’s founding fathers and framers
of the Constitution purposely made an amending process because they knew far
too well that they could not plan for all of history and that times would
change. Times have certainly changed with the improvement of our police system
and the increase of the destructive power of firearms. The second main argument
against gun control is that it is a basic right to protect oneself with
firearms. This argument does not make sense on so many levels. The first reason
is that removal of all firearms is not the suggested legislation, but greater
control so they stay out of the wrong hands. As long as someone who wishes to
protect themselves passes background checks and is deemed psychologically
healthy, they can still be authorized to own a gun. The second reason this is
invalid is one can certainly protect themselves without the use of firearms,
especially if the assaulter does not have a firearm, because of greater gun
control. The third reason is that firearms are used far more for violence than self-defense.
For every time a gun injures or kills in self-defense, it is used for attempted
or completed suicide 11 times, 7 times in a criminal assault or homicide, and 4
times in an unintentional shooting death or injury. There are quite obviously
far more people hurt at the hands of firearms than saved, but even with that considered
greater gun control will be diminishing the number of times it is used in
violence, not the number of times it is used in self-defense so much. Hence
there is absolutely no logic behind the arguments against stronger gun control.
