Kunowledge

Guns save lives.

In the news, we constantly hear about tragic gun homicides and it seems as though it is increasing every year. The issue of gun control is inevitably discussed when a gun homicide occurs and often stricter gun control laws are proposed as the solution to future such incidents. However, with stricter gun control, can we truly protect ourselves from those who are a threat to our life? In this world, guns are necessary to protect citizens not only from internal threats but also from external enemies.

First, guns can protect our life from criminals within one’s country. We are less susceptible to gun violence from criminals when criminals can’t be sure that potential victims are not armed. If criminals believe that everyone has a gun for protection, then they are significantly less likely commit an armed robbery, or other gun-related crime. There are several examples that prove gun control laws do not equate to a decrease in gun-related crime rates, but in fact, that the opposite is true.

Although restrictive gun-carry laws have been on the books for decades, they have never been shown to lead to a reduction in crime. Despite having banned handguns, Washington, D.C. and Chicago are two of the five major U.S. cities with the highest homicide rates. If stricter gun-control laws were effective in reducing crime, surely these two major metropolitan centers would be shining examples.

Accordingly, when Florida instituted a right-to-carry law, allowing lawful citizens to register for handgun permits, the handgun homicide rate between 1987 and 1994 decreased 41% (-41%). The handgun homicide rate of the entire United States over the same period increased 24% (+24%). There is a clear correlation between the decrease in handgun homicides and the institution of the right-to-carry law in Florida. Allowing citizens to lawfully own guns decreased gun-related murders in the State of Florida.

Secondly, guns also protect us from potential invasions from foreign countries. Without guns, we would be severely more vulnerable to attack from a foreign country. Although peace treaties are formed for peaceful relationships among countries, serious wars still continue throughout the globe. No country is completely immune to a potential attack. A strong and effective military is of course the best means with which to keep a country safe. However, if a military were to fail, a potential foreign enemy would be extremely more cautious to invade a country with liberal gun ownership laws than it would be to invade an unarmed public. History can’t hide the revolutions won through guerrilla warfare waged by local armed militias. For example, the histories of Cuba, France, and the United States of America were all affected by the simple idea that guns were not against the law to own. Without the local populations being allowed to possess guns, the history of these countries would be dramatically different.

Whether to protect us from murderers and armed thieves, or to fend off entire foreign militaries that seek to destroy a way of living, the right to own guns is a necessary safeguard every person should bear. Limiting this right limits a person’s safety and goes against all the facts supporting freedom to possess guns. Instead of talking about restricting guns where they are allowed, we should be discussing allowing guns where they are controlled. Gun control laws unnecessarily put lives at risk.

—

References
1. Gun Control Facts – http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
2. Right to Carry Debate – http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/gun_right_to_carry.HTM
3. Flickr – http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgt_spanky/1407250122/
4. Flickr – http://www.flickr.com/photos/geishaboy500/483490501/
5. Flickr – http://www.flickr.com/photos/angells60640/3792252029/

Popularity: 2% [?]