Gun control
A family is sleeping late one night and a murderer comes to their home. He knows how to disarm the alarm system. The father hears the intruder downstairs and walks down to investigate. The father sees the man and yells, "what are you doing here?!" The murderer lifts up his gun slowly and shoots the father, then proceeds up the stairs. If the father was allowed to have a gun in his house, don't you think that this scenario would have ended differently? I do not believe that there should be stricter gun control laws. I think that the only people that would abide be these laws would be the upstanding citizens who would only use guns for sport and protection anyway. The criminals would still find ways to obtain guns. Then the people would have no means of defense. My first argument is that throughout history, the first thing that socialist leaders and dictators have done is confiscate firearms. Why did they do this you ask, and how does it relate to gun control in the United States? Well the reason they did it was to render the people completely defenseless. All of the major twentieth century genocides in Ottoman Turkey, the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia have started with gun control, and have resulted in the deaths
It was easy for the Germans to find the firearms owners and prosecute them because of the earlier gun control laws that Hitler induced probably with the eventual extermination of Jews in mind. During the Luby's Cafeteria shooting one of the restaurant's patrons, an expert marksman, had left her handgun in her car to comply with the Texas state law existing at the time. In Nazi Germany, the first thing that the government did was disarm the Jews. Data from the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey from 1979 to 1987 indicate that the risk of serious injury from a criminal attack is 2. The first opposing argument to gun rights is that it is much too easy for people to obtain weapons. Williamson puts the refute perfectly when he states, "Gun control activists believe that families with children should not be allowed to own guns for safety reasons, just as they aren't allowed to own dogs, power tools, or toxic chemicals. Interviewing a group of prison inmates, Stossel reports, "Some maximum security felons I spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. And contrary to a popular misconception, the use of concealed handguns by permit holders is virtually never involved in the commission of crime, let alone murder (Lott 5). 6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, but Arlington, Virginia's high murder rate of 1. Given events in Europe, Congress recoiled, and legislation was introduced to protect the Second Amendment. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people" (Halbrook 1). There is a price to be paid for freedom, and the occasional psychopath is the price that we pay. The next opposing argument is that accidents can occur with children.
Common topics in this essay:
Luby's Cafeteria,
Michael Williamson,
,
Victimization Survey,
Justice Department,
Amendment Foundation,
Stephen Halbrook,
University Chicago,
John Patman,
Brady Bill,
gun control,
control laws,
gun control laws,
opposing argument,
killing spree,
obtain weapons,
amendment foundation,
freedom civilians allowed,
civilians allowed,
allowed handguns,
freedom civilians,
amendment retain,
concealed carry laws,
civilians allowed handguns,
allowed handguns stop,
|
Acceptance Essays
