Gun Control

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

 

Think about this: you’re eating out at some four-star, fancy restaurant. The best meal in the house has arrived, and you’ve taken your first bite of deliciousness. Suddenly, a man kicks the doors open and pulls out a rifle, spraying bullets everywhere. Everyone panics, with no one to defend themselves. You call for the police, and they arrive eleven minutes later, with ten injured and the gunman gone. All of this could’ve been prevented with a few concealed carry permits. You decide to get one the next day, and you’re told that the only handgun you can get has to hold a maximum of three rounds, eliminating most firearms available.

 

There should be less restrictive gun control laws, and more law abiding citizens should be armed. The main reason is for safety, as the police usually arrive after a crime is committed, allowing the criminal to escape and commit more illegal acts. Thus, more crime is committed, rather ironically, due to gun control. For example, if citizens are armed, they can protect themselves and others while possibly preventing a crime by non-lethally incapacitating an assailant. Secondly, since citizens are the victims, they can, quite obviously, take more action than the police since they’re already at the scene. Lastly, the right to keep and bare arms is outright a Constitutional one.

 

Statistically speaking, guns are used 2.5 million times a year, and citizens tend to kill more criminals than police do yearly, 1,527 to 606, a difference of 921, all according to Gun Owners of America. Also, according to a Harvard study, countries allowing gun control do not have fewer deaths. Criminals will attempt less crimes, knowing that their victims might be armed. Another reason to have less of the restrictive forms of gun control is that crime is increased by gun control laws. People need guns to defend themselves when they cannot physically do so. Besides, criminals will obtain weapons no matter what, regardless of laws as criminals tend to break the law. No one bans cars when some guy goes on a road rage, or knives when someone commits a murder with it, so why guns?

 

During 1976 through 1996, Washington D.C had very severe gun laws, along with the highest crime rate in the country, according to the Blaze, which is certainly not a coincidence. In complete contrast, Vermont has the nation’s most lenient gun laws and a very low crime rate, according to statistics provided by Disaster Center. The benefits of less gun control are numerous, but the main one is safety, because, like I stated earlier, criminals will try to avoid robbing or committing other criminal acts towards businesses or homes that are inhabited by gun owners.

 

An immediate counterpoint to this would be “Guns are the cause of tragedies such as mass shootings!” which is completely false. The reason behind such shootings is often a psychological one, and would occur with any instrument; a gun is not a magical, corrupting force tempting the owner to commit murder. If victims of mass shootings were armed they would’ve had a chance to at least defend themselves if they don’t survive. Depriving people of their Constitutional right to have a firearm is less restricting a mass murder weapon and more confiscating a tool for defense. Overall gun control is not something we should have, lest the safety of the people be at stake. It doesn’t reduce crime, it simply disarms civilians, and really, it’s just filled with backwards and faulty logic. Gun control is simply not an option.