There are differing views among citizens in the United States regarding gun control, a contentious issue. Some argue for complete disarmament of civilians, while others believe that implementing gun control measures could have negative effects on the economy and potentially lead to an increase in casualties and mass shootings, which are associated with our right to bear arms.
Many people believe that the easy access to guns among civilians is responsible for numerous massacres and casualties. Supporters of gun control argue that either completely prohibiting firearms or making it extremely challenging to obtain them would be the best solution to reduce these incidents. However, it must be acknowledged that most criminals do not follow legal procedures to acquire guns; instead, they usually get them illegally from street sources. Therefore, imposing stricter regulations on legally obtaining firearms is seen as futile and ineffectual.
According to NEAR-AIR’s article “Firearm Safety in America 2013”, it would be a mistake to completely ban firearms. The article points out that there are currently over 300 million privately owned guns in the U.S., the highest number ever recorded, and this number is growing by 10 million annually. If an ordinary citizen gun ownership prohibition law was implemented, only law-abiding individuals would comply with it. As a result, criminals would still have access to millions of firearms while law-abiding citizens would be left defenseless and unprotected.
In his article “The Case for More Guns and More Gun Control,” Jeffrey Goldberg asserts that forcibly confiscating over 300 million guns from unwilling individuals is not practical. I concur with Goldberg’s suggestion to tackle the firearms issue by increasing gun ownership. Moreover, he highlights that there are presently over 8 million law-abiding citizens holding concealed carry permits, which entail different levels of scrutiny and instruction depending on their state.
In order to enhance safety in our society, Goldberg proposes that we can effectively increase the number of law-abiding citizens who possess legal firearms permits and have received proper training. By doing so, we essentially empower an additional 8 million individuals who can act as police officers to safeguard not only themselves but also everyone else and their families. Consequently, I endorse the notion of advocating for more people to participate in training programs aimed at obtaining a “concealed carry” permit. This strategy would discourage potential criminals from participating in unlawful actions.
The introduction of gun control measures is thought to have a negative impact on both casualties and the economy, which is particularly harmful for Americans at present. Activists who support gun control have unknowingly helped the firearm industry thrive. According to “New gun laws could mean economic woes for booming gun industry,” this increase in demand has led to the creation of over 37,000 new jobs in America, with an average yearly salary of $47,000 (Plotters). Given the high rate of unemployment, it is crucial not to disregard this significant employment prospect.
According to the article, the firearm industry made a significant economic contribution in 2012. They paid $5.1 billion in federal taxes and generated $33.6 billion in economic activity (Plotters). However, despite this contribution, some states are implementing stricter regulations that could lead to their operations being shut down (Plotters). For instance, Connecticut is considering restricting firearm production and sales to within the state, which could have severe consequences for specialists working with firearms in that area (Plotters).
Some states are attempting to shut down gun operations, while others see this as a chance to stimulate job growth and bring economic stability to their own state, as reported by the article “New gun laws could mean economic woes for the booming gun industry.” Texas Governor Rick Perry is taking advantage of this situation by inviting 26 gun companies to move their manufacturing operations to Texas. This relocation opportunity could be particularly advantageous for companies like Mossberg & Sons, currently based in Connecticut, where proposed laws could potentially impact 50 percent of their product line.
The potential move to Texas could be advantageous for them due to the implementation of these laws (Plotters). If major corporations like this were to relocate, it would not only reduce job opportunities and financial resources currently provided by the company, but also affect suppliers of its product components and food purchases made by employees (Deuteron). These laws would only worsen economic challenges during this difficult time in America.
Due to the potential wide-ranging impact on the entire country, I oppose implementing new gun laws as they would not effectively contribute to creating a safer nation. Instead, there are alternative measures that could be considered with less adverse effects on us as Americans. One proposed solution is the promotion of concealed carry permits. These permits have the potential to generate revenue through taxes and offer reassurance to Americans regarding their personal safety.
