Skip to content

Thesis Statement Against Gun Control

Argument Against Gun Control

An Argument Against Gun Control As long ago as 1789, the creators of the

Constitution realized the importance of guns in American society. The Second

Amendment 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." No loopholes, or legal caches exist in this statement. The Founding

Fathers allow for no restriction of the private ownership of firearms. Yet, in

recent years anti-gun politicians have attempted to control guns in the name of

crime prevention. Gun control makes no effort to control criminals, does not

reduce crime, takes guns from responsible sportsmen and recreational

shooters, and allows criminals to possess firearms superior to those of the

public. Advocates that support the cause of control claim that controlling

firearms will lesson criminal action. Gun control does nothing to control

criminals. The fundamental flaw in the thinking of anti-gun polititions is that

guns don't kill people. People kill people. The same logic that leads one to

control firearms could also lead one to endeavor to control automobiles and

fast food simply because they are instrumental in millions of deaths per year.

Why when Americans reject such an absurd theory as "Automobile Control,"

which do not infringe the constitution,. would these same individuals embrace

an idea as gun control? People accept gun control, but if a politician would

suggest "controlling" fast food restaurants because the fatty food causes heart

problems and deaths, the public would scorn his insane proposal. Ultimately,

people's choices lead them to drive recklessly, overindulge in unhealthy food,

and use firearms to commit violent crimes. So, criminals should be controlled,

not the guns which they share with millions of law-abiding citizens. Gun

control supporters claim that gun control lowers crime rate. Gun control does

nothing to reduce crime. A study conducted by the Urban Institute regarding

The Clinton Gun Ban Law of 1995, finds that "because the banned guns and

magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even

the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun

murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically..." Joseph

Constance, the Deputy Police Chief of Trenton, New Jersey, states: "Assault

weapons are used in an underwhelming .026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey.

This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from

the local zoo, than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed

killer on the streets." West Virginia stands as an example of the inaccurate

thinking of gun control advocates. This state has the highest number of guns

per person in the nation, yet it has the lowest number of crimes per person in

the nation. Gun control has little or no effect on crime. Gun control advocates

believe that gun control has no effect on the law-abiding citizens.However,

gun control takes recreational firearms from law-abiding citizens. Many of the

guns used today for hunting and recreational shooting originate as military

weapons (e.g., 6.5 x 55 Mauser, 8mm Mauser, and 7mm Remington). Gun

control advocates like to make statements such as this one from a New York

Times editorial: "No Federal law limits military assault rifles that are

semi-automatic." They overlook the fact that military rifles are not

semi-automatic they are automatics. The guns which gun controll advocates

seek to regulate conform to statutes that keep the public from owning

military, fully-automatic weapons. Average Americans responsibly shoot

these completely legal semi-automatic guns for recreation. Gun control takes

firearms from hobbyists and hunters. Finally, limiting the right of a citizen to

own certain guns puts him at a disadvantage when dealing with criminals and

protecting his family. If a criminal needs a gun, he purchases it on the street,

and can acquire whatever type of firearm he chooses. Yet, when a

law-abiding citizen wishes to procure a gun, he must choose from those

which the government deems fit. So, when the criminal breaks into the

citizen's home or business, bearing any type of firearm he chooses, the citizen

must defend himself, his belongings, and his loved ones, with an inferior, legal

firearm. In this scenario, gun control serves to give a criminal an advantage

over a law-abiding, armed citizen. In conclusion, no substantial reason for gun

control exists. It fails to control criminals and crime, while taking guns from

law-abiding Americans who use them for defense and recreation. The time is

at hand for Americans to stand and defend their Second Amendment rights,

and make liberal, anti-gun politicians aware that gun control has no place in


Word Count: 777

There are two Americans in a room, both have a gun. They get into an argument. Who gets shot and killed?
The American gun owner's house is currently being robbed. The gun owner doesn't hear the robber enter his bedroom where he has his loaded gun on the side table, ready for him to spring into action. The robber picks up the gun. Who gets killed?
The American gun owner is working in the yard while his 10yo son and his son's friend from school are playing Xbox. The boys get bored and the 10yo asks his mate if he wants to see something Cool. He grabs the gun from his Dad's side table. Who gets killed?
The American gun owner's 15yo daughter, after the loss of her little brother, just broke up with her boyfriend. She just wants the pain to stop. She goes into her parents room and sees the gun. Who gets killed?
There are two Australians in a room, neither of them have a Gun. They get into an argument. Who gets shot and killed?
In the other scenarios above, in Australia, who gets shot? No one

Knuckles · 2 years ago

Report Abuse