Grispain 1

Joane S Grispain ENC 1102 Ms Carlene Harwood 21 February 2012 Gun Control The issue of gun control has generated political and social debate about the availability and restriction of firearms in the country. In United States politics, gun control has been one of the controversial issues. Several surveys and opinion polls have shown that majority of the citizens believe the constitutional right to own a gun and some do not support gun control and argue that gun control laws should be strictly enforced. Gun control laws are laws that are used to decide whether citizens should own guns or not .A control or restriction is important to ensure guns are owned by the right people and not criminals. People have different views about gun control. Some people do not support gun control because of its impact on the society and individual. Carrying concealed guns exposes victims to dangers. They are more likely to be shot by the criminals and are not likely to defend themselves as criminals surprise them. On the other hand, carrying concealed guns helps reduce crime rate in the country and citizens should be allowed to carry guns. Thesis statement: Allowing citizens to carry concealed guns is both beneficial to them, the public and the country in general as it protects them against criminal activities and reduces crime rate. Thus, citizens should carry concealed guns as the benefits outweigh the costs. The paper examines debate on gun control and supports carrying of guns among citizens (Streissburg , 2001).

Grispain 2 The opponents of gun control support restrictions of guns in the country because of various reasons. First, the opponents support prohibition of guns as concealed handguns are not effective methods of self defense. A person carrying a concealed gun for self defense is more likely to be shot during an assault than a victim who has no gun. Victims having guns are 4.5 times likely to be shot in an assault than victims without guns as they are not able to use concealed guns as attackers overpower them and also surprise them. In addition, the opponents argue that shall issue laws have led to increase in rate of crime in the society. For example, they have led to an increase in rape, robbery and violent crimes. The opponents insists that carrying a concealed weapon does not help reduce the rate of crime in the society because the gun owners misuse their guns and are involved in criminal activities. Most of the adults are likely to misuses their guns when they are intoxicated and afraid. In addition, many people are not trained on conflict resolutions and hence misuse their weapons when trying to resolve conflicts. A large number of adults carrying concealed weapons are not adequately trained. Some states do not provide hands on training to adults before allowing them to own a gun and this threatens the safety of other citizens. Public safety should be left to the law enforcers as they are well trained and are less likely to shoot innocent citizens (Streissburg , 2001). Moreover, the opponents claim that the ability to carry concealed guns is not a right provided by the United States constitution. The second amendment allows citizens to bear arms for universal military responsibilities and regulated militia, but not for personal use like protection. Thus, citizens have no right to carry weapons for self defense or protection. Carrying a gun increases the likelihood of a confrontation turning fatal and hence causes harm to the victim. Further, the opponents of gun control believe that concealed guns

Grispain 3 increase the chances of unintended shootings in public places. This increases the number of people who are shot unintentionally in US each day. Moreover, the opponents of gun control claim that the society will not become safer by restricting citizens from owning guns. They argue that guns do not kill people, but people kill people. Moreover, the opponents claim that in most cases involving guns, the gun used is not legally bought and register. The weapons used to commit crime are either smuggled or stolen from registered owners. Thus, prohibiting gun ownership will not help reduce the rate of crime in the society as people will be able to commit crime using weapons that are not smuggled (Streissburg , 2001). However, the arguments presented by the opponents are not valid and citizens should be permitted to carry guns. The proponents argue that United States citizens have the right to own guns. The United States constitution has granted citizens a right to own guns. The second amendment to the United States constitution protects the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This amendment has given the citizens a right to own guns. Prohibiting ownership of guns in the country violates the second amendment and the rights of the citizens (Wuest, 2010). Further, prohibiting gun ownership will make citizens vulnerable to crimes in the society. This is because they will not be able to protect themselves from criminals. Allowing law abiding citizens to have guns reduces the rate of crime in the country as they are well equipped to protect themselves from criminals. Though the United States constitution allows citizens to bear and keep guns, there are other amendments that make it hard for citizens to own guns. The proponents argue that concealed weapons deter criminals from committing crimes. This is because criminals do not attack people who they

Grispain 4 know they are armed. The deterrent effect of carrying weapons benefits the individuals carrying concealed guns and the general public as criminals is not able to tell who is armed and who is not armed. According to a study carried out in 2000 by John Lott showed that ownership of guns helps reduce crime in the society. The study showed that states that had permitted concealed hand guns recorded a low rate of crime compared to stares that did not. The rate of homicides reduced by 8.5%, aggravated assaults reduced by 7% and rapes reduced by 5%. In addition, the rate of robberies reduced by 5%. The researcher claimed that states that did not permit concealed guns in 1992 could have recorded a low rate of crime if they permitted concealed guns in 1977. The states could have prevented 1570 murders, 4,177 rapes and 60,000 aggravated assaults. Also, the states could have prevented 12,000 robberies between 1977 and 1992.Other studies have also shown that permitting ownership of guns reduces crime. A national crime victimization survey data released in 1997 showed that robbery victims and assault victims who used guns to resist were less likely to be attacked by criminals and get injured than those who used other methods to protect themselves and those who did not resist (Doeden, 2011). The opponents of concealed guns argue that allowing people to bear arms increases the rate of crime as the owners are likely to commit crime. This is not true as most of the adults who are legally allowed to carry concealed guns are law abiding citizens and do not misuse their guns. Studies have shown that the general public is 5 times more likely to be arrested for committing violent crimes and 13.5 times more likely to be arrested for committing non violent crimes those adults who are permitted to carry guns. This is according to a report released by William Sturdevant and published on Texas concealed

Grispain 5 handgun association site. Hence, citizens should be allowed to carry hand guns as they are less likely to get involved in criminal activities (Lunger, 2002). Though the opponents claim carrying guns increases shooting in public places, I disagree with them as carrying concealed guns can help avoid public shootings. This is because citizens are able to help the victims. The 20th April shootings at columbine high school massacre and 17th April 2007 Virginia tech shooting could have been prevented and lives saved if the citizens had guns to defend the victims. States should permit citizens to carry concealed guns so as to reduce the rate of shootings in public places. Adult citizens should be provided with hands on training to prevent them from shooting innocent people during shoot outs. Also, they should not be allowed to use their guns when they are intoxicated or drug as this can lead to killing of innocent people. Imposing such laws will make carrying of guns more beneficial to the citizens and public. Lastly, concealed guns are non lethal methods of self defense most of the time. This is because criminals are likely to retreat when one draws a concealed gun to defend himself. This is contrast to the argument raised by the opponents. The opponents believe that concealed guns are harmful methods of self defense (Sturdevant, 2000). In conclusion, carrying concealed weapons helps reduce the rate of crime in the country by preventing criminals from attacking citizens. Though many people oppose carrying of concealed weapons, carrying concealed weapons helps reduce various types of crimes include rape, murder and violent crimes. States that have permitted citizens to carry concealed weapons have realized the benefits associated with it as they have recorded low rates of crimes. It has enabled citizens to protect themselves and stares should be encouraged to support laws that allow citizens to carry weapons (Streissburg , 2001).

Grispain 6

(Works Cited)

Grispain 7 Doeden, M.(2011).Gun Control: Preventing Violence Or Crushing Constitutional Rights?. Twenty-First Century Books Lunger,N.L.(2002).Big Bang:The Loud Debate Over. Twenty-First Century Books Streissburg ,T.(2001).Gun Control: The Pros and Cons. Enslow Publishers Sturdevant,W.E.(2000).The entire Texas population. Retrieved from http://concealedguns.procon.org/sourcefiles/sturdevant.pdf on 3/02/2012 Wuest,M.E.(2010).The Great American Gun Control Debate (Not!). House