Gun Control

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.