Gun Unity And Freedom Essay

Protective Unity and Freedoms

The concept of fear can prevent one from discovering the benefits of an idea or object which can present both detriments and securities. In the context of reality, people argue constantly about the importance or dangers of guns. More than 250 million Americans own some form of firearms, and the amount of gun related deaths is increasing to 10 in 10,000 people falling victim to these types of weapons (Polsby). Essentially, an abundance of gun oppositionists argue that by allowing for the legalization of guns for common use, the government is putting the lives of its citizens in immense danger (Polsby). As Daniel D. Polsby continues to state in his background article, those who oppose gun access are proposing

Essentially, the opposition states that without limits on one’s access to firearms, the American people will definitely lose their freedom and rights. According to President Barack Obama’s January 5 speech, the mass shootings in many towns removed both the lives and innocence of the children who died (Eliperin and Nakamura). Allegedly, those against the use of firearms want stronger restrictions in order to defend the next generation of American citizens. Despite the president’s appeal to emotion and supposed intentions of protecting the next generation, one should clearly see that the utilization of firearms actually sustains the rights of Americans and children. As Daniel D. Polsby states in support of that claim, guns can only serve the purpose of a tool of either benefit or destruction. Gun control activists focus heavily on the firearms’ potential to remove one’s rights while they should spend time on ensuring that the law locks up criminals and treats the mentally ill. Although a plethora of gun control proponents claim that they want to ensure the lives and rights of all Americans, they do not focus on total protection of the nation. For instance, Giffords continues to write that the requirement of background checks and stronger gun control laws will ultimately protect the nation and

Essentially, firearms do not serve simply the purpose of killing but also as hobbies and common ways of life for a plethora of people. Adam Winkler writes that a 1986 court case banned the use of machine guns for civilian use and that people often mistake rifles for guns as menacing as those restricted. Furthermore, guns such as rifles provide a method of recreation apart from killing and defending (Winkler). Undeniably, people use their own interpretations of danger as evidence to restrict the use of guns, because they fear the possibilities and not necessarily the realities. This article demonstrates how rifles differ from machine guns, and how people can use recreational firearms not for evil but for simple enjoyment in common activities. To go forth, the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action states that the government is banning guns such as rifles which lack the capacity to cause mass murders (Ridder). Basically, these guns serve the purpose of simply entertainment and cannot amount to the menace of the criminal use of firearms. Undoubtedly, this article demonstrates how the government’s use of gun control laws is acting on a lack of understanding of the banned object. Moreover, the government should not ban guns such as rifles