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 politi tions 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 the 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, 8 mm Mauser, and 7 mm 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 society.