When such things happen, we as a nation are overcome with emotion and blame things that are not at fault. As with most schools across the U. S. , Sandy Hook Elementary had a zero tolerance policy; however, the gunman stopped at nothing in order to pursue what he was determined to o.
With that being said, why would anyone want to take away our Constitutional right to defend ourselves against disturbed people such as the Sandy Hook gun man? It is even statistically proven that the crime rate is lower in places where there is minimum gun control (Watson). Without a doubt, gun control laws will not save lives. As the National Rifle Association’s unofficial slogan says, “Guns don’t kill people, people do. ” Possessing a firearm does not make a person a murderer. One must pull the trigger in order to shoot someone. It has been said that “it is what is in the heart, not he hand, of a person that makes them a murdered’ (Wright).
Those who are truly disturbed and determined will find a way to hurt others, regardless of what the law enforces. If laws are passed restricting or even terminating gun ownership, law-abiding citizens would be left unarmed, leaving the innocent unprotected against criminals. How are such laws expected to save lives when it is obvious that the defenseless are the ones targeted during crime-related incidents, such as mass murder? The second amendment made to U. S. Constitution states, “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall ot be infringed. The government’s way of attempting to restrict our right to bear arms is in complete violation to the second amendment. This amendment was passed to give American citizens the right to use a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense (Kates). Many gun control activists argue that the second amendment is no longer needed in todays society due to our standing army and well-trained law enforcement. To contradict this, in 201 1, six people were killed and many were injured as a result to a shooting that took place in Tucson, Arizona during a local constituent meeting.
Eyewitnesses to the incident report that it took over 20 minutes for the police to arrive. In response to this, Representative Ron Paul stated, “Since police cannot be every. where all of the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves” (Infobase Learning). As U. S. citizens, we must defend our right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves. Believe it or not, our nation’s crime rate is at historic lows. According to research conducted by Grant Duwe, the highest rate of mass murder in the U. S. occurred during a time before many Of the weapons at risk Of being anned were even introduced (Domenech).
Duwe’s research also states that out of the worst eleven mass killings within the past century, only four involved firearms. Evidently, firearms are not the major problem when it comes to crime. The U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that between the years of 1 994 and 201 1, while the number of legally owned guns increased by 33 percent, the number of firearm related crimes decreased by almost 75 percent (Domenech). Also according to an article published by the NRA, since 1991, 40 states have passed laws allowing people to carry concealed firearms.
Since then, the murder rate has been cut in half and the crime rate has dropped by about 40 percent (Infobase Learning). It is no coincidence that crime decreases in relation to legal gun ownership increasing. Many people believe that gun control will make this country a safer place. In reality, we live in a world where evil and insanity will always exist. As Benjamin Disraeli once , ” . when men are corrupt, laws are broken” (Domenech). For that wrote reason, no law can truly protect us from evil. Having the right to bear arms provides peace of mind in knowing we have the ability to protect ourselves in he midst of danger.