Firearms: Are they Killers or Protectors?

In America our society is faced with the never-ending problem or violence. Our society has become a universal battleground for rapes, robberies, drug trafficking and a variety of firearm-related shootings. We, as Americans and human beings, must take actions to stop these horrific acts. However, the effort by some misguided groups and individuals to eliminate the legal ownership of firearms does not address the real problem at hand and simply disarms the innocent law-abiding citizens who are most in need of a form of self-defense. Jeff Synder says, “In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.” (9)

“Violence is out of control. Guns are a major cause. They all should be banned – the sooner the better.” says David Kopel. (1) Anti-firearm activists feel that firearms are only a necessity to do harm u

I doubt there will ever be a correct answer as to whether firearms are protectors or killers because both sides have valid issues and concerns. I feel that both sides should concentrate more on how to control firearm violence and less on the control of the purchase of a firearm itself. If both sides focused on the real issue at hand -educating firearm safety and propose heavier sentences for the offenders - progress might get accomplished faster, making violent crime rates decrease.

In simple terms the definition of a law-abiding citizen is someone who obeys the law and the definition of a criminal is someone who does not obey the law. If we pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, which category of the people does it affect? The answer is that gun control laws affect law-abiding citizens only. By their very nature, the criminals will continue to violate these new laws and continue to carry firearms, regardless of the law. Criminals will continue to find crime much easier knowing that when they attack their victims that they will be most likely be unarmed. Innocent people are turned into victims when new laws make it impossible for them to fight back. An unarmed man stands a very little chance against an armed one.

There are pros and cons to each side of the firearm control battle. Why can’t both sides come to a happy medium? There are things that can be done to prevent fatalities without infringing on gun ownership. One suggestion would be to conduct a more extensive background check on a person who wishes to purchase a firearm. This extensive background check would make it more difficult if impossible for minors, drug addicts or people with a past history of violence to obtain a firearm. Granted the extra time it would take to dig a bit deeper into a person’s history may be more time consuming and costly, but the benefit from the certainty to grant that person the privilege of owning a firearm would be much greater than not knowing of that person’s past history, therefore ensuring public safety to a higher degree than at present.

Some topics in this essay:
NRA-ILA’s Sheet, Dr Roth, Health Association, Jeff Snyder, Jeff Synder, PROTECTORS America, Jeffrey Roth’s, Donald Reay, Firearms ATF, Considering Federal, law-abiding citizens, gun control, firearm control, stronger penalties, law-abiding citizen, gun control laws, violent crime, control laws, firearm violence, anti-firearm activists, background check, 743 gunshot deaths, firearms killers protectors, activists feel firearms, extensive background check,