ENG101; Position Paper
April 15 , 2015
Restricting Forms of Firearm Ownership
There is considerable confusion about the legal theory underlying the "right to keep and bear arms" , the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize such rights, but the repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. The question often arises: Would Americans be safer if more people owned guns? The answer is a definite No. More guns just means more gun crime and deaths. After all, firearm injuries are the second leading cause of injury death in the United States, and the rate of gun-related deaths among US children under the age of fifteen is nearly twelve times higher than that among children in twenty-five other industrialized nations combined .
Let's be honest about the purpose of a firearm. It is not a decoration for the wall of your den or a trinket to display for your friends. It is a device created for the sole purpose of killing a person or an animal. Let's put aside the matter of whether you own a rifle for use in hunting animals. What remains are handguns. Handguns are designed specifically to kill people with maximum efficiency. So here's the critical question Americans need to ask: Are we, our loved ones and our community safer if we and our neighbors own handguns?
With nearly 400,000 gun crimes committed every year, the United States has the highest rate of firearm deaths (more than 30,000 each year) among twenty-five high-income nations. Clearly, stronger and more effective gun control laws are needed to keep guns out of the wrong hands and to better protect the public. Furthermore, despite what the gun lobby claims, most Americans are in favor of common-sense gun laws because they understand that such laws will, in...