The fact that a gun is near strikes fear into the hearts of many Americans, who, feel that its presence endangers them. These people do not know that in 2011, over 1500 knives were used for murders as opposed to less than 400 of the rifles often the target of gun bans (Expanded Homicide Data Table 8). Guns are an essential part of protecting our rights, and gun bans and extensive gun control would make crime much worse, not better.
Almost any parent in the United States would tell you that they would do anything for their child. When an armed criminal breaks into someone's house, without being armed, they are helpless to do anything as the robber takes their stuff and even their children. Even if the police are called, they can be up to 5 minutes away and not able to respond in time. All it takes is for the head of the household to own a gun to diffuse the entire situation. As was stated in the court case determining whether gun bans were legal in DC, many people think guns cause more accidents than they would help. Yet, they can’t back this claim up as firearms constituted of only “0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year [2007]” (Agresti). Guns in the home can be a huge asset in preventing crime.
Safety in the home is not even the largest problem with banning guns. The true problem does not lie buried in facts and figures. When people commit first-degree murders and robberies, they are knowingly breaking the law in order to obtain what they desire. To assume that making a law to prevent guns will stop lawbreakers from obtaining them, is a logical fallacy. There is no possible way that a criminal is going to abandon a heist because he cannot legally obtain a gun when he can get them for a lower price on the black market anyway. Therefore, the only people who cannot obtain guns under gun control are law abiding citizens. Gun control takes guns away from the victims, not the people with access to the black market. “There is an estimated 2-10 billion US dollars spent in the black market trade each year,” (Bryan) providing a steady source of unregistered, and therefore unbannable, guns. The government has been trying to stop the black market for a very long time, and has failed many times already. The black market trade is a problem to be addressed separately, but as of 2013, guns are available to anyone willing to break the law. Banning registered guns is a pointless act making our nation more dangerous.
Lastly gun control doesn't work because it is logical for a armed criminal to want to attack an unarmed victim. In Kennesaw GA, nicknamed Gun Town, USA, a law was passed forcing each head of household to own a gun. People predicted everyday arguments would turn into shootouts, yet they have been more than 25 years murder free! According to WND news, “The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance” (Steinhauser). The drop in crime They also have the lowest crime rate in their area. This isn't only happening in the USA, In Switzerland there is one gun for every two people, yet, “despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010” (Bachmann). This is more proof that if people were armed, crime and murder rates go down. Overall, banning registered guns or even rifles only, would not only be pointless but hurt America’s crime rates.
Works Cited
Lastly gun control doesn't work because it is logical for a armed criminal to want to attack an unarmed victim. In Kennesaw GA, nicknamed Gun Town, USA, a law was passed forcing each head of household to own a gun. People predicted everyday arguments would turn into shootouts, yet they have been more than 25 years murder free! According to WND news, “The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance” (Steinhauser). The drop in crime They also have the lowest crime rate in their area. This isn't only happening in the USA, In Switzerland there is one gun for every two people, yet, “despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010” (Bachmann). This is more proof that if people were armed, crime and murder rates go down. Overall, banning registered guns or even rifles only, would not only be pointless but hurt America’s crime rates.
Works Cited
Agresti, James D., and Reid K. Smith. "Gun Control Facts."
Independent Thinkers. N.p., 2 Nov. 2013. Web. 20 May 2013.
Bachmann, Helen. "The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That
Works." Time World. Time World, 20 Dec. 2012. Web. 20 May
2013.
Bryan, Mary. "Illicit Trade in Small Arms." The Great Lakes
Invitational Conference Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May
2013.
"Expanded Homicide Data Table 8." FBI. FBI, 2011. Web. 20 May
2013.
Steinhauser, Paul. "25 Years Murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'"
WND. N.p., 19 Apr. 2007. Web. 20 May 2013.
I admire your extensive research on the subject and credible sources--even your use of pathos in regards to the parents protecting their children comment. This blog post got me interested in looking closer at the facts behind gun control, so I looked at a few of your sources. Unfortunately, I found many flaws in your arguments, and I was not convinced of your side of the gun control debate. Here are a few of the things I saw:
ReplyDelete1. Your first fact referenced, about the knives versus the guns, is improperly stated. In 2007, there were 453 deaths related to rifles, not "less than 400". And even if the correct number was stated, you fail to recognize that many other types of guns, including "handguns" and "shotguns" among them, accounted for 10,129 deaths out of 14,916 deaths by weapons total in 2007. That's over 60% of the total deaths caused by weapons in 2007. And while, yes, rifles are ONE of the type of guns that are regulated by law, there are many other types of guns causing problems.
2. Your second fact is very particular. I can't help but notice that the injuries caused are both "non-fatal" and "accidental". What about the murders caused by guns? Wouldn't those be the types of incidents that you were discussing in the paragraph regarding home intrusions? Granted, looking at the other facts on your "Just Facts" page, there is significant proof that having a gun in the household can help protect the individuals in that home. While I've heard that owning a gun increases the chance of homicide in the house, this fact is not stated in your sources so I shall ignore it.
3. I don't agree with your argument in paragraph 3, and this is why: saying that a law shouldn't be written because it will be broken is in itself a logical fallacy. Should we not write laws against homicide because people will kill each other anyway? The manner in which a law is enforced is not a matter for the legislative branch that makes the laws, it is a matter for the executive branch that determines how that law will be enforced.
4. That being said, completely "banning registered guns" is, yes, pointless. However, the actual bills that are being proposed to Congress are not "banning registered guns"--they are merely requiring background checks before purchasing one. Which, if you ARE a law-abiding citizen, will not be a problem when purchasing a gun. In fact, the more guns are registered (yes, registered and allowed, not registered and banned), the easier it will be to track them. And if guns can be tracked, then they can be found when crimes are committed and those criminals, and the people who sold them guns in the black market, can be more easily apprehended.
5. The fact that people have more guns in Switzerland has nothing to do with the United States. The culture in Switzerland is so disparate from the U.S. (they are smaller, more homogeneous, and generally less exposed to violence in their media) that there a multitude of factors that could lead to their fewer homicides. On the line of logic you're using, you could turn around and say that the police force in Great Britain does not carry weapons, and yet their crime rate is lower than the United States'. Again, it points to culture.