Moate 1

Izic Moate

Mrs. Granville

Period 5

11 November 2016

Gun Control is Not Needed

The empowering of gun control is weakening the people's Second Amendment Right.

The more the government strengthens gun control and weapon bans, the more people lose their

lives for this act of government. Trying to control who has weapons and who does not will

increase the average crime rate around the area. Efforts to support gun control will take away the

weapons from the people that need them more then the people that end up with them in the end.

If the citizens would not have weapons to defend themselves criminals would have them and

take advantage of the defenseless.

People in towns, cities, and smaller areas are important and should be able to carry a

firearm for self defence reasons so they can stop what might happen. If they have to be assaulted

and or hurt in the act to be able to have a firearm, their opinion about this scenario would very. If

a citizen is in a dangerous area and gets hurt or is suspected of harm occurring to him or her, then

that person may obtain a permit for self-defence after she is suddenly attacked (Marimow).

This does not support the argument because the citizens should be able to have a firearm before

they have a chance of getting hurt. For the people even the point of suspecting harm could occur

should be enough to be able to acquire a weapon. Being able to acquire a permit when

transporting valuables which makes the point is not your life more valuable than your
 Moate 2

possessions. Being able to demonstrate a reason to have a permit to carry is hard unless

something actually happens.

In the past, armed guards and police helped around but, they were not always there when

the act was taking place. Even if they have someone there to help defend and or protect you,

there will be a way for someone to harm others. Even when they ban firearms of any kind (like

assault weapons or handguns) there will normally always be someone there to cause harm to

others with that weapon. Having a guard and or guards around a school does not always mean

that they will be able to prevent a school shooting. Telling that guards or weapon bans will not

guarantee schools are completely safe. If we overuse the possibility of police, people could

possibly get more out of control. The ideal strategy is that all who can have a firearm and choses

to carry one they should be able to.

If everyone had a firearm, the citizens would think again before doing a crime or act that

can cause harm to others. You should have someone there to stop it supports the argument by

saying if there is no one there to stop it the situation can and most likely get progressively worse

(Winters 27). The good guys as in the truthful citizens would then become unarmed and have a

greater chance of being attacked. Being disarmed by the government is like having police

without the power to stop crimes. The statement that assault rifles and more expensive weapons

are being used to cause harm and crimes but in most cases they are being committed by using the

common cheaper weapons like pistols and other lighter handguns that the common person would

carry to perform self defense. People that can not purchase the higher priced and or higher

quality firearms have an easier time being able to have a handgun because it is more affordable

for them to perform self-defence. Even though some people do not use them to their proper
 Moate 3

ability, others should still be able to defend themselves from these people. This supports the

argument by stating that the citizens should be able to perform self defense when threatened.

The argument about what would happen to the crime rate if the firearm or specific type of

weapon was banned or had restrictions, it would not decrease. The statement that crime of mass

killings happened three times more often since the 2000 than over the decade of the 80s

(Levy), which supports the argument by stating that banning or restricting firearms does not just

get more people killed it makes it more popular in that area. Time and time again they try to

make a city safe by trying to enforce gun control, but it does nothing to help. The citizens are

outraged that kids in school are being killed by these firearms but, they are not putting the person

who owns that firearm responsible for the incident. Also they die all the time, everyday, in car

crashes meaning that the weapon is not the only thing that can cause death to a child (Comp).

There are executive orders to take away guns and or something that can cause harm to a child so

they should do so to objects like cars because the operator can crash, pools since kids can drown,

and basically everything since nothing can be absolutely safe.

The fact that people see you differently if you have a firearm either it is a sight of

feeling safe or the sense of being in danger (Cooper). People that carry openly or concealed

weapons are normally judged and gave the title of a good boy (Cooper). This indicated that

people judge others on the ability of what they can do that others might not be able to do. This

supports the argument by stating that these people can be good or bad people and with the

responsibility help if something goes wrong in their environment. This judgment of the citizens

on this new person of great magnitude or great destruction is based on what he or she does. The

ability to carry in public areas is a responsibility that most people would enforce is a right thing
 Moate 4

to be able to do (Marimow). The argument is why do people think that the Second Amendment

does not give the right to carry in public. If D.C residence are able to keep a handgun in their

home when they are most defended who seas that what could happen at their place of residence

could have a higher chance of occurring out in the open (Marimow). Being the part of the high

court gun rights Advocates have scored a series of victories stating that higher end people

believe that citizens should be able to have a firearm (Marimow). This supports the argument by

increasing the amount of people that can be prepared to defend off a threat that can happen at any

point of time. The point of being able to carry in the streets of the nations capital would end

up being a big step for the citizens of that area could look to one another and have help if they

really need it. One way or another there is easy access to guns from the point of people selling

them off the streets, gunshows, and you can even make them (Cooper). For the point that the

firearm is able to be functional for many decades in and or out of use of the people that would

use it for good causes and the ones who would use it for criminal acts. Supporting the argument

by saying that, what you do about these weapons older to the newer more high tech firearms they

can still be used after a long period of time with and or without being used.

