An Argument Against Gun Control As long ago as 1789, the creators of the Constitution realized the importance of guns in The Second Amendment states,"A well regulated Militia, being necessary tothe security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." No loopholes, or legal caches exist in this statement. The Founding Fathers allow for norestriction of the private ownership of firearms. Yet, in recent years anti-gun politicians haveattempted to control guns in the name of crime prevention. Gun control makes no effort tocontrol criminals, does not reduce crime, takes guns from responsible sportsmen and recreationalshooters, and allows criminals to possess firearms superior to those of the public.Advocates that support the cause of control claim that controlling firearms will lessoncriminal action. Gun control does nothing to control criminals. The fundamental flaw in thethinking of anti-gun polititions is that guns don't kill people. People kill people. The same logicthat leads one to control firearms could also lead one to endeavor to control automobiles and fastfood simply because they are instrumental in millions of deaths per year. Why when Americansreject such an absurd theory as "Automobile Control," which do not infringe the constitution,.would these same individuals embrace an idea as gun control? People accept gun control, but ifa politician would suggest "controlling" fast food restaurants because the fatty food causes heartproblems and deaths, the public would scorn his insane proposal. Ultimately, people's choiceslead them to drive recklessly, overindulge in unhealthy food, and use firearms to commit violentcrimes. So, criminals should be controlled, not the guns which they share with millions oflaw-abiding citizens.Gun control supporters claim that gun control lowers crime rate. Gun control doesnothing to reduce crime. A study conducted by the Urban Institute regar...
