The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control Laws

If not guns, it's knives. If not knives, it's clubs. If not clubs, what's next? As much as we would like to believe we live in a perfectly sound world, the reality is, the world which we live will always have crime. Contrary to popular belief, gun crime is not the only kind of crime there is. Take smuggling and trafficking crimes, while the people who endorse withdrawing specific firearms and ammunation from a legal market have good intentions, doing so is counter productive as it promotes a stronger illegal firearm market, contributes to more smuggling, and enables black market expansion. Criminals do not look up gun laws before they decide they want to purchase a firearm through the black market, more legislation would only be ignored by

Of course, easier access to guns = more guns = more gun murders. Right? Wrong. The rights mentioned earlier, are a few of many common rights vermontian citizens enjoy and contrary to "common sense", they actually relish the lowest gun murder per capita in the United States at .3 inhabitants per 100,000. There are a few factors that can stop someone from walking into a university campus and commiting an act of terror. I'll tell you whats not stopping someone. A potential piece of paper that simply states weapons are not allowed on campus. What can actually stop someone from commiting such an act, is an armed citizen, with the will to survive. A gun free sign is written one way, but read two diffrent ways. The message it delivers depends on who reads it. The message a law abiding gun owner recieves, is somewhere in the lines of "Turn around and put your gun away, unless you want to go to jail." The message a potential criminal with violent intentions recieves the other message, which translates to "Just remember to hide your firearm better

This is a common argument made by gun control advocates. This argument implies that if the tool or median we use to excersise any right evolves into anything different than when the right was originally granted, so should the scripture that grants us these rights. The first amenment of the U.S. constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Back in 1791 when the U.S constitution was ratified, there was no such thing as the internet, social media, or televised mass media. Today we walk around with the worlds ears in our very pockets 24 hours 7 days a week and every day there are improvements to this technology. Not only is the first amendment more accessable and easily practiced today than it has ever been in the history of the world, it is also not the same right it once was centuries ago. I am by no means trying to undermine the way we excersise our first amendment, on the contrary, these improvements in technology give the people more power over the government. Which everyone can agree, is a wonderful thing. That being said, we don't need to change our laws to restrict our first amendment in response to the advances in the tools that we use to excersise this right and the second amendment