Against gun control

Introduction

According to the facts of gun control in 2009, nearly 39 percent of the American population voted for a ban on guns and other firearms in the United States (Zimring 1). The reason - perceived view that the lack of gun control, which resulted in a number of deaths involving firearms in the country. Gun control laws to a large extent may have no effect on criminals, as always will be a flourishing black market trade in weapons and firearms.

Just like the war on drugs, the arguments against gun control and the arguments for gun control resulting in questions of intent or bearing (or not taking) weapons. There are many pros and cons of gun control, but the right to carry firearms issued to the Second Amendment. The question is, in the manner and for the benefit of all infringe on these rights in order to prevent acts of violence are still continuing, thanks to the black market in firearms. In the end, George L. Roman said, "I am confident that we can do to guns what we've done with drugs. Create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control."

Ownership

Self-ownership means that people have the right to use their bodies and their property however they want if they do not violate the rights of anyone else. At first glance, this would seem to support all gun ownership, as a mere possession of a gun is not an invasion of property, or even the threat of having a concealed weapon in a holster categorically different from the aggressive swinging one. However, the issue is more complicated than it seems (Valdez 112).

First, we must note that the weapons might be used aggressively, in violation of another's property, or in defense, in defense of property, or neutral, no violations or protect property. If it is possible to use a weapon in a purely defensive manner, that such weapons may be lawful. For example, as weapons can be used exclusively in the defense, the ownership of guns should be from right to self-ownership. Therefore, we cannot ban any weapon that simply has the potential for aggressive use is that it would entail banning all weapons: cars, knives, bats, scissors, hands, feet, teeth. The fact that the weapon has the potential to be used aggressively is not enough to guarantee him a ban. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, cannot be pinpointed, and therefore cannot be used defensively, they are inherently aggressive weapon. Thus, gun ownership is legal and Nuke property is not.

With this in mind, we can see if gun control is compatible with individual rights. Gun control is a limited form of the ban, it makes it illegal to make or possess weapons without government permission. But, as we have seen, the legality of possession and production of arms is derived from the right to self-ownership: the weapon can be used in the protection and without the threat of violence, and so can ...