Acquiring these firearms can be sometimes easier then that people would think due to a

weapon ban, restriction and or a criminal history on their profile. There are still loopholes that

people can find to get away from doing the background check which makes it easier to obtain a

firearm of many kinds. These people have reasons to do this to either not have the government

know about weapons they actually have when the government tries to take away firearms from

the people. Then they would still have their recent purchases for hunting and or self defence

purposes.
 Moate 5

If someone is out and about with a firearm in a area that they are banned doesnt mean

they they are a supporter of the militia. The more the government stresses on gun control they are

going to make it seem like it is a bad thing to own a firearm for any kind of act of good or bad.

The argument is against the thought that just because you have a firearm doesnt mean that you

are in and or supporting a militia. The main thing that supports the fact that crime does not

decrease due to weapon bans is gun bans always lead to higher crime rates (Lott page 2). Just

because the government bans something does not mean that the criminals are also going to hand

in their possessions as well as the law abiding citizen. Police do a good job at what they do but, it

is hard to determine who still has a firearm or not. The harm to the people is not the makers of

the product it is the person who uses the fully functional product for a criminal act. This does not

support the argument because they might have made the product but they are not the ones that

who committed the crime. If a criminal goes after someone with a hammer or a tool of some sort

should the maker of that product be held responsible for the misuse of the object that they

produced.

When citizens go on a outrage fit about the deaths caused by firearms the fact that guns

dont kill people; people kill people does not seem to make sense to them (n.a.). Stating that is

you leave a weapon of any type in a room without interaction. It does not just get up and start to

kill people, it is an inanimate object and can not determine what it does in the hands of someone.

People are the only liable possibility that murders occur which is why people should have the

right to have something to defend themselves from a distance. The right to protect oneself is a

basic natural right that grows out of the right to live meaning that if you are alive you should be

able to defend yourself in cases of being threatened or emergency (n.a.). The moment that you
 Moate 6

are in danger you can not always call the police because if everyone would then the police force

would be overused and end up becoming over burdened. When they say firearms are the leading

sace of killings fact showsthat almost 13,000 people were murdered with a weapon. Of those,

1,700 were killed with knives; almost 500 with hammers, bats, and clubs; and 728 by someones

bare hands. Only 323 people were killed with rifles of all types which means that guns are not

always the leading cause of someone's death due to a criminal (Levy).

The right of the people and the Second Amendment is for them to be able to have defence

of their life and the lives of others. When the government tries to make efforts on enhancing bans

and restrictions people are killed for no reason. Ending with the information that gun-control is

weakening the citizens and enhancing the criminals arsenals. There is no point of having

gun-control, bans and or restrictions but to put the people in more danger than they need to be in.
 Moate 7

Works Cited

Cooper,Marc.Gun Control is a Misfire:What Liberals and the NRA Both get Wrong. The

American Conservative. Vol. 15, No. 2. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. 2016.

doi:A443888916. Accessed 26 Oct. 2016.

Comp, Nathan. Guns for Everyone: Shows set Low Bar for Who can get a Lethal Weapon. The

Progressive. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Apr. 2016. doi: A450037761. Accessed 28

Oct. 2016.

Marimow, Ann E. The High Struck Down D.C.s Gun Ban Eight Years Ago, but the Fight

Continues. Washington Post. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. 13 Sept. 2016. doi:

A463337803. Accessed 28 Oct. 2016.

Levy, Robert. Reflections on Gun Control by a Second Amendment Advocate. CATO Institute,

11 Feb. 2013,

www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reflections-gun-control-second-amendment-advo

cate. Accessed 19 Oct. 2016.

Winters, Robert. The Right to Bear Arms. Greenhaven Press, 2006. Accessed 12 Oct. 2016.

Should More Gun Control Law Be Enacted? ProCon, 2016, www.gun-control.procon.org,

Accessed 28 Oct, 2016.

Lott, John. The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies. Regney Publishing,

2016. Accessed 14 Oct. 2016.