Gun Rights
Tavis Bryant

Guns have impacted the world in a tremendous way. Guns have their advantages and disadvantages. Media tends to publicizes bad events like armed bank robberies and murder. Then when people think of robberies or murder, they think of a gun being involved. To prevent criminals from getting guns, countries have laws to make it hard to get or own a gun. Some countries do not even allow citizens to own guns. One of the first guns was the flintlock. The flintlock guns used gun powder and a ball for the shot. After shooting, it took several moments to reload. Next came the bullet. The bullet had the projectile and the powder enclosed in a metal casing. That was good because the bullet could last longer and could be shot in any kind of weather conditions. The 6 shooter was the first gun that used the bullet. It was invented by Samuel Colt. The Colt revolver was a big step in guns. The reason being it was small and could be used in harsh weather. There is a saying that talks about Samuel Colt. The saying is " God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal". Then came the clips where someone could just keep shooting until he or she ran out of ammunition and then drop the empty clip and put in a full clip. There also was the gattling gun. The first Gattling gun was a hand-crank-operated weapon with six barrels revolving around a central shaft. It was able to fire 600 rounds a minute. Of the many guns out their these are just a few. The gun I will be referring to the most will be the hand gun. Citizens should be allowed to keep guns regardless of what country people live in.

One of the benefits for having a gun is for protection. If someone has a gun when a burglar brakes into their house, the owner can scare it away or shoot him or her if the robber starts attacking. A business owner could also keep a gun in his business for the protection of his employees. Here is a summary of a story on how guns at the job can save lives. It is about the great jewelry store shootout in Richmond, VA. Two gunman barged into the Beverly Jewelry Store to rob it. The problem was they picked the wrong store because the store owner was an expert marksman. Also, all of his employees had been trained to use guns. So they were always an outstretched arm away from a gun because there were guns hidden all around the store. Next, after the gunman barged in, one of them shot a warning shot. During that time, the boss and his five employees reached down and grabbed a gun and started shooting at the robbers. Within seconds both robbers were dead. Later the store owner said that he did not believe in being passive when someone threatens his life with a sawed-off shotgun. That story tells how having a gun can protect someone. Also if people were to have guns, that would intimidate criminal because the criminal would think something like, "Could this person have a gun stashed away that I do not know of?" Finally, criminals can always buy guns whether the country lets them or not. There is always someone who will sell a person a gun whether it is legal like a gun shop or illegal like the black-market. Also the police are not always around so people need to be able to protect themselves. If citizens can keep guns with them, they would not worry as much about criminal attacking them or robbing them.

Guns can also be used for hunting. Countries can use the gun for hunting. In some countries, hunting for animals my be the only protein that some families get. People who use guns for survival purposes should not have their guns or rifles taken away just so the government can keep guns out of the city. Also people who hunt for recreation should also be allowed to keep guns. If the government wants to limit guns that the hunters use, they should only allow certain guns for hunters to buy. Other countries should do something like the U.S. does where only citizens can only buy hand guns. Henceforth, people who live in rural areas who hunt for survival should not have their guns taken away just because the government passes a law to ban guns. When the government makes a law to ban guns, they should make previsions for people who depend on a gun for hunting.

Guns can keep dictators and governments in check. If all of the guns were controlled by the government, which would be the military, it could dictate the whole country. It would be like using an iron fist. But if half of the citizens who lived in a country were to own a gun, the government of the citizens would be a little more careful to push to the people around. For example, look at Cuba. No person in their right mind would own a gun because if he did, he would probably get arrested or even worse get dragged off to Siberia. No Communist country could afford to have it’s citizens owning guns because if they did own guns, a civil war might brake out. There are two things a country will do if it takes over another country. First the dictator will get control of the news stations and newspapers so the people do not know what is going on. The citizens only know what is going on by what the dictator says. Second, the dictator will get all the guns from the citizens so he or she will not get shot by an upset citizen. If citizens can keep guns, that will keep a governments hands tied so that they will not try to control the country and will bring peace of mind to the citizens.

United States citizens owning guns is very common in America. The reason being that there is an Amendment about firearms. It is the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment says, " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That Amendment is why people do not think much about guns being taken away in the U.S. We take it for granted that we can own a gun. What the government does to regulate guns is by putting taxes on them and having the guns licensed. There are also gun control laws. There are Federal gun laws and State laws.  Click on Federal gun law and then click on Firearm Laws to go see Federal laws and State laws.  These laws put restrictions on guns. For example, a person who is 18 or older can own a shotgun or a rifle but can not own a hand gun until their 21. Without gun control laws, gun shootings would run rampant. Gun control laws are not put into effect just to make our lives more miserable but to help keep guns out of the hands of unresponsible gun owners and criminals. Compared to other countries, the U.S. government allows us to keep our guns and does not restrict our gun rights.

