Dear Future President:

There are many important topics during the debates. Some are larger than others, and some are more important. One that I view as significant is gun control. According to TheBlaze.com, the United States has the best armed civilian population in the world. While there are plenty of people that, more than likely, shouldn’t own a gun, there are plenty of reasons why people deserve the right to weapons. This is why I believe that guns should be permitted, but they should come with restrictions. Guns can be used for protection, guns are used for hunting, and after all, guns aren’t the reason people are dying.

First, people use guns for protection. Gun control laws would interfere with people’s right to self-defense, and it would also deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. If you were to take away the people’s ability to protect themselves, there would be a higher demand for police protection. Since the police are already busy with most day-to-day tasks, the police cannot protect everyone at all times. So, allowing people the right to guns would not only benefit themselves, but it would also cut back on extra, unnecessary duties for officers.

Secondly, people use guns for hunting and recreational use. As stated by procon.org, in 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the US, and they spent 7.7 billion dollars on guns, sights, ammunition, and other hunting equipment. Many types of guns are used for hunting, like high-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, so it won’t do much good to just take away certain types. Also, “assault weapons” are usually less powerful than other hunting rifles. Some of these so-called assault weapons are used in competitions around the United States as well.

Finally, guns aren’t the reason people are dying. When it comes to murders, people are the ultimate cause and guns are merely an accessory. A gun alone cannot, under any circumstances, kill someone. While on the other hand, a gun in someone’s hand can become a deadly weapon. It’s the person that makes the gun dangerous, not the gun itself. The same goes for all other objects that can be used to harm people. Knifes, hammers, axes, and chainsaws can all be used as deadly weapons, but people don’t want to ban or outlaw them because they’re not dangerous by themselves and are used for other purposes.

Those who think gun control is needed may argue that not everyone should have a gun. While I completely agree with that point of view, you can’t take them away from a whole country when only a couple people shouldn’t have them. There are more people out there that are good, than people that are bad, so you’d be penalizing many for something a few don’t deserve. I believe that if you have a clear background that shows nothing relating to violence there is no reason that you shouldn’t be able to have a gun. On the other hand, if you have a history of violence and don’t appear to be a good person, you shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a weapon.

In conclusion, I believe that guns aren’t a problem, but there should be restrictions so people don’t make them one. There are so many people in the United States that own a gun, and apprehending them, wouldn’t be the only thing taken away. By taking the population’s guns, you would also be taking away their right to protect themselves and it would make hunting and other recreational activities harder to do.

Sincerely,

FMP