Gun control restriction laws have been the center of debate in the US for a long time. Millions of Americans want the laws to be enforced, while others do not want any gun control measures. Recent research shows that 22% of Americans, of which 35% are men and 12% are women own one or more guns (Van Sparrentak et al., 2018). The possession of firearms by Americans can be attributed to the American Revolution and the Second Amendment, giving Americans the right to possess weapons. Most people advocating for gun control argue that the Second Amendment was meant for the militias, that more guns translate into more homicides, and that gun controls have always existed and are supported by most Americans. Moreover, they argue that gun control laws would help keep guns out of the hands of those who do not deserve them, including the youths and criminals (Ridder, 2014). However, this paper argues against gun control since Americans should be allowed to own and keep guns with them.
First, gun control restrictions are an attack on the Second Amendment, providing people the right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment stipulates that under no circumstance should the right to own a firearm infringe (The Financial World, 2016). Besides, the law has been affirmed by the Supreme Court to be for self-defense against violence or any form of tyranny. Therefore, gun control laws would deny Americans a sense of safety and violate their rights.
Secondly, gun control laws violate peoples’ right to privacy. Such laws include background checks and micro-stamping. The laws require the government to keep personal data on gun owners, including addresses, names, mental health conditions, and criminal records in their databases (Ridder, 2014). Maintaining personal information about gun owners amounts to surveillance, which is a violation of personal privacy.
Thirdly, gun restricting laws will not ban criminals from acquiring guns since criminals will always find ways of acquiring firearms. In Chicago, for instance, more than 390 murders in 2014 could not be stopped even after the state had banned gun shops (Ross, 2017). This control only takes guns away from law-abiding citizens, therefore, threatening their security by exposing them to the extremes of losing their lives in criminals’ hands.
Lastly, gun perpetrated violent crimes decrease when people possess or carry guns legally. Since the 1990s, the right to carry gun laws have been on the increase, and at the same time, gun-related crimes have been on the decrease (Ridder, 2014). The decrease in gun-related crime rates can be attributed to people having a greater sense of responsibility, which comes with the high levels of sensitization on the legal requirements for owning a firearm. Moreover, criminals prefer not to attack an individual having a gun (Van Sparrentak et al., 2018).
In conclusion, the ownership of guns should not be restricted to solve crimes in the US. On the other hand, education about guns and their use should be increased since guns do not kill, but people do. The education about gun use and the purpose of why laws, such as the Second Amendment, were passed is needed to stop gun perpetrated massacres and not gun control laws.
Ridder, K. (2014). Gun control pros and cons: 3 points on both sides of debate. Newsmax. https://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/gun-control-pros-and-cons/2014/09/28/id/597212/
Ross, S. M. (2017). Introductory statistics. Academic Press.
The Financial World. (2016). 10 arguments for and against gun control. The Financial World. https://www.thefinancialword.com/10-arguments-for-and-against-gun-control//
Van Sparrentak, M., Chang, T., Miller, A. L., Nichols, L. P., & Sonneville, K. R. (2018). Youth opinions about guns and gun control in the United States. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(9), 884-886.