- All American citizens have the right to own any kind of weapon that they want; based on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution
- There needs to be some sort of limiting factors on gun purchases: background checks, waiting periods, etc...
- The only people who should be allowed access to guns are specific government employees
Unfortunately, this is not the case. It's true that law abiding citizens will have a more difficult time obtaining a weapon, a criminal will not bother to check the new regulations to insure that their purchase was legal. In effect, citizens wanting to purchase firearms for legitimate purposes are further hindered, while criminals continue to enjoy the same level of access as under previous legislative attempts. This causes yet another effect, law abiding citizens have a more difficult time defending themselves from the criminal element.
In Lincoln, NE (where I live) the average response time of the Lincoln Police Department in 2011 (the last available year's worth of data) to a priority one or priority two dispatch was 4.5 minutes. Their goal is to maintain a dispatch time average of under 5 minutes. A lot of damage can be inflicted in 5 minutes. Either on a person or their property. By inhibiting law abiding citizens from purchasing guns, we reduce their ability to defend themselves from an enemy free of the same constraints.
In addition to being ineffective, gun control laws are costly. This is a cost that is accomplishing nothing. Literally, it is throwing away money. Normally, when we expend resources, we expect an equal exchange of value. $4 for a gallon of milk, for instance. With gun control laws, no value has been created to account for the spent resources. In the US there are currently more than 300 gun control laws in effect, each one championed as the end to gun violence. *
The last argument is to make any and all firearms illegal for civilians, with the possible exception of hunting. In this way, legally purchased guns won't be able to become illegal guns. Therefore, gun crime and thus, violent crime, would be reduced. This idea is most unreasonable. If we think of gun control legislation in terms of economics, we can see that the trade of guns would not be substantially reduced even if we made all guns illegal. Making guns illegal does not diminish the value that people place on them. There will always be a demand for that value. So long as their is a demand, there will always be a supplier. We see the same idea in the enforcement of drug laws. There is no shortage of legislation, some of which carry severe consequences, banning illicit drugs. Neither is there a shortage of illicit drugs. Prohibitive legislation only forces the cost of the resource up, without a corresponding increase in value.
When they affirmed our right as human beings to defend ourselves, the framer's intent was to insure that we could defend ourselves from the government. They knew all to well the advantage an overly powerful government would take if left unchecked by the citizens. Both the Federalists and the Anti-federalist (whose Papers I hope you will read if you haven't already) expressed their fear of an out of control government vs. an unarmed citizenry.
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." -- Thomas Jefferson
* If local laws are accounted for, there are quite a few more, but we will only consider the most commonly applied state and federal laws.
** I need to look up how to do footnotes on Blogger.