An argument against the gun control laws in the united states

History[ edit ] Calamity Janenotable pioneer frontierswoman and scout, at age The American hunting tradition comes from a time when the United States was an agrarian, subsistence nation where hunting was a profession for some, an auxiliary source of food for some settlers, and also a deterrence to animal predators.

An argument against the gun control laws in the united states

Originally published as 20 J. For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William S. Introduction This Essay is a distillation of two speeches. The common theme of my two speeches is the apparent disregard by gun control more correctly, gun prohibition advocates of civil liberties and civil rights issues, the largely adverse criminological research conclusions, and Second Amendment constitutional scholarship.

Thus, both my speeches stressed the remarkable discrepancy between scholarship whether social scientific or constitutional and the "accepted wisdom" that disarming ordinary, law abiding, and responsible citizens is both desirable and constitutional.

It is less about criminology than about ideology and morality.

Guns and Domestic Violence - pfmlures.com

But, this broad popular support is based on a desire to mitigate the social harms associated with firearms. Such pragmatic concerns are largely tangential to the cultural and moral concerns that motivate the anti-gun movement of organizations like Handgun Control, Inc. They seek laws to affirm symbolically their moral vision while simultaneously rejecting and condemning the contrary moral vision of gun owners.

A law banning defensive gun ownership will inculcate their views that: Guns and Violence in America. Thus, Ross does not deny though neither does he dwell on the fact that handguns save far more innocent lives than criminals misusing them take each year.

However, Ross asserts that "despite the masses of data and the cleverness of his analysis and argument, Kleck has missed the point. The social order is seen to rest adequately on masses of potential victims using the threat of gun violence to deter masses of potential armed criminals.

For, when it turns out that it is defensive gun ownership that saves lives, it also turns out that saving lives is not "worth it"--at least not to Ross who is very candid about this observation. Ross approvingly notes that the tragic "fate of James Brady" provided the "impetus for attempts at broader gun control.

The Second Amendment [17] My position here, like that of virtually every other scholar who has recently addressed the issues, discomfits both extremes in the gun debate.

An argument against the gun control laws in the united states

Let me begin with the common denial by anti-gun advocates that the right to arms applies to individuals. They claim that the Second Amendment only guarantees states the right to armed militias. This position is not just wrong, but frivolous--something that no knowledgeable person can honestly argue in light of modern research.

Three of those articles were written by paid employees of anti-gun groups and the fourth by a politician. The Founding Fathers seem not to have had even the remotest inkling of such a concept. This commentary was widely published and republished before Congress when it enacted the Bill of Rights.

They consistently lumped these rights together under such descriptions as "human rights," "private rights," rights "respecting personal liberty," and "essential and sacred rights.

Madison, a leading Federalist defender of the Constitution, categorically denied that his amendments would reduce federal power in any respect.

These proposed amendments were rejected. If he had thought the Second Amendment related to the military-militia provisions, he would have included it in Article I, Section 8.

Instead, he planned to insert the right to arms with freedom of religion, the press, and other personal rights in Section 9 following the rights against bills of attainder and ex-post facto laws.

An argument against the gun control laws in the united states

General Attitude of the Founders Toward Firearms Historical research demonstrates the Founders out-"NRAing" even the NRA in expressing what one intellectual historian has described as their "almost religious [attitude] about the relationship between men and arms" in a free society.

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; Horrid mischief would ensue were [the good] deprived of the use of them I am thus far a Quaker that I would gladly argue with all the world to lay aside the use of arms, and settle matters by negotiation, but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank heaven he [sic] has put it in my power.

Blackstone ranked "arms for an [individual] defense" as a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. Prior to his death, he and Locke defended that right as an aspect of personal self-defense: The Text of the Second Amendment As the United States Supreme Court recently observed, the phrase "right of the people" is consistently used throughout the Bill of Rights to refer to the rights of citizens against government.

Further, one must ignore that the Tenth Amendment specifically distinguishes "the states" from "the people," but the Second Amendment does not.

Limitations on the Right to Arms Having addressed the anti-gun view, the gun lobby position may be briefly dispatched by noting that the Amendment does not read: Not extending to felons, children, or the insane; and it is limited to ordinary small arms including semi-automatic firearmsbut does not include possession of weapons of mass destruction.

The NRA has implicitly recognized much of this insofar as it has consistently promoted laws against gun possession by felons and the insane. Yet, with manifest inconsistency, the gun lobby, at least until recently, denied the constitutionality of background checks, licensing, or other devices to preclude such undesirables from obtaining firearms.

But, that right is subject to reasonable and rapid screening mechanisms designed to exclude criminals and the irresponsible, and to numerous other restrictions as well. Modern Criminological Views of Gun Control It may surprise readers that modern criminologists reject gun control as a fruitful strategy.Dec 21,  · Gun control in the United States is rooted in the Federal Constitution under the 2 nd amendment.

In essence, the 2 nd amendment was created so that the people would have arms to overthrow a tyrannical pfmlures.coms: Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.

The balance of power is the scale of peace. Back to Top. Endorsements for Death by "Gun Control". LATER NEWS: Freedom Book of the Month for January, award from pfmlures.com Death by "Gun Control" provides a vital and neglected argument for the right of private gun ownership: namely, that people with guns can defend themselves against government criminals as well as against common ones.

Zelman and Stevens present the argument. Gun control advocates concerned about high levels of gun violence in the United States look to restrictions on gun ownership as a way to stem the violence and say that increased gun ownership leads to higher levels of crime, suicide and other negative outcomes.

The UK has some the toughest gun control laws in the world but are there areas left that could be further tightened? More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) Third Edition.

Against Gun Control - Gun | pfmlures.com