Dear Mr. or Madam President:
Guns have been around people for hundreds of years, for various uses. Just like people, guns have evolved for the growing uses and needs of gun owners. Today's guns are more capable than ever, with bigger cartridges, bigger ammunition magazines, and all around bigger guns. I believe that our right as Americans is to keep and bear arms, while the opposing side believes that we should ban these high caliber, and high capacity assault rifles. Many people are being killed everyday, but guns are actually saving more people than they are killing.
Gun banning is a major issue in the United States at the moment. Millions believe that banning assault rifles will help stop mass shootings. I struggle to believe that this is the solution to this extensive problem. Yes, assault rifles are capable of inflicting major damage, but assault rifles are not the major killers. A study conducted by the FBI showed that in 2011, of the 12,664 murders, in the U.S., 6,220 of the murders were committed using a handgun; while only 323 people were killed by an actual assault rifle. Assault rifles only accounted for two and a half percent of the murders in 2011. Although assault rifles are more capable, handguns account for more murders in the United States. A ban on assault rifles would likely not make a difference in the numbers of people killed by guns each year. Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA, states on freerepublic.com, "My own view is that there's no way to make assault rifle bans effective. It's an ineffective law, it's an ineffective goal, it's an ineffective policy ... The truth is assault weapons are used very infrequently in crimes. I think there is a grand total of about 300 people a year who die from rifles of any sort––assault or otherwise." Winker is showing just how ineffective an assault rifle ban would be. The facts show that an assault rifle ban would prove to be worthless in solving the mass shootings and violence. Thought this is not always true, and some shootings do involve assault weapons, most of the time the shootings are caused by a handgun. I believe the true solution lies not within the guns themselves, but within the human pulling the trigger.
Taking away assault rifles, or any types of guns for that matter, is only going to create more problems than it fixes. Hoovers, a business research firm, estimates that the gun and ammunition generates a revenue of over six billion dollars per year. This is a great amount of revenue for our government. Paul Geithner-Wise, a small custom gun shop owner, states on wordpress.com, "the gun industry is one of the driving forces of the economy," and, "restricting the manufacturing and the sale of a class of weapons is going to be devastating to the economy." Our economy is struggling as it is, so we do not need anything to further our economic decline.
Not only will an assault rifle ban be a bad move for the economy, but it will also leave millions vulnerable to crime. Guns are used to protect ourselves and our property. More than likely when a theft sees an assault rifle pointed at him, he is going to quit whatever it is that he or she is doing wrong. Guns are more than just a gun, a bullet, and a boom; they are a source of reassurance, a source of great pleasure, and a source of revenue for our country and its people. Lawmakers should not be able to ban a gun, because they are banning our rights as citizens.
The ownership of guns is right and not a privilege. That is how it has been since the second amendment to the Constitution in 1791. There are things we can do to beef up our gun regulations. We could make it harder for people with a troubled history to purchase guns, have a qualification to buy hand guns and assault rifles, and encourage gun safety classes; but we should not have the right to bear arms taken away. The ways we proceed about buying and obtaining guns should be changed, but lawmakers can not take away Americans' right to bear arms.