How would you defend yourself if a robber, criminal, or any other person aims his/her gun toward you? One definition of gun control is doing background checks on the people purchasing firearms. In governmental terms, however, gun control is defined as taking possession of all firearms. An internet search indicated that forty percent of all US homes have firearms. In addition, there are 2.5 million incidents involving guns every year in the US, but in these incidents, guns are used over eighty times more often to protect a life than to take one. How are we supposed to protect ourselves if the government takes away our firearms?

 

We cannot depend on the government to

protect us. We do not have police officers or

people with firearms outside of our homes to

protect us from robbery, assault, or murder.

Certain groups and members of the

government are trying to annul one of the

rights that the Founding Fathers have

written for all civilians. The 2nd amendment

to the United States Constitution protects the

people’s rights to bear arms. It would be

outrageous to annul one of the first ten amendments of the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers established this right supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression. 

 

Doing background checks on those who purchase firearms does not have a positive effect on gun control. Even those people with no past history of violence or personality disorder could be hiding some vital details regarding their viability to own a gun. Controlling usage of firearms by doing background checks has a negative effect on our economy. Doing a background check on one person can be costly. Not only does it require lots of time, but also a lot of money since checks include mental health checks, criminal records, etc.

 

Let’s say that the government does really decide to ban all citizens from possessing firearms. This still does not stop criminals from getting their hands on guns. Criminals do not care about the law, that’s why they break them. They can get their firearms through black markets and/or any other private markets. Banning “all firearms” will never happen because there are so many ways to conceal a firearm. The fact that possessing firearms is “illegal” can inspire criminals to commit more crimes because of the way human nature propels them to do something they’re not supposed to do. 

 

Those who are for gun control would say that limiting the distribution of guns will lower crime rates. In fact, confiscating firearms increases crime rates. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy shows that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. It is statistically shown that more guns correlate to less crime. Nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not in general. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined rate three times that of the 9 European nations with the highest gun ownership rate. 

 

There was a time in US history where every household had to possess a firearm. In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law that required every household to have at least one firearm. After this law, 89% of crime rates decreased. 3 out of 5 polled felons admitted that they most likely “won’t mess” with an armed victim. 

 

Overall, gun control will not succeed in the way the government or some people think it will. Crime rates will not decrease, but instead increase. More of our taxes money will go to background checks of the purchasers. Rather, letting civilians possess a firearm decreases crime rates and ensures personal safety.