Next, I will talk about how other countries deal with guns and how they control them. Some countries control guns by either not allowing the citizens to own them or by letting the citizens own real old guns, such as a flintlock. Communist countries would not want it’s citizens to own guns because if they did own guns, a civil war could brake out. On the other hand the country of Australia allows it’s citizens to own guns but the Australian government is very strict with who can own guns. I was told that if the husband divorces his wife, that any guns that he owns will get taken away. He also could not purchase a gun after the divorce. The reason being for revenge. If the husband wanted to get back at his ex-wife, he could not shot her because his guns were confiscated. Each country varies on who can and can not have a gun. Some only allow military personal and other countries allow military and civilians. Governments want control of the guns because they can then control the people and the country.

Guns are useless if there is no ammunition to shot. Most guns shoot standard ammunition which is just a fast moving projectile. But there are other types of ammunition besides the standard shot. There is armor piercing ammunition which shots through armor. Armor piercing bullets are more dense than regular bullets. The tips of the bullets are made of some dense material such as depleted uranium. Next, there is a tracer bullet. A tracer bullet is a bullet that glows when fired which can help increase accuracy. A good example of seeing a tracer is from Desert Storm. There is night video of the guns shooting with tracers. The last kind of bullet is the exploding bullet. It is also known as dumdum. One way exploding bullets explode is by having the front part of the bullet hallowed out. When fired and it hits a person, the weak front of the bullet shatters and tears up the person it hits. Most of these bullets are only used by the military and not by civilians. I think it is okay for someone to own and shoot these type of bullets but they have to have special permission. Special bullets, like the ones I mentioned above, should only be used by the military and people who have special permission.

Guns have impacted society in a very big way. If guns were never invented, there would not be an equal chance to kill someone. Before guns the most common way to kill someone was to stab him or her. Guns keep people equal. If people are equal with guns than it is harder for a government or dictator to control the people. If responsible people all over the world could keep guns, the people would make the world a better place to live in.

Introduction

This is a really nice introductory paragraph dealing with the evolution of guns, but your argument is centered around the right to bear arms, which means that you might also want to focus on the background information concerning the individual's struggle with the state to keep himself armed.

Body1

Nice work on this paragraph, too--what about cases in which the citizen's gun is taken away by the criminal and used against him? Should the state sponsor gun safety and protection classes to teach citizens who buy guns for self-defense how to best use them?

Body2

Is it just those who live in rural areas with whom you're concerned here? It seems that urban dwellers are just as likely to go out and hunt for recreation or venison as one who lives in the country--ought he not to have a right to keep a gun with him, too? Develop this idea along the lines of current gun legislation that focuses on hunting. The last major gun reform law of 1993 saw a ban on semi-automatic weapons used in hunting. Discuss that.

Body3

You might develop this idea a bit along the lines of practicality--if a dictator does take over, what motive would he have for letting the populace retain their weapons? You might clarify that reference to being dragged off to Siberia--Miami, maybe--but Siberia's a bit far. Dictators are usually men, not women. Who do you think is going to enforce this global arming of the people? You might bring in the example of Switzerland, where the populace is required to arm themselves, as an example of one of the ways in which that country was able to maintain neutrality and avoid invasion through two world wars.

Body4

There are two ways to interpret that amendment, the other being that only the government sponsored militia need be armed. How would you answer that? After your hyperlink, you don't have to give me directions on how to use it. If I know enough to click on it, you should take for granted that I'll be able to find my way around it. What would the NRA's position be on the necessity of gun laws? You might find the hyperlink. How would that compare with your position?

Body5

You already talk about Communist countries in body 3. There's no sense in being redundant here. Focus on developed nations only in this paragraph. Perhaps talk about some of the gun laws countries like England and France, former colonial powers, have to contribute to this debate--did they, for instance, ban guns in the colonies, but allow them on their own London and Parisian streets? You might include developing, non-communist, nations, too.

Body6

Why would a normal citizen, even with special permission, need tracer or exploding bullets like if he's not going elephant hunting in the wilds of America? Consolidate your last two sentences into one sentence in about half the words--both of them say the same thing.

Conclusion

Focus in this paragraph on the impact this controversy is having on society--what is it doing to litigants suing gun manufacturers for producing a harmful product? How is legislation being crafted as a result of the various special interests coming out against them in light of the recent school shootings in the spring of 1998 in various parts of the country, in Columbine in the spring of 99, and, more recently, in Oklahoma this fall?

Return to top