Authored by Veronika Fevers in Politics
Published on 06-08-2009
Despite the fact that the Constitution gives the American people the right to bear arms, there are many that feel we could do without it. This debate has been rehashed countless numbers of times and in many different formats. From court cases to the media, the argument against gun control is one that we are unlikely to see resolution for anytime soon.
Not unlike the war against drugs, arguments against (and for) gun control evoke emotion and questions of intent. Organizations against gun control, including the NRA, are usually at the fore in these debates. Common arguments against gun control posed by such groups are straightforward. These arguments bring attention to the Second Amendment in which this right is granted. They argue that in the enforcement of gun control regulations, this right is infringed upon and that we the American people are entitled to it. Yet, many senseless acts of violence are committed every year with handguns. This reality bears the question “Should guns be prohibited?”
One common argument is that we should be able to protect ourselves with guns. True enough, handguns do offer a sense of security unlike any other. Handguns allow us to arm ourselves and make us less vulnerable to crime. This argument against gun control is often the double edged sword that is the revolving premise of this debate. One question often answers the other. However that answer is often posed as another question.
Should we be allowed to protect ourselves?
Should we be allowed to protect our families?
Regardless of what side you are on in the debate surrounding gun control, the answer to both questions is generally “yes.” The only thing that changes is the right to do so with a gun.
Many believe that if gun control is enforced, that violence will decline. Is this common argument against gun control viable? Will it be an actuality, or will we become more susceptible to violence in the event that this right is prohibited?
Perhaps the answer to gun control lies within accountability and proper regulations. Maybe this debate is better left standing as is. There are too many variables that play into this argument to have just one vantage point. Human nature in its own regard is an unstable factor that cannot be formed or fit into a box. This leads to yet another common argument against gun control. “Does everyone deserve the right to bear arms?” Background checks may obliterate this right for many. Felonies, and mental health records and issues are all probable causes to deny the right to own a handgun.
Whether you are for or against gun control regulations, it is important to research your opinion. While common arguments against gun control are pretty cut and dry, they may not be the appropriate solution. If we, the people of the United States, are no longer afforded this right, which will be the next to go? Should these common arguments against gun control be put into effect and if so, who exactly will they benefit?