In Support of Private Gun Ownership

When one hears of violent crimes committed against another person one often thinks "what kind of punishment is necessary?" or "should the punishments for their actions be more severe?" but the more important question should be "What could have been done to prevent this" and "what will prevent this in the future?" This is a more apt consideration to be making if one truly wishes to solve the problem of increasing violent crimes in America. The answer is private gun ownership and that has been under immense pressure for the past 2 decades, due to the rise of the radical left-wing.
In the 60's, this theory emerged: Fewer guns contribute to less gun crime. Putting aside the 2nd amendment which ensures the right to bear arms, there is no broad popular support for this ban. Handgun referendums failed in Massachusetts in 1976 and California in 1982, since then, no serious attempts have been made to ban guns.


The amount of violent crimes is immensely high and little do many know, police response time is on the rise. The reasons for the lack of police response are abstract, many police departments are coming out to say that a "lack of motivation" is the issue, others say it is a "fear of doing the right thing" and that these police might be reprimanded for committing a supposed hate crime. These instances apply in individual cases but the main issue is that there are much less officers in the police force than there were a decade and a half ago. There are a few contributing factors to this, the average wage of police officers has gone down in recent years, as well as, obviously, the fear of being reprimanded for an attempt to do the right thing, also the fear of receiving fatal injury or being killed whilst on the beat is an ever-growing concern due to the growing violent crime rate, as has already been stated.

This is all being said in support of the argument to maintain the right to bear arms in America, if the average response time is roughly 10 minutes, more or less, when the average interaction time between the assailants and their victims is 10 seconds, what is stopping the assailant from committing grievous bodily harm to the latter? If guns were outlawed then the assailant wouldn't have one also, right? Nope, this couldn't be farther from the truth. When one prohibits something, a black market rises up to meet the demand of its buyers. If America outlawed guns, even the "bad guns (assault rifles with pistol grips)" one could still see a flood of such items into the black market, critically endangering the lives of law abiding Americans and giving criminals the opportunity to buy them and practice their harmful trade.

The idea that government enforcers could take away or buy off every gun from Americans is also completely unrealistic, this would involve taking away 325 million guns from US citizens, a much larger amount of private gun ownership than any other country who attempted this. Inevitably, this would not solve the problem of gun crime seeing as 80% of these are carried out with handguns, usually illegally concealed so the owners wouldn't care if the guns were prohibited or bought off the black market in the first place.

Now, the last question to address is: Is Gun Ownership a Right?

"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."

Note that the right to bear arms only applies to "the people" and not the "well regulated militia". The well regulated militia is stated as being necessary to the security of a free state, this is intended to protect from foreign invasion and violent uprising. A well regulated militia at the time the constitution was amended applied to all White males between the age of 18-45. Nowadays, this would include all races and also women. The right to bear arms applied then, it applies now and it will apply in the future. So the answer is yes, absolutely, Gun ownership is a right of the American people that cannot be infringed.