Surname

To:

From:

 

Re: Gun Control/Reform

To whom this may concern

 

It is notable that the United States of America is one of the few nations that allow its citizens to purchase and own guns. The right to gun ownership is funded on the second amendment of the United States constitution. I would like to address this issue at length, identifying the major issues that both proponents and opponents of this right may argue in their favor. I would like to begin hereby by noting that a militia is defined as “the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service” (Gold 123). There have been conflicting interpretations to the real meaning of a militia, but the state confers that the constitution implies that it is any general citizen of the United States of America. The need for gun ownership is basic because of the necessity to protect oneself. This paper refutes this claim, as it does not represent the full picture. Most of the crimes perpetrated in the United States entail the use of lethal weapons; this makes it hard for any defenseless person to stand a chance.

I strongly believe that gun control laws should not be changed because of the continual rise in homicides and attacks with the use of lethal firearms. Restricting gun ownership would be in contravention with the great American culture. I also would like to note that the history of America and its character is deeply shaped by the people’s early experiences with armed weaponry. History shows that even in the past, life would have a bit difficult without the use of guns. The guns were used for the protection against marauding bandits, survival means such as hunting and even for sporting activities. History shows that in the past when there were no gun laws, the citizens were at ease with gun ownership and handling.

It is only after the modern society introduced the gun laws and campaigned against gun ownership that the stigma against gun ownership was created. The stigma associated with gun ownership is the one mostly blamed for the exponential rise in gun related crimes in the United States of America. The stigma impeded the free and social ownership and interaction with guns. This made young lack the basic knowledge about guns and their responsible use. The general notion is that guns are evil and cannot be used for constructive purposes. The idea that guns are only tools of violent crime leads to their increased use in violent crime.

The fact that most of the violent crimes that occur in America entail the use of guns is undeniable. However, gun ownership cannot be blamed for the increase in criminal activities. Crime is an aspect of morality and cannot be blamed on an inanimate object such as the gun. If a person intended to commit a crime, he would use any tool that is at its disposal to perpetrate the criminal activity, be it a knife, baseball bat or anything that could be used as a weapon. The increased instances of gun violence should therefore be blamed on the moral decadence of the society and not merely on gun ownership (Spitzer 257).

The recent increase in gun related crime should even more support the need for gun ownership. This gives the essence for people to own guns so that they can protect themselves. Self-defense is one of the basic reasons that the government should put a hold on the recent increase on gun laws that hinder the public from owning guns. Due to the recent increase in violent crime, that involves the use of guns, protective substances such as alarms, guard dogs, and baseball bats have been rendered useless against the armed felons. This makes the gun the most effective tool for defensive purposed in the household setting (Squires 205).

The state police do not have the capacity to protect every citizen from criminal attack or threat to ones life. This makes it important for every citizen to have first the capacity to defend oneself first and secondly with the assistance of the police officers whenever possible. The responsibility of ones own security lies on the sole effort of the individual. The state cannot neglect the responsibility of protecting the citizen’s right to defend them from threat aimed at their lives. It is believed that grave violent crimes such as genocides cannot occur to an armed populace.

The lack of defensive strategies leads to the people being enslaved to the armed felons. History shows that most of the past atrocities were committed to an unarmed populace who had nothing to defend themselves against the violent attacks. The holocaust evidenced in Europe and the second world war that led to the loss of the most number of lives ever documented are known to have occurred after the people had been disarmed by the government. It can be argued that such atrocities would not have been as grave as they ended up being had the populace been armed efficiently to defend themselves against such.

The right to defend oneself against any form of aggression is one of the most fundamental rights for humanity. Gun ownership should be defended on all aspect if the human race is to exist without fear, this should however, be coupled with the knowledge on its proper use and useful knowledge. Whenever more people own guns and are able to defend themselves against attack, then crime is bound to decrease, as it is impossible to rob an armed person. The defense against crime with a gun does not necessarily entail shooting; the knowledge that a certain individual is armed and skilled on the use of a gun will deter most from attempting to rob the person (Lott 331).

The general perception that banning the use and ownership of guns would curtail the use of such is unfounded. There is clear evidence that the banning of certain substances by the state did curtail their ownership and use by the individuals. A good example is the state’s establishment of the Prohibition Act of 1920. The government had realized the increased use and abuse of alcohol and alcoholic products. At that time, the society had indulged in the abuse of alcohol at the expense of family responsibilities and work. The state therefore proceeded to ban the use of alcohol in an effort of curtailing its use. This however, did very little to curb the use and abuse of alcohol by the citizens.

Actually, it ended up making alcohol more popular and people indulged in it even more. Businesspersons smuggled alcohol and sold it illegally making them even richer. The abolishment of the act together with the proper education of the people on its responsible use enabled the people to take alcohol more responsibly. The banning of illegal drugs does not curtail the use of the same. Records indicate the constant increase on the abuse of the same drugs that have been rendered illegal. This proves that the banning of the ownership of guns or the establishment of stricter bun rules would not curtail the abuse of such weaponry.

Banning of guns would only expose the innocent persons to all the increasing evils and make them more vulnerable. This is because it entails taking guns way from the honest and more morally upright citizens and thereby giving an upper hand to the criminals who do not give regard to the law. Criminals do not follow the law and would retain guns irrespective of the set laws. Banning guns would also hinder the people from enjoying sporting activities such as sport hunting and armory (Magoon 85).

In conclusion, we see that the banning of gun ownership would not do much to stem the increasing incidents of violent crime. The most appropriate action towards this would be to allow the people to have the ability defend them against any form of attack. It is a clear fact that the government does not have the necessary recourses to protect its citizens against violence. This makes the citizens responsible for their own safety. The protection of the second amendment therefore remains to the basic purpose of the national rifle association. The association supports gun ownership coupled with the proper education and imparting of skills pertaining to the use of guns. Another way of curtailing the rising crime would be reestablishing the moral standards of the communities. Parents and guardians ought to teach children on the value of human life and dignity.

Thank you for your time.

 

Works Cited

Gold, Susan. Gun Control. Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish, 2004. Print.

Lott, John. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Print.

Magoon, Kekla. Gun Control. Trenton, NJ: ABDO Group, 2007. Print.

Spitzer, Robert. Gun control: a documentary and reference guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2009. Print.

Squires, Peter. Gun culture or gun control: firearms, violence and society. New York, NY: Routledge, 2000. Print