Scribd
Upload
55 views

Introduction 2 Corrected

Vilmarie Santiago Morales argues that gun ownership should be permitted for several reasons. She believes citizens have a right to gun ownership for self-defense against criminals and a potentially authoritarian government. She also asserts that gun ownership is important for activities like hunting and improving skills. While acknowledging some misuse of guns, she argues this does not outweigh the benefits of gun ownership and responsibility of citizens to protect themselves.

Uploaded by

api-262519416
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views

Introduction 2 Corrected

Vilmarie Santiago Morales argues that gun ownership should be permitted for several reasons. She believes citizens have a right to gun ownership for self-defense against criminals and a potentially authoritarian government. She also asserts that gun ownership is important for activities like hunting and improving skills. While acknowledging some misuse of guns, she argues this does not outweigh the benefits of gun ownership and responsibility of citizens to protect themselves.

Uploaded by

api-262519416
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Santiago 1

Vilmarie Santiago Morales


Prof. Ellen Pratt
INGL3103
October 2, 2014
Elimination of Guns, World Peace or Capitalism?
When the word gun comes to mind, many associate it with negative thoughts. Some
believe the elimination of guns would be the solution to end mass murders, that it could
bring peace of mind and a sense of security to people that they wont be harmed. Many who
have lost a loved one by the hand of a gunman would feel those things as well. But in the
words of Thomas Jefferson, I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. Giving up
the right to ownership of guns could mean being a victim not only to criminals but the
government as well. Mass murders occur in gun free zones, police officers use guns against
the criminals, why shouldnt citizens have a way to defend themselves if threatened? My
view is that gun ownership is necessary for your safety and can be used for other activities
as well like improving various skills and hunting.
It is a fact that our founding father wrote in The Second Amendment about gun
ownership and the approving of it. They believed Americans should have a standard,
infantry level gun for Americans to use for protection against invading armies and America
own army. We have no way of knowing when a war could start or if the next president
decides to follow the steps of Adolf Hitler so I agree. Although some politicians might say
that the government is trustworthy, I believe they arent since they are known to keep secret
to the public eye. Guns should be used for protection of other citizens as well. Crime rates
over the years have increased, making us vulnerable to any criminal. But most of these
crimes are carried out by people with illegal guns.

Santiago 2

Most of us will agree that one of its main purposes is for self-defense. On the one
hand, some argue that it means letting people take matters in their own hands. On the other
hand, others say it could save your life and the ones of others. My own view is that guns
should be used for self-defense because it is known that a cops responsibility is to
document the crime not prevent it. Common sense seems to dictate then that it is your
responsibility to protect yourself. It is in places of gun free-zone where most of mass
killing occurs, places like in Sandy Hook Elementary where twenty six children were
killed. If a police officer in that school could have had a gun, maybe more lives would be
saved. Executive director of Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt argues, Addition to the
gunman, blood is on the hands of members of Congress and the Connecticut legislators
who voted to ban guns from all schools in Connecticut and most other states.
Another use of firearms is for hunting. Americans practice this as a hobby or
because its their way to earn money. Some families even consider it a family tradition that
fathers and their son go hunting together. Hunting animals like deers, rabbits, birds. It is a
way that families bond together using firearms and in a positive way, besides being used to
harm to people. Some families depend on hunting since it could be their job. Many hunters
sell the meat or skins to people. For example, many Americans use the skin as rugs for their
homes. Although some might object it does not affect in a large scale, I still maintain it
would change familys way of living.
I concede that many people who possess guns dont have the best intentions
regarding to the use of it, I still maintain that we cant punish the citizens who do. There are
still responsible citizens who use their guns for the purposes it is supposed to have. For
example, one of the top reasons people purchase a gun is for protection. Although some
might object that guns provoke more crime, I believe racism, poverty, capitalism are the

Santiago 3

thing that truly provoke people to use a weapon to harm another. Some would refute by
saying that a bullet has no name. Rosenthal, a writer, expresses in his article Of the many
specious arguments against gun control, perhaps the most ridiculous is that what we really
need is the opposite: more guns, in the hands of more people, in more places. Likewise
Follmen complains, Attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are
rareand are successful even more rarely. (Two people who tried it in recent years were
gravely wounded or killed.) And law enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea of armed
citizens getting involved. I would refute by saying with more citizens armed, the criminal
will likely see his disadvantage, provoking him to give up and preventing more people from
getting hurt.
In conclusion, I stand in favor of gun ownership. The issue is important because
tragedies have occurred involving the use of a weapon and yet I believe they shouldnt be
banned for the various reasons presented. They benefit society in many ways, including the
most important thing, protection. A person does not live a healthy life if they dont feel safe
in their own homes. Guns are part of the protection of people and without them there would
be more chaos. It is known that guns should be allowed since our Founding Fathers
themselves believed so. It is why the possession of one is said to be a right, which should
not be taken away.

Santiago 4

Work Cited
Follmen, Mark. Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No. Mother Jones,
19 Dec. 2012. Web. 11 September 2012
Pratt, Larry.Eliminate 'gun-free zone' regulations. Gun Owners of America, 17 Dec.
2012. Web. 10 September 2014.
Rosenthal, Andrew.The More Guns Argument. Taking Note. The New York Times,
21 Dec. 2012. Web. 9 September 2014.

You might also like