Need to Modify Gun Control Laws Is Timely Research Paper

Gun Control

Guns can be easily hidden by anybody carrying them: they are tools of choice for individuals who opt to use them for self-defense. Unfortunately, they are also the tool of choice for criminals. Since guns are easy for criminals to steal, guns are quickly obtainable in the black market. Almost all criminal offenses involving weapons are done with the use of illegal guns; this is a key concern in the United States these days. Although many people would like to believe that the government is doing something, the changes cannot be felt especially at such times when the shootings of innocent citizens are rampant. Some advocates of gun control believe that the absolute prohibition of guns is the best way to safeguard people (Lott 40). However, prohibiting guns cannot safeguard individuals. Since the laws are ineffective, the prohibition of guns would stop individuals from the effective means of self-defense, but will not fix the real issue relating to the gun owners.

In the U.S., millions of guns are used each year where innocent citizens and children are from gunfights. Even with such incidents, gun assemblies continue to thrive. With all these facts, it is obvious that some people such as Roger Rosenblatt, an author of TIME journal, would advocate for people in the United States to eradicate weapons and instead set up an alarm security system or contact the police. People like this have a thought that is more controlling than it is realistic. Simply, they want to walk the roads and imagine that the laws that will prohibit typical individuals from obtaining self-defense at a second's notice will reduce violence on the globe. Another gun activist says that having a gun at home is a lot more risky than not having a gun. There is even a scary figure from Aultman Medical center Doctor Eileen McCabe that says, "A gun kept in the house is 43 times more likely to murder someone known to the family than an attacker or an intruder" (Bruce & Clyde 48). So what does all this mean? It indicates that terrible things happen to innocent individuals. Pro-gun activists contend that individuals using weapons with the intention of harming others and should be penalized. However, individuals using weapons as law-abiding individuals should not be punished.

School shootings have been occurring at an increasing rate. Youngsters who are not lawfully able to obtain a gun have murdered many students and their instructors. The teenagers that committed the offenses took the weapons from parents or grandparents who lawfully acquired them. The laws could not prohibit that. Laws that can prohibit legal offenses like these are the ones, enabling school security officers to carry a gun, or even enabling chosen teachers who have undergone training to carry a gun. If there were teachers carrying, there would be no more teenagers coming in to kill their peers. A teenager would not commit the offense when he knows there are responsible grownups patiently waiting to counter-attack him with their own gun. The same goes for higher education institutions where currently learners and staff who have licenses cannot bring a gun on the gun free grounds of campuses (Lott 57). Unfortunately, for students, criminals do not adhere to the university rules or the laws regulating them. If the law were modified, that criminal would think twice before strolling on to a university if he realized there was a chance a college student or staff member could have a hidden weapon.

The constitution implies that all those who are qualified and responsible have a right to keep arms. It is time for the people screaming indignantly that "get all the weapons off the roads and out of the hands of everybody," to take a step backwards and allow us to erase they have designed relating to the holding of guns. In fact, the gun-control rules that Obama is clamoring for are the very rules that contributed to the deaths of various innocent victims in the U.S. (Carter 121). Had these victims been permitted and motivated to carry their own arms for self-defense, without doubt the death toll will potentially have been much less. However, this is the same tale in every single one of these mass shootings. The criminal knows he is coming into a "gun-free" area, and none of his targets will be able to shoot back. To this end, it is evident that weapons do not kill people; thus, gun ownership should not be controlled.

Florida passed a deadly forced law, "stand your ground," which permits people to "meet force with force" if they have reason to believe that they are in danger or being targeted by an assailant. Law experts in Florida have cited that crime rates in Florida have declined since the passing of the law. They believe that this law is the prime reason for the decline in crime rates. According to this law, Trayvon Martin had the right to own a gun and use it against Zimmerman because his life and safety were in danger because of the perceived threat by Zimmerman (Lott 78). Trayvon's life would have been protected under the "stand your ground" rule. This rule has reasonably expanded the concept of self-defense in Florida.

The U.S. constitution identifies the natural right of free individuals to serve as self-defenders. The Military consists of every able-bodied man and woman within the country. Moreover, each man and woman is identified as having the liability for: 1) be individually and effectively equipped, 2) be effectively qualified and experienced in the use of weapons, and 3) be predicted to protect themselves and others from attack when necessary. The government can never be held responsible for protecting its people; it has always been the individuals' responsibility to protect themselves and the government's responsibility to protect the right. As seen in all mass shootings, the government is not capable of defending the population from these types of attacks (Crooker 50). If the individuals do not protect themselves, then there is no security. All these gun-control rules do is prevent individuals from defending themselves. For this reason, we seriously need national leaders to announce any government gun-control rules to be canceled. The government should strongly announce to all the states that they would respect and safeguard the people's right and responsibility to protect themselves.

It would be easy to take the side of gun control advocates and imagine that everything about weapons was incorrect. However, that would be a very self-centered position. Unfortunately, some political figures have a way of taking this gun control discussion to a level on which it causes public distress. Before Florida permitted the buying of weapons to be legal, it had excellent laws against them. Politicians pressured that counties would become bullet towns with the passing of gun laws; people will eventually shoot one another over petty issues. Yet none of that has occurred, and there have been no revealed rises in gun assault since Texas' gun freedom rules have been approved. We must consider the number of rules the misdirected political figures have approved. Up to now, there are over twenty-thousand gun laws in the books (Bruce & Clyde 66).

People would believe that with gun rules like the "Gun-Free School Area Act of 1990" that violent school legal offenses would be reduced. On the contrary, a couple of years later the world was stunned by the "Columbine Massacre" in Jefferson Town, Colorado. The shooters in Columbine got the weapons from a legal gun shop. Yet, when those weapons were sold to them, one of those twenty-thousand gun rules were violated, and no one realized anything about it until it was too late. Violent and insane individuals do insane and violent things. It had occurred long before weapons were available: they still will. A criminal gang could walk into your home while studying and blow you away with a gun that they may be holding unlawfully. Nevertheless, as a law-abiding resident should you not have a right to safeguard yourself? Most likely, if guns were legal across the country, perhaps not everyone would want one, and this is reasonable. People often get adverse ideas about guns from news and movies (Lott 90).

The prohibition of weapons in the U.S. is an unlawful act and degrades the values that established our united country. They not only perform an important part in the lives of many individuals, but also are useful resources, fun to use, and can secure individuals from harm. The founding fathers of the country desired citizens to own guns to safeguard themselves from the government. Today, they would be embarrassed at the government's present misuse, and overall neglect of the constitution of the United States. Many individuals claim that guns murder people; this is incorrect. Guns, in the hands of irresponsible individuals, have the potential to kill individuals, just as anything else.

The U.S. constitution declares "The Right to Keep and Own Arms." This statement seems like a strong phrase. There is…