Gun Control

Kirkpatrick

1

Clark Kirkpatrick English grade 10 Mrs. Draus pd. 7 March 26, 2009 The Supreme Stupidity of Gun Control I.

Every year, American citizens are kept safe by their right to bear arms. Would-be

rape, murder, and violent crime victims defend themselves against violent offenders with firearms regularly, thanks to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Mislead people constantly push for more gun control, to limit the amount, kind, and price of firearms available to law-abiding citizens. These people are under the false impression that more gun control will lead to less crime; this is a resoundingly false conclusion, as statistics have proven. Gun control is a detriment to American society, and undermines the rights of a free people. Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave (Andrew Fletcher, 1698). II.

The United States Bill of Rights clearly states that American citizens have the

right to bear arms: “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.” The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to write out what the government could not do to the citizens. In response, gun control advocates try to restrict the legal bearing of arms. This is simply preposterous. The first amendment to the constitution states that Americans have the right to freedom of speech, press, and religion. Are legislators allowed to restrict these rights? We have freedom of speech, but what would Americans say if a tax was put on the down talking of a certain politician? How about if you could only criticize the

Kirkpatrick

2

President three times a week? Or only go to church twice a month? There is no other “right” which is allowed to be limited in such ways. “To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form.” (Innis) It also does not say that a citizen may bear arms if they have not done this or that, but that citizens should be permitted to bear arms. The last three words of this amendment, “shall not be infringed,” were put in place by its authors for a specific purpose; to clarify that the government should not be able to in any way contravene, misinterpret, or undermine this right. III.

The founding fathers of the United States recognized the value of an armed

people. Benjamin Franklin clearly illustrated his views on this issue in 1759 when he declared that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” (Gun Control Quoteland) This metaphoric analogy clearly illustrates the principles with which the founding fathers of the United States founded what has become the greatest country in the world. It would seem that these are the very morals which have set this great country apart from the average; if the Founding Fathers based this country on these ideals before it rose to its greatness, then will removing these rights set it back to mediocrity? As the elected representatives of Congress process bill after bill advocating more control on American firearms, this may be a question worth pondering. IV.

One of the most fundamental rights of any free citizen is the right to defend

oneself, one’s family, and one’s home in the face of peril. This right must be upheld at all costs if the people of any society wish to remain a free people, with fair legislation and jurisdiction. Patrick Henry, another great Founding Father of the United States, shared

Kirkpatrick his views of this ideal when he posed the question, "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" This may be the deciding question for the ultimate decision about whether or not the general public should be legally allowed to bear arms. Without firearms, Americans would truly be at the mercy of their government and law enforcement. V.

The purpose of law enforcement is not to protect each individual citizen against

crime. The primary purpose of the police is to collect evidence of a crime and to arrest people who have been accused of crime. If a criminal wants to kill someone, the only reasonable means of preventing this from happening is for the person to protect themselves; otherwise, they would have to have a body guard with them around the clock. “Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” (Abbey) In New York City in 1999, the average amount of time it took a police officer to respond to a 911 call reporting a crime in progress was 10.3 minutes (Cooper); this is ample time for a violent crime to be committed and the attacker to escape unscathed, if the victim is unarmed. And this is in the middle of the biggest city in the world. What about suburban or rural America? This response time must

3

Kirkpatrick

4

lengthen exponentially. In an unarmed society, this leaves all law-abiding citizens fatally, even comically exposed to the threat of a violent attacker, who could choose victims at will, without considering that they could be armed and able to defend themselves. VI.

Statistical evidence clearly shows that more flexible gun laws have a direct

correlation with lower crime rates. Stringent gun control regulations have been implemented in many places; the results are strikingly similar. It the United Kingdom and Australia, semiautomatic firearms have been effectively banned from the citizenry. In both cases, the number of rape and assault crimes rose dramatically following the gun bans (Gun Control; the Australian). This shows that criminals are not stupid; just like the rest of us, when they decide whether or not to do something based upon a cost-benefit analysis. An unarmed citizenry presents a clear playing field for criminals in search of victims. Many of these decisions are those of a professional; professional criminals make professional decisions. For them, these decisions are simply a business risk. VII.

A criminal can be defined as “one who has committed a crime; especially, one

who is found guilty by verdict, confession, or proof; a malefactor; a felon” (Criminal). Note the irony of this: an outlaw kills someone (which is against the law). So what better thing to do than to implement another law against the methods which the criminal employed to commit the original crime, and expect him to follow the new law! The absurdity of this logic is beyond comprehension. "Expecting a carjacker or rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces." (Joseph) Under this logic, the government would disarm all law-abiding citizens (if they were armed, they would no

Kirkpatrick

5

longer be law-abiding), while at the same time having no affect on non-law-abiding people. So, criminals would be armed and citizens would not. But, some would say, if guns cannot be legally acquired, they would be much harder to acquire! VIII

Consider this. Marijuana is illegal for recreational use in the entire United States,

and yet people can still acquire it virtually at will. What makes people think that guns would be any different? Evidence from the National Self Defense Survey shows that Americans use guns in self defense 2,500,000 times each year; this adds up to once every 13 seconds. In about thirty percent of these defensive gun uses, the would-be victim believes that the gun “almost certainly” or “probably” saved a life, and in over half of the self defense gun uses, the would-be victim was attacked by two or more people; this makes the would-be victim’s firearm their only conceivable means of defense. But, the one statistic that may push the gun argument over the edge for many people is that gun ownership protects sixty-five lives for every two people who are killed by them. (Every) This single fact validates the right of American citizens to be armed, sixty-five to two. Guns kill people just the same way in which spoons make people fat. Should the United States start pushing bills to restrict spoon sales, use, etc.? "Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater." ("Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater." (Venetoklis)

IX.

In several foreign countries, gun control has been made stricter, to different

degrees. For instance, in the United Kingdom, handguns were effectively banned from

Kirkpatrick

6

legal purchase and ownership to the entire law-abiding citizenry in 1997. This new legislation was introduced shortly after, and in response to, a school massacre in which Thomas Hamilton opened fire, killing sixteen children and their teacher, killing them all. Two years later, handguns were used in crime forty percent. The new laws targeted legitimate gun owners instead criminals. Of the twenty areas which previously had the lowest numbers of legally owned guns, ten now had a level of firearm crime above the new average. (Handgun) Australia implemented similar weapons bans in 1996; the results were parallel to those in the United Kingdom. Four years after that ban, countrywide homicides escalated 3.2 percent; assaults rose by 8.6 percent; armed robberies rose by 45 percent (forty-five percent!); and there has been a “dramatic increase” in home robberies and attacks on the elderly. This ban was put into effect directly at the end of a steady decrease in crime in Australia. (Dougherty) “No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.” (Greenwood)

X.

The United States of America were founded on certain supporting principles. One

of these main principles was the right for citizens to legally own and bear arms. It may be suggested that any United States citizen who strongly disagrees with this, or any other

Kirkpatrick

7

of these fundamentals may very well be living in the wrong country. “Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave.” (Fletcher) Let those individuals become slaves to a different, inferior society. You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.” (Limbaugh) In a country that has prospered beyond the reasonable thought of anyone living at the time of its birth, it would seem preposterous to undermine its founding ideals now. To give up guns is truly to give up the greatest form of freedom. Americans across the country need to be aware of this issue, and equally as importantly, need to know the facts. In a time when some legislators are pushing for more gun control, this is more important than ever. The very freedoms that uphold this great country depend on it. The government needs to push to enforce the laws that are in place; no law is any more effective than its enforcement. If this is done, Americans will remain a great, free and safe people. The time has come for a rejuvenation of the classic American free spirit.