It is no question that gun rights are one of the most hotly debated issues today. Many of the candidates feel that it is one of great importance and have each released their opinions on this issue, from the “A+” National Rifle Association (NRA) rating for Ted Cruz to the “F” rating of Hillary Clinton.
Many Americans have their own opinions about gun rights; however, the majority, 55%, favor stricter gun control according to a Gallup Poll in 2015. A majority of adults, including gun owners, support the banning of assault weapons, restrictions on ownership by the mentally ill, restrictions on high-capacity magazines and much stricter background checks. It is worth noting that undocumented private gun show sales, while difficult to regulate, account for many gun ownerships that eventually lead to crime.
The idea that guns protect law-abiding citizens has been disproven since a 2005 study saying that out of 626 fatal and nonfatal shootings, only 13 were considered self-defense, including police officer shootings in the line of duty. This study concluded that guns that were kept in homes are more likely to be used in assault, suicide or accidental shootings.
Speaking of which, states with the highest concentration of guns have nine times the amount of unintentional gun deaths.
One may argue that banning guns would leave law-abiding citizens defenseless against criminals – those that break the law to obtain firearms. However a report from 2013 by the Institute of Medicine indicated that almost all guns used in criminal acts were obtained legally and then stolen from United States homes.
If anything, the presence of more guns can be a stimulus for burglary and theft, even if the original gun owner had a permit for a firearm. I would also like to point out that, even without all of the gun restrictions that have been proposed, none of the 294 public shootings were stopped by an armed citizen, according to PolitiFact.
It is also worth considering that countries with stricter gun legislation have less crime than the United States. A study from Harvard found that across a subject of developed countries, wherever the presence of guns are heightened, homicides also increased. This gives way to the argument that the Second Amendment protects any and all gun rights given to American citizens. Originally, this was unanimously held true.
Recently; however, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has interpreted the Constitution in a way that the second amendment was intended to arm state-regulated militias, meaning standing armies controlled by the government which count as the National Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and law enforcement.
Gun control is not an attack on the rights of the American people, nor is it a tool for the national government to exercise control over the states or constituents. The intent of the proposed restrictions on gun shows, types of weapons, magazines, who can own guns and government regulations is to protect the American public from crime the best that the government can. The notion that the conversation about gun restrictions is un-American is useless for change.
