Introduction
On an average day, people find reasons to buy guns. Some of those reasons involve dealing with a bully at school, protection from the neighborhood thugs, protecting one’s family or protecting one’s belongings. All of these reasons might be good ones, but does a person really need to have a gun to do all of these things, do they even need it to protect their home, why not just take jujitsu lessons of self-defense, why is a gun even needed at all? There are good reasons to have a gun and bad ones too, this essay will talk about those very things and more.
1st Supporting Point
The gun law has to exist because there are per state militias that justifiably need those guns in order to keep the free reign of the people per state, and to ensure that their right to bear arms is not intruded on by anyone who would take that right away. The security of the people in the state even the world over takes precedence, people have a right to not live in fear in their own neighborhood. According to the article titled Structural Social Change and the Mobilizing Effect of Threat: Explaining Levels of Patriot and Militia Organizing in the United States, the article states this, research demonstrates that right wing mobilization in West Europe is associated with increased minority populations and economic problems. (Dyke & Soule, pg.500) Guns in the hands of the statewide militia is more than enough reason to justify them having guns because they are “be thou for the people” which means protection of the people.
2nd Supporting Point
Some would question whether guns are really needed, but the bigger question is do people really need guns to protect themselves, and if so, what do they need the guns to protect them from, everybody? Most people would vote that needing guns for everything protection wise is necessary because self-preservation takes precedence, but the truth is that people do not need guns for everything protection wise. Sometimes there are other ways of stopping a burglary or standing up to someone who is picking a fight, a person can easily take karate lessons to supplement their need to respond via gun violence. As far as a burglary goes, the victim could get a home security system which would keep all those of burglary kind from targeting their home. According to the article titled Crime, Deterrence, and the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns, the article states this, Philip Cook argues that if you introduce a gun into a violent encounter, it increases the chances that someone will die. (Lott & Mustard, pg. 1). By finding alternative means to defending oneself or one’s own home, a person can live fear free, and without the use of guns which in a sense, is not really needed to defend anyone or anything. Despite the fact that it is our second amendment right to bear arms, every problem does not always have to be solved by using a gun; sometimes a more subtle approach is needed. Besides, anyone with a brain can comprehend the fact that gun violence begets gun violence in the name of an eye for an eye; the thing about an eye for an eye is that everyone becomes blind. By that, blind to what is right, and what is wrong.
Opposing Argument
Interesting enough, having a gun is definitely necessary because sometimes conventional methods do not always get the job done. Arguably, getting a gun to solve a particular problem(s) is justified as long as it is used as a last resort.
3rd Supporting Point
Using a gun as a last resort is often times ignored by some people because it is usually the first thing they want to do because it is the American way, but there are definitely long term penalties for abusing the right to bear arms and the gun laws. For one, a person is capable of setting a bad example of how to handle problems with people; teaching them that it is better to shoot and kill someone instead of trying to reason or fisticuff to deal with their problems or disagreements. According to the article titled California Law Review, the article states this, indictment for assault with a deadly weapon. (G.A.W. pg.62). Guns do not need to be in the hands of people who would shoot so readily without the regard for whether the ends justifies the means. Secondly, a person runs the risk of creating an entire generation of killers who would turn on their parents in an instant. The good thing about exercising the right to bear arms and gun laws is that it does give a person the right to protect what is rightfully theirs if they are in danger of getting it taken away. This also is great for the militia because they work for the people, and keeping them safe; guns help them do just that. According to the article titled higher unemployment unambiguously increases property crime rates. (Raphael, pg. 1). There is no crime in protecting what is precious and the good thing about the law is that it protects a person’s right to do so.
Conclusion
A gun can solve a person’s problem, but conversely, they are also creating a whole new wealth of problems using guns. People need to realize that using a gun to solve a particular problem does nothing. However, if a person were to find creative and different ways to combat things like unemployment crime, rape, murder-attempted or premeditated and burglary then the concept of using a gun to solve these problems will become lessened. A person can learn a greater lesson from not using a gun than using one to perpetuate a stereotype like most people are quick to do.
Work Cited Page
Dyke, Nella, and Sarah Soule. "Social History." Structural Social Change and the Mobilizing Effect of Threat: Explaining Levels of Patriot and Militia Organizing in the United States 49 (): 500. Print.
Lott, John , and David Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right‐to‐Carry Concealed Handguns." 26 (): 1. Print.
"California Law Review." Criminal Law: Assault with an Unloaded Gun 1 (): 500. Print.
Raphael, Steven , and Rudolf Ebmer. "Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime."Journal of Law & Economics 44 (): 259. Print.
