Amidst the increasing rate of college and high school shootings, many angry citizens are calling for stricter gun laws and more government control on firearms. Why not? Guns seem to be the problem right? If the government makes a law that prohibits guns, all the violence will automatically stop. That cannot be further from the truth. Gun prohibition will not work for three main reasons. The first and most logical reason is how is the government going to control their gun law? The next and most important reason is how are ordinary citizens going to protect themselves from dangers and threats? The last reason is how the gun ban would set a precedent for the whole Constitution.
The first problem with gun prohibition is how is the government going to enforce the ban? Just because one writes something into law doesn't mean that everyone is going to obey it. Face it, our world is not a fairy tell realm where everything is perfect and everyone plays by the rules. There is real evil in this world. Names like HIttler and Stalin send shivers down our backs. Because there is so much evil in the world, how can one trust the government with enforcing laws? Take a good look at the drug trade. Our government has hundreds of laws prohibiting the trafficking of drugs in this great country. However, kids still light up bongs in my town. You might have been speeding to get to work or school because you were late. The odds are that the police did not catch you. If the government cannot enforce and control traffic laws, how can we trust them to be able to enforce greater and more profound laws? Even if the government would write a law that would ban guns, people could smuggle them in just like drugs or illegal immigrants.
The second problem is how are citizens going to protect themselves when guns are taken away? No matter how hard the government tries, criminals will always have weapons and firearms. So what happens when citizens are unable to protect themselves? I live on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, about an hour and a half away from Baltimore. According to a news report, you had a greater chance of being killed in Baltimore then in Iraq. The police can not do anything about the crime in Baltimore. They are getting killed just like everyone else. What are the citizens going to do when their only chance of survival depends on that shotgun under the bed or the revolver under the pillow? It would be like the old saying, "Bringing a knife to a gun fight."
The last reason why a gun ban is problematic is because it sets a precedent for the whole Constitution. Sure, for the most part, the majority of Americans do not care about a gun ban. However, the right to bear arms is in the Constitution and, as such, it is given to every citizen of this country. What if the government decided to get rid of the rights of the African Americans and turn them into slaves again? What if the government declared that Hinduism is the national religion and that anyone who worships another god is to be put to death? The prohibition of guns may not seem as critical as some of these other bans, but it does set a precedent for how the Constitution is interpreted. If one part of the Constitution is able to be changed, why shouldn't the rest be changed?
Many American's are calling for a nation-wide ban on guns. A ban on guns may seem logical and just, but it has many negative consequences: How is the government going to enforce a gun ban when it cannot even enforce many other laws, how are the masses going to protect themselves from violence and harm, and how does the elimination of a freedom, contained in the Bill of Rights, set a precedent on how the Constitution is interpreted? Much thought has to be given before such drastic action is taken. As the great Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death."
