Introduction
The right for carrying weapons is, perhaps, one of the most controversial issues on the civil agenda of the present-day United States (Vermick wet al. 2021). While there is a strong belief that the prohibition to carry weapons or use them for the purposes of self defense in some way induces safety among the residents of the United States, statistics shows that banning armed weapons from use does not solve the problem.
More to the point, banning firearms from use seems to conflict with the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution. Most importantly, prohibiting guns from use does not affect the outbursts of violence within the country; while the given law serves as a means to hush down the problem without actually considering the factors that have caused it.
Thesis Statement
Gun regulation is a consistent source of debate within the United States, with advocates on either side unwilling to budge in their position; but regulation is merely treating the symptoms of the real issue.
Argument 1
The proponents of the law banning guns often mention the fact that the prohibition of firearms from being used by average citizens reduces crime rates in the state, as it will be displayed later. However, what most of the people providing the given argument forget is the fact that anti-gun laws do not, in fact, contribute to making people less violent; instead, they merely increase the distance between the victim and the aggressor (Blocher 121).
Argument 2
When it comes to the discussion of weapons banning, one should also bring the following fact to people’s attention: state authorities are concerned with the safety of the U.S. citizens and the possibility of a trauma or an injury as a result of using an automatic gun. Therefore, when it comes to semiautomatic weapons, state authorities should consider providing people with the opportunity to use weapons in order to protect themselves.
Argument 3
Eventually, the resolution provided by the Supreme Court must be mentioned in defense of the use of firearms, no pun intended.
This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word “fraud” on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A “well-regulated militia”? if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn’t 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated. (Fareed para. 14; Burger para. 10)
The line drawn between an average citizen and the “well-regulated militia” (Casteen 210) should, therefore, be considered as another gap in the U.S. state law regarding firearms.
Counterargument
On a second thought, the current policy regarding gun control on the territory of the United States has a quite legitimate point. The current sanctions against firearms admittedly affect the rates of violent crime in a number of states.
Comparing the statistical data regarding the outbreaks of violence in different parts of the United States before and after the passing the law that prohibits carrying guns, one will inevitably find out that the number of armed robberies, as well as accidents related to gunshot wounds, have been reduced impressively from 780 to 490 per year (Kennesaw Police Department para. 1).
The statistics provided above shows in a very graphic way that, when having little to no access to firearms, people do not usually seek the means to obtain them and, therefore, do not use them in case of a conflict. As a result, the number of exchanges of fire between the people involved in organized crime, as well as the amount of instances of armed resistance to police and the injuries in cases of armed resistance, are brought down a few notches.
Rebuttal
While the statistics shown above is quite impressive, it should be mentioned that, along with the reduction of armed robberies, a steep rise in the use of cold weapons in robberies and rampages could be observed.
In addition, the fact that people are banned from carrying guns in most states of America does not prevent them from using firearms in public places: “With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns” (A Factual Look at Guns in America para. 4).
More to the point, the fact that some of the U.S. states, such as Georgia, introduced more liberal principles of bearing arms by passing the Mandatory Gun Law, the number of armed robberies dropped by nearly unbelievable 89% (Hamilton and Burch para. 7).
Despite the fact that the law obliges every single dweller of the city to carry a gun, not only is the crime rate within the city reduced impressively, but also a number of potential crimes have been prevented, according to the official statistics (Levine et al. 7). As the state’s official statistics show, compared to the rest of the cities in the county, Kennesaw maintains a relatively stable and very low crime rate, with only 576.7 crimes committed per year on average during 2002–2012 (Kennesaw Police Department para. 2)
When it comes to counterarguments against the use of firearms by ordinary citizens, the fact that the right to bear arms is guaranteed to the U.S. citizens by the Constitution is often overlooked. Indeed, according to the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the U.S. residents do have the right to own guns and use them – though, initially, the possession of firearms presupposed that they should be used for hunting purposes: “the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law” (IV. The English Bill of Rights and the Present Controversy [131]).
It is also remarkable that what initially was supposed to be “for their common Defence” was swiftly changed into “their Defence” right before the Second Amendment was to come into force; the given detail shows that the concept of personal defense was stretched beyond the idea of fighting for one’s right to live and embraced the idea of maintaining personal safety (Glanz and Annas 2360).
Therefore, it can be assumed that banning any kind of firearms in general and guns in particular does not solve the actual problem; to be more exact, laws against carrying guns do not address the problem that forces people to fend for themselves with the help of firearms; instead, these laws serve as a means to block the symptoms of the problem from taking place, instead of addressing the problem itself and attacking the factors that cause it (Cantor 506).
Indeed, taking a closer look at the problem of the use of guns, one will notice that, for the most part, people refer to high crime rates within the state to prove their point. Therefore, it is much more reasonable to consider making semiautomatic firearms use legal as a sensible compromise.
Works Cited
IV. The English Bill of Rights and the Present Controversy. n. d. Web.
Blocher, Joseph. “Firearm Localism.” Yale Law Journal 123.1 (2012), 121.
Burger, Warren. MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour Charlayne Hunter-Gault. 21 December 1991. Interview.
Cantor, Julie D. “Bracing for the Impact of Expanded Second Amendment Rights.” The New England Journal of Medicine 363.6 (2009), 506–508.
Casteen, John. “Ditching the Rubric on Gun Control.” Virginia Quarterly Review (2004): 210-221.
Hamilton, Jonathan and David Burch. Gun Ownership – It’s The Law In Kennesaw. n. d. Web.
Glanz, Leonard H. and George G. Annas. “Handguns, Health, and the Second Amendment.” The New England Journal of Medicine 360.22 (2009), 2360–2365.
Kennesaw Police Department. 4, January, 2013. Web.
Levine, Robert S. et al. “Firearms, Youth Homicide, and Public Health.” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 23.1 (2012), 7–19.
Vermick, Jon et al. “Changing the Constitutional Landscape for Firearms: the US Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment Decisions.” American Journal for Public Health 101.11 (2011), 2021–2026.