The second amendment states “the right to bear arms”; does this grant everyone the right to own a gun? Gun control laws have not been proven to do anything for citizens. Gun control laws just make it harder for the good guy average Joe to own a gun. Gun control laws are not a good idea, and are taking part in the loss of our freedom that was given to us. (http://www.
constitution. org/2l/2ndschol/133sec. html, 1996)Gun control only takes guns away from law-abiding people and it does nothing to stop criminals from buying illegal guns, who are unlikely to obey the law and register their guns at all. Most of the time the term gun control is improperly used. The definition of gun control is the government regulation of possession and use of firearms by private citizens. The government is using it as way to take our right to bear arms away from us.
(Kluin, pg 121, 1982)There are many reasons that people want to own a gun. One of the main reasons that people own a gun is protection for themselves and their family. In a survey given about guns, “self defense” was the main reason for owning a gun. Guns provide a great source of psychological reassurance even among citizens who are not particularly concerned about the fear of crime of being victimized.
The right of self-defense and the right to use firearms for self-defense and the defense of your family is the foundation for rights written in the U. S. constitution. (Long, pg 28, 1989)Why does the government make it harder for average citizens to protect themselves? Police cannot always protect everyone in the community. There are only about 500,000 police officers throughout the country, which means there is around 125,000 police officers on duty at any given time.
Other than a bodyguard or a law enforcement officer at everyone’s side twenty-four hours a day, the most effective deterrent to a criminal attack is the criminal’s fear that the potential victim is armed and prepared to defend themselves. Courts have ruled that there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals, which means that police have no duty to protect the individual citizen. (http://www. guncite. com, 2004)It is not very likely of being attacked when somebody is armed.
Criminal’s fear armed citizens because of their right to protect themselves. Victims who used guns for protection were a lot less likely either to be attacked or injured than victims who responded in any other way. According to the U. S.
Justice Department victimization studies, an average citizen that uses arms or some sort of self-protection stands not just a greater chance of avoiding injury than the criminal, but also your chances of getting in trouble for using the arms on an un-armed criminal. The police force went on strike in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and during this time the crime rate extremely decreased because terrified citizens armed themselves and protected their homes and businesses. Criminals did not want to face citizens that were armed protecting their own property with the same force the criminals used to steal it. (Zimring, pg 33, 1995)Ownership of handguns stops thousands of victim injuries and deaths that would not have been avoidable given the advantages that criminals have over unarmed citizens. In 1980, between 1,500-3,000 felons were legally killed by armed civilians as self-defense and about another 8,700-16,600 criminals were wounded under the same circumstances, which mean it was legal. If this information is accurate, then civilians kill and injure by far a lot more felons annually than police officers do.
Everyone knows that police officers are trained to ask questions first and shoot later, but people