Pros and Cons of Gun Control Laws in the USA
81This article contains a list of the main arguments for and against gun control laws in the USA. The issue of gun control has been intensely debated in the USA over the years. The discussion never fully goes away and is often reignited by outbursts of gun violence, often by crazed individuals, such as the Virginia Tech shootings, or the attack on U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Some of the arguments over gun control reflect practical concerns, such as issues of self defense and violent crime, and others are more legalistic in nature and revolve around different interpretations of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Here are the essential pros and cons of gun control laws.
Pros of Gun Control
The main argument for gun control is that it would reduce violent crime and mortalities, especially in urban areas. Guns make it much easier to kill people. As well as killing others, guns also make it easier for people to commit suicide and kill themselves.
The ‘Self-defense’ argument in favor of guns is often used against gun control laws, but research suggests that guns in the home are far more likely to kill a friend or a household member, than an intruder.
The collective self-defense argument that the USA needs militia groups to protect the country from the threat of invasion are spurious, to say the least, given the power of the US military. Some amateur militia groups within the USA, who are answerable to no one, are actually more potentially dangerous than foreign powers.
There are ethical arguments as to why the Second Amendment is not absolute. Basically, no right is absolute if it clashes with other rights. For example, even the right to free speech is restricted if you accuse a public figure of disreputable behavior, when you know this to be false. Neither are you allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, when you know there is no danger.
There are also legal arguments regarding the Second Amendment’s statement on the right to bear arms. For example, “The people” who are referred to in the Second Amendment are a group who form part of a “well-regulated” militia. It essentially asserts a state’s right to have a militia and does not mean that every individual citizen has the right to bear arms.
There are also questions regarding where to draw the line with regard to private armaments. Guns were the predominant weapon at the time of the American Revolution, but nowadays we have bazookas, plastic explosives, bomber aircraft, and tanks – should any private citizen be allowed to own those items too?
Your opinion
Do you believe that the gun control laws in the US should be tightened?
See results without votingCons of Gun Control
Gun ownership is a fundamental civil right, irrespective of the US Constitution. All other arguments regarding gun ownership are therefore irrelevant.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution clearly guarantees the right to possess firearms by individual citizens, the people who dispute this are misinterpreting the US Constitution. This right has been upheld by the courts on many occasions.
Gun possession by individuals is vital for legitimate purposes such as self defense and hunting and should not be interfered with by the authorities.
Guns can deter criminals and reduce crime without ever being used.
Gun ownership acts as an “equalizer” for women, who are then able to deter or defend against attacks by stronger, more aggressive men.
Gun ownership by both individuals and militias provide security for the American people against foreign invasion and also government tyranny - if the American people were disarmed and some kind of dictatorship emerged, the people would be at its mercy.
If gun use is restricted, then criminals and murderers will just use different weapons, such as knives.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (3)
- Funny
- Awesome (2)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
I enjoyed the fair treatment of this hub, very well done.
A.R. this is the first time I have ever read a post from you that actually made a well thought out, verifiable, and valid point.
Thanks bunco, I will take that as a compliment!......maybe you do have some marine in you! LOL
As usual, you presented the issue concisely. I hate to give myself away, but My Dad made me take the NRA safe hunting course and go all the way to expert in the NRA marksmanship program before I was trusted with a gun. I think similar requirements should be met before anyone can purchase a weapon.
If you think guns are not proper sport, or would never use fire arms to protect yourself or your family, then I applaud your conviction. I want to keep guns away from the irresposible and insane. Please don't take away my right.
"The ‘Self-defense’ argument in favor of guns is often used against gun control laws, but research suggests that guns in the home are far more likely to kill a friend or a household member, than an intruder."
=
Sorry but this is absolute nonsense.
This 'research' is often done by anti gun groups who go in trying to prove a case against guns.
Of course there are more accidents with guns when a gun is present...thats a no brainer. Just like there are more car accidents when more cars are present...precisely why my car insurance is higher in the city than when I lived in smalltown USA.
The issue isnt that accidents happen or dont happen..its whether *I* get to remove YOUR right to defend your wife and daughter from being raped and murdered because of some biased 'research' that results in distorted data.
Whats hilarious about the irony of the anti gun agenda is that they seem to prefer arguing numbers and clearly dont really give a rats rear end about individual human rights.
As long as 1000 drug dealing gangbangers dont shoot each other tonite, its apparently been a good day to them if only 100 women are raped and stabbed to death with a screwdriver.
As long as GUN murders are down they clearly dont give a #$%#$ about anything or anyone else.
we need to tell congress to give our gun rights back
When criminals find out that most citizens don't have guns, they will have a field day. Criminals can always gets guns.I live here in Arizona and if anyone brakes into my house and tries to hurt my family, I going to shoot them. Not going to wait for the police.
It is a smart constitutional right. It isn't conducted smartly. When I wanted a gun, my dad signed me up for NRA. I took the NRA safe hunter courses, participated in the marksmanship program, and learned to shoot the eye off of a bullfrog from 100 yards away. By then, I had learned responsibility and respect. This should be a requirement for every gun owner.
We have the right to bear arms for defense purpose. Mainly national. There are those who say the need is obsolete. Not me. Look at the state of affairs. If they get past the military somehow, they will have to deal with the militia and me. God rest their souls.
QUOTE
"Some amateur militia groups within the USA, who are answerable to no one, are actually more potentially dangerous than foreign powers."
What are you saying? That US militias are no where near as "strong" as the US military but even more dangerous than a foriegn military? Thats a rediculous statment.
Quote
"“The people” who are referred to in the Second Amendment are a group who form part of a “well-regulated” militia. It essentially asserts a state’s right to have a militia and does not mean that every individual citizen has the right to bear arms."
If every citizen has the legal right to join a militia than your arguement is flawed. Unless your saying I HAVE to be in a militia in order to own a firearm, in that case what constitutes a militia? Is there a set number of members needed? Your going to have to be more specific.
QUOTE
"Gun ownership acts as an “equalizer” for women, who are then able to deter or defend against attacks by stronger, more aggressive men."
Not trying to analyze every word in your Hub for it was somewhat informative and Im sure you had good intentions while trying to stay unbiased but this comment could have been left out only because;
A) Why do you assume only a woman would find a weapon handy when overpowed? Men cant be overpowered easily by a much larger person(s)?
B) Why would you just assume that it would have to be a man attacking the woman? There are plenty of cases in which women are assaulting other women. I think in this world everyone would feel a little better with an "Equilizer" to level the playing field.
I think there is so many different types of weapons and owners that it is close minded to put all of them into one category. To assume that the our country is going to be less violent if you take away firearms, in my opinion, is also rediculous.
Dont worry people will still be beating, drowning, and abusing thier spouses and children. I beleive in survival of the fittest and the weak get preyed upon. I once heard a quote and cannot for the life of me remember who said it but it goes something like this:
"those who cannot kill will always be subject to those who can"
You will never take our guns:) Good luck! Read history, and why you are able to even have this arguement in the first place.
American Romance Level 7 Commenter 7 months ago
Guns are restricted and carry prison sentences in Old Mexico............but people die from them daily! Only the innocent do not own guns in Mexico! I would bet all I own that if legal citizens of Mexico would be allowed to carry, the drug cartels would disapear within months.......or at least stop the violence!