Gunther, what if nature was taking over us? How would we adapt??????? What do YOU think would happen??????
Joey, What if you're wrong? What if there was a world where the church still ruled? what if we had no evidence towards evolution??????
Michael, What if there was 100% proof that there was a god? What would happen to society? Would there be complete chaos?!?!?!?!??!?!?!
Friday, January 7, 2011
We Should Have The Right to Bear Arms
Nate Hartman
SLCC Period 5
Doctor Sarah M. Zerwin, PhD
2 December 2010
Gun Control: Should We Have The Right to Bear Arms?
Anything could happen at any given moment. You could be in danger at all times. But how do you protect yourself? If someone breaks into your house and could potentially cause harm, what do you do? If you are too old or have injuries that make your mobility impaired, and have no way of protecting your property and/ or yourself and family, then a firearm will be your best decision when it comes to safety. Many debates, controversies, and arguments have occurred over an important issue: gun control. People take both sides on this heated controversial topic, but individuals should have the right to own guns for personal safety, protection of property, and for sport.
The generalization that “Guns have only one use: to kill.” (Bowman and Newton) appears to be the opinion of most of society, but is in fact inaccurate. Gun control supporters have two main arguments. First, increased gun control would save lives and reduce gun-related injuries. Secondly, gun control laws would prevent criminals from access to guns and help bring crime rates down. (Lunger). When Australia and England banned firearms, they saw an increase in crime. Criminals knew that they could attack people and homes easier and not be harmed by guns since no one had a firearm to protect themselves. (Faria, Jr., MD) and (Hartman). “‘ If you make guns illegal, only the people who don’t follow the law will have them.’” (Isikoff). It does not matter if you get rid of guns all together or make them extremely attainable, there will still be just as many crimes occurring. "Gun-rights supporters have their own vision of the way society should work. In that vision, guns play an important part in bolstering individual freedoms and protecting private citizens from both crime and governmental tyranny." They feel that guns can save lives and reduce crime. (Lunger). Creating greater gun control would have absolutely no effect on the number of crimes in the United States because people do not realize that a criminal can commit just as many crimes without a gun. If you think about it, common household items such as knives for cooking, axes for cutting wood, or baseball bats could easily be used to commit violent crimes. Of the deaths caused by guns, about 53% are suicides, homicides are about 43% (lawful and unlawful), and gun accidents are 0.7%. (Lunger). A person wanting to commit a crime will commit a crime with or without a gun. Nisbet says quickly, “A series of studies found that availability of guns has no affect on the robbery rates in large cities, but that it does appear to affect the kinds of targets robbed”. A study done by Drs. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in 1993 showed that "guns are used for self-defense as many as 2.3 million times each year." (Wilson). Also, in 1996, John Lott of University of Chicago studied FBI statistics and concluded that a reduction in crime seen over 15 years was due to relaxed gun laws. He thought that if criminals don't know who is carrying a gun or has one in their home, they may not be so quick to commit the crime. (Wilson). “Statistics alone cannot prove that government regulation of firearms results in less gun violence,” Bowman and Newton retort. (2). The Second Amendment to the Constitution even states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment doesn't give people guidance on how we should use our guns when they are not part of a militia. As the bumper sticker says "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." A gun by itself does not purposely kill. (Hartman). That said, people need the protection that a gun gives them; the Second Amendment states that we have the right to own a gun and use it for personal protection, and that the crime rates if we were to ban guns or lessen the amount of guns greatly would stay the exact same number.
Guns are used in several sports. If you take guns out of the picture, these sports would cease to exist. One of these sports is called clay pigeon shooting. Clay discs are propelled into the air by a launcher and the individual attempts to shoot the clay pigeon before it hits the ground. Clay pigeon shooting is an activity that many enjoy that provides shooting practice for another sporting activity: hunting. Since there were/are so many hunters, the government needed a way to contain the wildlife and keep the balance of the ecosystems. Around 1937, The Pittman-Robertson Act was placed, protecting animal populations. Before the law was passed, hunting was not regulated and many animal species were almost extinct due to over-hunting. The tax on guns and ammunition (about 150 million per year) is used to control the number of animals killed per year and to conserve their habitats. (Pittman-Robertson Act: Friend of The Hunter& Hunted) . If there weren’t any hunters in the United States, the numbers of certain animal species (Duck, Geese, Pheasant, and Deer) would greatly increase causing the food chain to go completely haywire. If their numbers increased it is likely that the animals would start becoming a nuisance to humans most likely due to their habitat being destroyed, that is, not protected, because of human encroachment on their habitat. (Hartman). The licenses that hunter’s have to purchase when they would like to hunt a specific animal, provides money to the state. An estimated 1.277 billion dollars in the year of 2002 was generated just from these licenses alone. (Pittman-Robertson Act: Friend of The Hunter & Hunted). Additionally, if there was more gun control or a complete ban on hunting, many people who run these wildlife conservation services, like the Department of Wildlife, would lose their jobs from the lack of financial aid that the state receives from all of these licenses (Hartman).
The act of banning guns or greatly restricting them from American citizens would not be a wise decision. Thousands of people would lose their jobs, there would be in fact an increase in crimes, many people would lose a sport that they highly enjoy, and the State’s funding towards animal conservation would exponentially decrease. Keep the Second Amendment running and in tact.
Works Cited
Ballaro, Beverly and Laura Finley. “Counterpoint: Gun Control Saves Lives.” Points of View Reference Center. 2009. p3-3,1p. 16 November, 2010.
Bowman, Jeffrey and Heather Newton. “Point: Controlling Gun Violence is More Important thanControlling Guns.” Points of View Reference Center. 2009. p2-2. 15 November 2010. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=26617367&site=pov-live
Faria, Jr., M.D., Miguel. “Great Britain and Gun Control: With Neither Liberty nor Safety”.
Newsmax.com. 11 July, 2000. 20 November, 2010.
Hartman, Craig. Personal interview. 28 Nov. 2010.Isikoff, Michael and Suzanne Smalley. “OBAMA GETS GUN SHY.” Points of View Reference Center. 20 April, 2009. Vol. 153 Issue 16, p20-23,4p. 16 November, 2010.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=37594019&site=pov-live
Lunger, Norman L. “CHAPTER 5: Gun Control Pros and Cons.” Points of View Reference Center. 2002. p69,20p. 16 November, 2010.
Nisbet, Lee. The Gun Control Debate. New York: Prometheus Books, 1990. Print.
“Pittman-Robertson Act: Friend of The Hunter & Hunted”. National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action. 28 August, 2001 12:00 am. 17 November, 2010.
Wilson, Brian. “Point: The Unrealistic Goals of Gun Control.” Points of View Reference Center. 2009. p5-5. 15 November, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)