← Moral Virtue or Happiness According to Aristotle33 People Are Killed with Guns Every Day in America →

Criminals Don’t Obey Gun Control Laws



Against Gun Control Essay Introduction

Resolving an issue of gun violence in an unstable political situation in the USA requires an immediate and painless solution. Every American wants to be secure at his/her own home and walk the city streets safely without fear of being killed. All citizens want their fundamental Constitutional rights to be protected and safeguarded against the destruction of civil liberties. Supporters of gun rights and legislators have been discussing gun control for many years.

Get a Price Quote
Title of your paper
Type of assignment Writer level
Spacing Timeframes
Currency Pages
First order only:

Moreover, the social and political debates over its appropriateness have been extremely polarized. Although the thorough surveys help to measure numerous aspects of the gun control issue, the accuracy and quality of these researches depend on the truthful answers of respondents, which can be controversial and incriminatory. The authorities should finally stop control since offenders never obey laws. Such ones will always own and carry firearms regardless of the strict legislation. Therefore, ordinary Americans should have the right to possess firearms for their protection; otherwise, the prohibition will crush their Constitutional rights.

Against Gun Control Essay Thesis Statement

No one can crush the Constitutional right of Americans to defend themselves.

Guns Don’t Kill, People Do

The American government continues to infringe on citizens’ inalienable right to possess guns. Since today’s administration has taken office, the pro-gun individuals have been under constant attacks. Critics of severe control laws point to the fact that all people have the right to bear arms. This control violates rights guaranteed by the supreme law. The majority believe that they should decide on their own how to better defend property, families, and themselves. Millions of American citizens have guns at home and feel more safe and comfortable because of them.

Wellford, Pepper, and Petrie (2004) find no trustworthy evidence that a law regulating the human right to carry firearms reduce or increase criminal acts. Those, who criticize gun laws, claim that severe control will prevent people from protecting themselves in a lawful way. The rights of hunters, shooters, and individuals, who use guns for recreational purposes, are also supported. People often describe firearms as a symbol of freedom, sports equipment, and the huge industry that contributes to the national economy in a legal way (Springwood, 2007).

Therefore, the authorities should not infringe on human rights to bear a weapon. They should take into account the opinions of gun rights supporters. Nowadays, many reputable organizations seek to safeguard the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. The nonprofit National Rifle Association views gun control threats as a step towards the confiscation of firearms (Melzer, 2012).

  • 100% Confidentiality Guarantee
  • MBA and Ph.D. Writers
  • 24/7 Support Chat
  • Any Difficulty Level
  • Flexible Discount Program
  • Free Revision

A constitutional provision like the Second Amendment provides no legal basis for the authorities to infringe on the American right to bear and keep arms. Several state Constitutions can delegate special powers to the state government; while the Supreme Law delegates no powers regarding gun control to the Union Government. The legitimate basis on which every state can control firearms occurs in those cases, in which it conflicts with property rights. There is a fundamental principal, according to which the managers or owners of real property have the right to regulate and check the one entering their premises.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution Ensures the Humans Can Use Weapons

It is often argued that American citizens want to reword the Second Amendment and confiscate guns from ordinary people. The Supreme Court justice also strives to radically change it in a way that will result in massive gun confiscation. A retired justice John Stevens, who supports the limitation of individual gun rights, offers to rewrite the Second Amendment and allow only the militia to possess arms. Shootings in Connecticut in 2012 sparked the human anti-gun sentiments and made him more unswerving in the standpoint regarding gun ownership. The justice associate underscores that only militia and not ordinary people have a right to possess firearms.

Consequently, in order to make their preference a reality, Stevens advises Americans to rewrite the nation’s fundamental law. Firearm enthusiasts consider an attack on gun ownership as an attack on their freedom. They fiercely defend the interpretation of the Second Amendment and do not let somebody violate their Constitutional rights (Doeden, 2011). If the authors of amendments could anticipate fierce debates, they might have formulated the amendment in different ways. The reason is that disputes and controversies have been centered on the way the authors have phrased them.

No One Can Deny or Ignore the Supreme Law Guarantee

The nation should accept the fact that the Second Amendment ensures the humans can use weapons. It is the most common law that gun advocates usually cite in defense of their arguments. Moreover, it includes a fundamental statement that no one should infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The main argument made by gun control critics is that the right to possess guns is personal freedom. The supreme law guarantees it. No one can deny or ignore it. If the well-regulated state militia was the National Guard, the Second Amendment would still safeguard the Americans’ right to use firearms. Parnell (2009) mentions that in the United States guns applied in criminal acts are regarded as legal firearms. The amendment provides every citizen with a right to own guns. It guarantees complete protection in the case of danger. People are free of any federal regulations. Individualists assert the militia clause of the amendment had been never intended to restrict a citizens’ right to carry arms.

