In my essay, I intend to show that further gun control is simply not an option. I argue this point by using parallels in the gaming and movie industry. I show how further gun control will eventually lead to a banning of guns in the US by arguing points both in support of gun control and against “further” gun control.
No guns means less murders and that is a good reason to get rid of guns completely. There are countries that have outright banned the sale, use and ownership of guns, and in those countries the murder and accidental death rate is far lower than in the USA. The other side to this is that countries without guns find other ways to kill people. For example, in Scotland (in Britain) the murder by knife rate is higher than most countries in the world. The counter to this counter argument is that the murder rate is still far lower in Scotland than it is in the US.
US culture is afraid to question the arms business. A TV show called “Family Guy” edified viewers to this point perfectly when it said, “The US is the one place where a person can shoot up a workplace with a thing, and the day after nobody questions banning that thing.” People in the US are afraid to make a real stand against banning guns because the arms trade is a massive one in the USA, which means they control the media and ergo public opinion. The counter argument to this is that people fear giving an inch will result in a mile being taken. There are people that are afraid if gun restrictions are allowed to be put in place even further than they are now, then it starts a slow ride that results in a banning of guns.
This “slow ride” train is not new. The gaming industry is mostly geared towards men, which is why a lot of female characters are sexy and scantily clad. When this is questioned as sexist and changes are called for, the gaming community reacts very angrily because it is the first step down the road to having overweight and ugly female characters in games wearing hoodies and baggy trousers. The gaming community also fears that if they give a little leeway that things will change too much. Ironically, in the area of sexism, the people fighting for less sexualisation in games are pushing women back into ancient times–making it unacceptable for women to be sexy and feminine and insisting they cover up as they did in Victorian times.
Giving an inch may cause activists to take a mile. In other words, if gun supporters do not fight every move on gun control with extreme prejudice, then activists will chip away at gun control until they are banned. The same thing is happening in gaming as Lara Croft’s boobs are considerably smaller than when the character was created and she is less feminine (a tomboy even). Further gun control will start a slide that chips away at peoples’ right to own a gun. Movies and games are caving to similar pressure to the point where the Wonder Woman movie has her in trousers instead of her uniform. Batman wasn’t put in Lycra and superman wasn’t asked to wear a duffle coat. Allowing further gun control would slowly chip away at gun ownership rights in the same way that sexism activists have chipped away at the movie and gaming industry and have made women ashamed to show their bodies in a feminine way.
An Argument Against Gun Control Essay
912 Words4 Pages
A proposed federal law to outlaw all guns would be more effective at disarming
law-abiding citizens than at disarming the criminals who abuse them. If guns were
outlawed, the criminals would not stop carrying guns, but the good, law-abiding citizens
would. It would do nothing about the illegally obtained handguns in the possession of
criminals. In The NRA is Right, Josh Sugarmann states that “One tenet of the National
Rifle Association’s faith has always been that handgun controls do little to stop criminals
from obtaining handguns” (Sugarmann 185). Criminals simply aren’t discouraged, they
just ignore bans. The only two things passing a law of this nature would accomplish
would be to take away the honest…show more content…
If a student makes an error in
their writing, do we blame the pencil they use to write? Highly unlikely. Gun control
would not prevent criminals from obtaining guns. In The NRA is Right, Sugarmann
argues “ The black market that has fed off the legal sale of handguns would continue for
a long while” (Sugarmann 190). Most criminals get guns through informal off-the-record
swaps, purchases and trades with relatives, friends, drug-dealers, or other street sources.
Spending millions of dollars on a fail proof checking system would cause felons to stop
buying guns from a shop, and send them to buy their weapons from the streets.
Guns are effective forms of self-defense. Taking them away would leave civilians
defenseless and easy targets. Guns, when stored and operated correctly and safely can
create a sense of safety. When used for protection, guns provide a psychological buffer
against the fear of crime. When protected by a gun, people often feel safer because if
something should arise they have some sort of security. Criminals will avoid situations
where there is a possibility that their target may be armed. Guns can save a potential
victim from becoming one. Victims who use guns for protection are less likely to be
attacked or injured than victims who respond in any other way. Since guns empower the
weak against the strong, and because victims are generally weaker than