Introduction
The topic of gun ownership among civilians in the United States has a long history of heated debates and has caused several controversies. The right to bear arms is given to the U.S. citizens in the Second Amendment, which states that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The effect of increased control over guns will not lead to the result expected by proponents of increased restrictions. This essay discusses the needlessness for additional regulations on gun ownership.
The Argument in Favor of Gun Ownership
Gun ownership is one of the most efficient ways of self-defense. In case additional gun restricting laws will be introduced, this measure will not take the guns away from criminals who already operate outside of the law. It is crucial to adhere to the Second Amendment when making a decision regarding this topic, otherwise, it might turn into an avalanche of restrictive changes.
A Possible Counterargument
The primary argument against current gun ownership limitations is the expected decrease in crimes involving a firearm. While proponents of this intention often link this crucial societal issue with the high number of guns owned per individual, it is critical to understand that the correlation is nonexistent. Historically, murder rates with firearms were already below the U.S. level in the countries that gun control advocates use as an example of the effects of gun restrictions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the perceived benefit from increased restrictions regarding gun ownership in the United States is a narrative created by a culture of fear. People who promote stricter gun regulations make a false assumption that the availability of guns will decrease the number of shootings. It is counterproductive to ban legal gun ownership, as it merely leaves law-abiding citizens vulnerable to criminals.