Client's review

5.0

"I ordered a cheap essay on this website. Guys, I was so surprised the essay was written better than I thought it'd be."

Sara J. reviewed EliteWritings on August 15, 2018, via SiteJabberClick to see the original review on an external website.

American citizens cannot always rely on police officers and their protection. In many cases, they arrive too late, when the damage has been done. The recent murder of the African-American young man Michael Brown in the police hands significantly has infuriated the public. The militant protests and riots that swept most of the states were an expected response. In order to manage with police violence, citizens should continue to fight against their arbitrariness on a constant basis. They should establish an effective alternative institution to resolve the challenges fairly. Nobody can rely on the court system if the police brutality continues to exist. As a part of the system, it is responsible for violence committed against ordinary Americans.

Since individuals cannot always depend on police departments to protect them, they should rely only on themselves. Americans affected should change the way the state monopoly influences on the force application. They should establish themselves as an alternative legitimate power. Unfortunately, anti-gun policymakers at all governmental levels nowadays attempt to disarm citizens and restrict their access to weapons for personal defense. It is necessary to get used to the fact that the police officers cannot always respond to all urgent cases promptly. Offenders continue to target law-abiding citizens, who have no means to protect themselves.

Criminals Can Continue to Hurt Others Without Legally Owning Guns

Despite the severe laws, criminals will continue to keep and bear firearms as well as apply them to innocent individuals. By their very nature, lawbreakers will continue to violate new legislation, carry guns, and commit crimes much easier when they recognize that their victims are unarmed. One can compare today’s situation to the life of the disarmed African-Americans many years ago. Innocent citizens become victims when they cannot protect themselves because of strict legislation. There is no doubt that an unarmed person has a minor chance to survive against an armed man.

The laws that restrict gun ownership and various types of firearms hurt only those who precisely follow them. No one should attack law-abiding citizens advocating for gun rights. The American nation continues to search for a perfect solution to the issue of violence. The streets have already become a battleground, where women can be beaten and raped, and old people can be attacked. It may happen just because of their social security checks. It is possible to diminish the crime rate when Americans effectively fight back lawbreakers. Many people buy guns and use them for their self-defense. No one should attack the law-abiding individuals because of their pro-gun rights position. Moreover, society cannot ignore the damage caused by criminals. Therefore, it must take immediate action to stop it. However, the elimination of legal gun ownership will never address the issue completely. It will simply disarm Americans who require firearms for their self-defense.

The Strict Legislation Will Only Restrict Law-abiding Americans

Strict gun control cannot stop violence and brutality since violent men do not need guns to be hostile. Taking firearms away from angry individuals will never make them less aggressive. Instead, it can make them more violent and unpredictable. Taking a gun away from a potential offender does not mean that he/she will not find another way to kill, rob or hurt those around as well smuggle and produce the firearm to own advantage. Moreover, gun control does not effectively work because of the past experience that repeatedly has demonstrated a failure. The only thing that strict gun legislation and constant control can do is to make it harder for law-abiding Americans to get guns. Once the government outlaws something, wrongdoers immediately get it. Therefore, gun control initiatives will never reach success and recognition.

Against Gun Control Essay Conclusion

Legitimization of gun possession does little to prevent offenders from getting firearms. The strict legislation will only restrict Americans, who obey laws and use guns for their self-defense or another legal purpose. Law-abiding people have the right to defend themselves, their families, and property. No one can crush that Constitutional right. All citizens should work together to decrease crimes in the USA. However, one has to realistically look at the issue and develop effective plans. It is evident that gun control legislation is not effective and realistic in diminishing offenses. Therefore, individuals must direct their efforts towards controlling criminal acts and not eliminating legal gun ownership.

More About Persuasive Essay Writing

  1. What is the purpose of a persuasive essay?
  2. How to write a persuasive essay?
  3. What persuasive essay topics were good in 2016?
  4. Why buy a persuasive essay is a good idea?
  5. How to choose good persuasive essay topics in 2020?

Free Persuasive Essay Examples from Elite Essay Writers

Related essays

  1. 33 People Are Killed with Guns Every Day in America
  2. Why Abortion Should Be Legal?
  3. Moral Virtue or Happiness According to Aristotle
  4. The Hope [Movie about Faith in God]
×
Enter discount code "20off" and get 20% discount for your first order. Limited Time offer! Order Now
X