Gun Control

“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin (11 November 1755).

Since the late seventeen-hundreds, the legal American citizen has had their right to keep and bear arms addressed by the Second Amendment of The United States Constitution. In that time, owning a gun was part of the key to winning a long fought war to lead our country to freedom. Now, the gun violence is not just for the protection of our country, but is stood to be a downfall. America is faced with gun violence on the streets every day, killings thousands each year. Politicians rally for some change, for some protection, otherwise known as gun control. Gun control is a heated debate, and has been for many years. Stated best by Earl R. Kruschke in the reference book, “Gun Control,” “If there is one point in the gun control debate about which opponents are most likely to agree, it is this: There is too much violent crime in the United States, and guns too often are involved in such crimes.” What lies within the term gun control is not just guns or people or crime, but several issues that each individual has their opinion to. From rights to race and education to safety, there are so many factors that lead to the question, ‘would gun control save lives?’ Gun control is meant to prevent those for whom owning a gun poses likely danger, such as criminals and the mentally-ill. But, who are the laws truly affecting and are they saving any lives? Gun control will not save lives, as viewed in the segments of your rights, the laws being discussed, the crime effectiveness, and society.

The political aspects of gun control are viewed from your rights and prejudice. The Second Amendment states-that, “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.”

American’s have their constitutional right to own guns, but when faced with the problem of gun violence, all rights aside, would stricter laws and legalizing effectively save lives? The argument of more laws is in circulation all over the country, but the main one is the questioning of legalizing of large capacity magazines. Author Stephen E. Wright of “Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives” argues, “it is what is in the heart of a mass murderer, not what is in their hand, that determines their lethality.” Banning high-capacity magazines is the most arguable law in the making. Large capacity magazines are usually what is found in, for example, AK-47’s. The problem is, these magazines can easily be manipulated. When holding thirty rounds, someone can easily double it, and then double it again. This is where the protest come in. A hundred and twenty rounds firing one after another is why they should be banned, making it easy for mass murders. Opponents of this law, the ones who feel large capacity magazines should be banned, explain how firearms containing a larger magazine can somehow enable murderers to kill large numbers of victims. Statistics presented by Smartgunlaws.org, 135% more people are shot leading to 57% more deaths. I believe these statistics demonstrate the shots fired from assault weapons, which is different from the large capacity magazines and should be separated into their own category. During the Columbine massacre, “Eric Harris had only 10-round magazines for his 9mm” normal pump shotgun, Wright writes. The magazine was easily interchangeable, averaging him taking about two seconds in between each magazine. These types of magazines have been used in every recent mass shooting. Because of this, high capacity magazines seem like such powerful, violent objects that lead to blood in the streets, but the reality of it is, what is the difference between a madman walking into a school or business place with a handgun and without a large magazine holding 10 rounds, or an AK-47 with a large magazine holding 10 rounds? They both do the same damage, not depending on the magazine itself or the gun, but the fact that someone had the intention of Killing. Ontheissues.org explains how due to, “the Newtown, Connecticut shootings in December 2012 reignited the debate on gun regulation. On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza, 20, fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members in a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Several bills were proposed in the 2013 Congressional session: banning the sale of semi-automatic firearms, and restricting large-capacity magazines.” Quoted by Stephen Wright, “it does not take a specific type of weapon or a certain number of rounds to commit a mass murder. It takes a madman and a contained group of victims with no ability to defend themselves.” Large capacity magazines should not be banned and many feel that banning large capacity magazines and/or assault weapons is infringing upon the rights of the legal American citizen, but also a magazine limit of 10 would be too low for personal activities such as competitive shooting and hunting. By doing so, it limits a law-abiding person what he/she wants to do and goes against their constitutional rights.

Having a gun for self defense, for protection of your life, home and family, is not a bad choice to make. Many argue how self defense is used every day from robberies, home invasions, to attempted murder. Gun are an effective means of self defense. As part of the Second Amendment, the right to own a gun is allowing the right to self defense. According to Capitalism Magazine, “the moral sanction for why man has the right to own firearms is the right to self-defense. Why? Because a man who possesses the right to defend his life must have the right to possess the means for defending that life: weapons.” Stating, Someone who has the right to defend their life should also have the right to own a gun (weapon) to defend that life with. Self defense is said to be an excuse for the most part. The NRA estimated that more than two million times a year firearms are used for protection of one’s life or the lives of others. Statistically self defense is used quite often throughout a year, however, some prove otherwise. Author Steve Rendall of Fair.org reports that in 1992 there were a little less than six million bugalraries and only in 845,000 cases were guns used as protection. Proving, self defense was not a common claim, in the year 1992, at least. According to people-press.org, more people (total) say owning a gun protects you more than it does putting people’s safety at risk. Also in Opposing Viewpoints: Gun Control, “Guns Are Not an Effective