Tran 1

Janet Tran Mrs. Anthony English 181-2 March 6, 2013 A Closer Look on Gun Laws Guns: a privilege, or a right? With the rising gun crimes, the controversy of gun control laws faces arguments on both sides that question whether gun control laws benefit or hinder the United States. The warring sides argue over the dangers involved with guns along with the benefits of guns and how gun control laws only make matters worse. Despite any counter-arguments, more reasons suggest that the United States government should not institute stricter gun control laws in America. Most importantly, gun control laws endanger the lives of innocent American citizens. The institution of gun laws may decrease the number of guns carried in America, but only serves to take the guns out of the hands of innocent people. As much as the government does not want to believe it, an illegal gun market shall always counter their efforts to eradicate guns. With enough financial incentive, any unregulated market will find a way to obtain illegal items such as guns. So if the criminals can still find a means of getting guns, these laws only prove to restrict honest gun collectors (Wright) and make them targets for gun-toting criminals. Branching off from that subject, the elimination of guns does not lead to the elimination of violence associated with guns. A person does not decide to murder someone just because they happen to have a gun lying around. The criminal intent drives people to kill, and they will find any means to achieve them, whether it involves guns or not. Since most peoples concern with guns roots from the violence associated wit h them, many often compare America to Australia and the United Kingdom since these two countries have instituted anti-gun measures which have seemingly testified successful in minimizing crime rates. The flaw in their reasoning, however, lies in the fact that both of these countries had dramatically lower murder rates than the United States before they instituted

Tran 2
draconian anti-gun measures (Wright). On a different note, Switzerland requires every adult male to keep an army-issued rifle in his home. Interestingly enough, Switzerland has one of the worlds lowest crime rates (Kenny). Many say that the Swiss can pull this off because theyre Swiss (Williamsen), meaning that their tolerance and low crime rates originate from their national character as a country, not because of some gun restriction. Therefore, the problem does not lie with the existence of guns, but rather the violent intent of America as a nation. This point only confirms that the violence associated with guns is a reflection of our [Americas] culture, not guns (Williamsen). Also, Guns provide a selfdefense for the citizens of America. Mass gun shootings occur mostly at schools or malls because the shooter knows that most likely no one in those places will have a gun to retaliate and shoot them. Studies show that if a criminal knows that any given person might hold a concealed gun, the crime and murder rates will exponentially decrease (Thompson). Guns, in the end, actually help keep citizens safe contrary to popular belief, and unnecessary restrictions on them will only place the innocent in the line of danger. Furthermore, Gun control leads to a more socialistic or communistic society. These laws allow the government even more power over the citizens and ultimately lead the nation to morph into the type of government in which many people suffer in more ways than one. Many occurrences in history regarding the restriction or banning of firearms have led many governmental bodies to take a tyrannical turn for the worst. Russia, Germany, and China model prime examples of these occurrences. Russia had an order for all people but Communist Party members to surrender all sabers, firearms, and ammunitions (Kenny) which led to the deaths of millions of people found violating this law. Germany, prior to World War II , had issued a similar surrender of all guns, leaving only the reliable worthy enough to have a permit in their possession in fear of revolt (Kenny). China had had a gun prohibition for a long time when chairman Mao Tse-tung came into power. Believing that power came from the barrels of guns, he collected the guns so that the government possessed the firepower rather than the citizens (Kenny). This sounds similar to the

Tran 3
situation occurring here in America currently. The prohibition of guns in China though, led to millions of defenseless people dying needlessly from increased crime. The importance of these examples stems from the fact that all of these governments had communist ideals that ultimately led to the misfortune of their people. It seems very probable that America could fall to this pattern of tyranny and spread feelings of resent towards the government. Branching off from that subject, the restriction of gun laws also violates and strays away from what the nation founded its ideals upon. Many arguments focusing on the Constitution and the right to bear arms state that the Second Amendment was passed to protect sport shooting, or hunting (Cooke). Since the First Amendment does not only exist to protect Shakespeare or the Beatles (Cooke) , then this argument about the Second Amendment negates itself. The founders of America created this nation from the desire to escape the oppression that these gun control laws bring. If the nation turns around and marches right back into that oppression, the efforts to form this nation have gone to waste. Guns unite people together and Guns in possession of the people is the symbol of democracy (Cooke), or one of the symbols, at least, that builds America into the great country people know today. Finally, gun control laws contribute to a failing economy. Everyone knows that economic situation in America cannot hold out for much longer if it keeps going downhill. Though it may not seem like it, guns actually help the economy. No one realizes the impact that guns have on the economy. Concealed weapons contribute to a reduction in violent crime which allows for an economic gain of 6.6 billion, compared to an economic loss of 417 million due to increase in property crimes (Thompson). The calculated net gain still amounts to 6.2 billion dollars, which no one can really complain about. The savings here will disappear if the stricter gun control laws get approved by the government. In addition, over the past few years, due to increasing paranoia and a possibly needless concern for safety, many citizens have bought a gun. The majority of people assume that when someone buys a gun, they intend to use it for the purpose of going out and shooting someone when really,

Tran 4
most people buy guns as a method of self defense and mental security. A number of women have actually bought a gun contrary to the belief that women usually do not carry a gun. According to statistics, a woman carrying a gun has a much greater deterrent effect on crime than does a man (Thompson). If the stricter laws makes it harder for women and all alike to obtain a gun, then the obvious effect of dropping gun sales will ensue. Since gun sales have recently gone up, the sputter in the flow of sales will put a big dent in the market and surely cause the market to drop to a new low. The government profits from the any taxes that they put on the sale of guns, the permits for guns, and the license for guns. The profit from these numerous sources will drop or even disappear if the government institutes these new gun laws. As a result, the government will have no choice but to tax other items that do not need taxing. With all the griping about taxes nowadays, no one wants any more needless taxes to patch up government financial issues and mistakes. These occurrences will only lead to a sense of resentment in the government disbanding the unity of America. This nation does not need more economical rips and government mistakes to tear it apart. These reasons support that the United States government should not institute stricter gun control laws in America. Citizens should wake up from their ignorance and spread the word to help America realize the harm these gun control laws bring. Not only do these gun control laws take guns out of the hands of good people, but they also put them into the hands of the people with ill intentions. Anyone who realizes this should rally and make their voice heard to prevent such destruction from happening.

Tran 5

Works Cited Cooke, Charles C.W. "The right to bear arms and popular sovereignty: they are inextricably linked." National Review 11 Feb. 2013: 20. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 23 Feb. 2013 Kenny, Jack. "Gun control or killer control? After shooting incidents in which multiple victims are killed, calls arise for gun control. But evidence tells us that guns control wanton killers, and without guns, deaths rise." The New American 8 Oct. 2012: 35+. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 23 Feb. 2013. Thompson, Sarah. "Gun Ownership Provides Effective Self-Defense." Guns and Violence. Ed. Laura K. Egendorf. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. Williamsen, Kart. "Beyond the gun-control debate: this reflection on the Virginia Tech massacre looks beyond the gun debate to the importance of cultural morality in reducing senseless crimes of violence." The New American 28 May 2007: 17+.Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 23 Feb. 2013. Wright, Stephen E. "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Anti-Gun Group Common

Tran 6
Sense Gun Laws and Real Common Sense."StephenEWright.com. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 23 Feb. 2013