There are an estimated 275 million firearms in the United States capable of arming every working age citizen (Engler). There is recent legislation proposed by President Obama to try and ban some of these firearms as well as restrict access to certain accessories to these guns like high capacity magazines and military grade ammunition ("Now is the Time"). This recent proposed legislation to ban certain assault style guns among other restrictions will take firearms out of the hands of legal gun owners who may use them for self-defense. Banning or restricting guns from law-abiding citizens leaves them vulnerable to assault and home invasions. If legal gun ownership were to be increased, then violence would diminish. Simply put, guns save lives.
Recent violence acts such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy as well as previous massacres have prompted lawmakers to take action (Engler). President Obama has proposed a plan aimed at stopping violent acts with four steps that can be taken. The President's proposal can be read on The White House web site. This proposal called Now is the Time includes and calls for; 1) closing background check loopholes for all gun sales; 2) banning military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and military grade ammunition; 3) making schools safer by putting in place evacuation plans and creating a safer ambiance in public schools; and 4) Providing preventative mental health services for the individuals that need them. The President feels it is his obligation to prevent future violent acts.
[...] Also, criminals tend to be more worried about meeting a victim with a gun than the police (Gun Owners of America). Guns stop criminals and therefore, reduce violence. Even with some support shown for strengthening firearm accessibility restrictions, stricter background checks, and mental health screenings, polls and data alike show that banning assault weapons, large magazines, or anything else that would inhibit legal citizens from defending themselves would not be beneficial. Legal gun owners use firearms for self-defense. To take them away would result in serious vulnerabilities for the legitimate law-abiding citizen. [...]
[...] The President's plan will make it harder to acquire a firearm to protect yourself, but will also limit the choices that you have for self-defense. Blanton's poll concludes saying that the voters are overall about “twice as likely to say there would be less violent crime in the U.S. if more law-abiding people had guns, than if guns were banned (58 percent to 28 percent).” This supports the belief that guns save lives. Even though these opinion surveys are just beliefs, they translate into facts readily. The survey states that people feel there would be less violent crime in the U.S. [...]
[...] Legal gun ownership should not be decreased; it should be increased as having a firearm have been used to keep an individual and his or her family safe. An increase in firearms should effectively lower violence rates across the country and save the lives of many. Works Cited Armed Citizen. National Rifle Association National Rifle Association. Web Mar Blanton, Dana. “Twice as Many Favor More Guns Over Banning Guns to Reduce Crime.” Fox News Jan Web Mar Blocher, Joseph. Right Not to Keep or Bear Arms.” Stanford Law Review (2012): 1. Academic OneFile. Web Mar Cornell University Law School. [...]
[...] Since the Courts have ruled in favor of self-defense with the use of a firearm, there have been many instances in 2012 alone where individuals have protected themselves against home invaders listed under the National Rifle Association Publications and Magazines. For instance year old Hazel Poole scared off two masked men wielding knives with her .38-special handgun. Jeremy Reed and Anna Soto both protected their one-week-old baby girl with a .22-caliber rifle during a home invasion by two previously convicted felons. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
