Why Additional Gun Restriction is Wrong

Written by Christopher L.

Basically speaking, I support the second amendment, albeit with one or two caveats. I do not support the second amendment because I am a violent individual who is going to go out and slaughter innocent civilians, nor do I support it because I am some backwoods hick that “don’t want no government takin’ my boomstick away.” I am a freshman in high school, and my family does not own a single firearm, much to my chagrin. I support the second amendment because I believe that, with few exceptions, it keeps the general population safe.

Nobody in their right mind is going to break into a house if they have any reason to believe that the house has one or more firearms within its walls (but if you’re breaking into a house anyway, I doubt you’re in your right mind). However, if guns are banned, feel free to pillage and plunder whoever’s house you choose! Not like they can shoot you! And in an area where huge numbers of people carry guns, open or concealed, nobody is going to try anything violent, lest they get a bullet or bullets in one or many of their vital organs. Were guns banned altogether, of course the number of shootings would decrease sharply, but the amount of violent crime overall would increase drastically (just look at Britain).

What really needs to happen is to have much stricter rules on who can own certain types of guns, and progressively more intensive tests and background checks as the potential danger of the gun increases, e.g. a more intense, restrictive test for an M4 assault rifle than for a Glock 17.