This persuasive speech argues that responsible gun ownership benefits the United States from constitutional, public safety, economic, and democratic standpoints. The paper opens by invoking the Second Amendment as a foundational legal basis for gun rights, then challenges the claim that widespread firearm ownership increases crime by citing national crime statistics and data from Chicago and Washington, D.C. It further contends that the firearms industry contributes positively to the economy and wildlife conservation, and concludes by noting that a majority of Americans support both gun ownership and concealed carry permits. Together, these points form a case that gun rights should be preserved, not restricted.
In the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting — a tragedy in which George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, gunned down the unarmed 17-year-old student — the country put gun rights and gun ownership on trial. Questions were being asked: Should we allow people to carry a concealed firearm? Should we pass gun control legislation that limits the number of firearms one can own?
The argument here is that all attacks on gun ownership are patently specious — not because of any personal affinity for firearms, but because the facts paint a very clear picture: responsible gun ownership is good for America.
Gun ownership is a quintessential part of American life, and as such it is explicitly articulated in the nation's most foundational document: the U.S. Constitution.
The Second Amendment clearly states: "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."
In other words, to keep the government in check, to prevent despotic regimes from seizing control, and to ensure this country remains free at all costs, the right of the people to own firearms shall not be denied.
The Founding Fathers and Framers understood that to keep their democratic experiment from unraveling, the right of the people to protect themselves was of paramount importance. Thomas Jefferson expressed this directly in his Draft Virginia Constitution of 1776: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Benjamin Franklin echoed the sentiment in his Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759): "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
But perhaps there are those who view the Founding Fathers' logic as antiquated, or who regard the Second Amendment as a novelty right. Setting aside the constitutional argument for a moment — if Americans did not have a legal right to keep and bear arms, would gun ownership still be an American virtue? The answer is yes, and the data support this conclusion.
The United States has the most heavily armed citizenry of any country in the world, with roughly 90 guns per hundred residents. Moreover, since 1980, America has dramatically expanded gun rights. Currently, all but one state (Illinois) and the District of Columbia have legalized concealed carry — meaning 49 states allow law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed handgun, provided they meet certain criteria such as passing a background check and having no history of mental illness.
Given how heavily armed U.S. citizens are, one might expect violent crime to be soaring. But it is not. In fact, crime is at its lowest level since the 1960s. As one set of figures notes: "In 2009, America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3,466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3,680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 — a decrease of 9.4%."
How does one explain this? Americans are more armed than ever before, and concealed carry rights — which largely did not exist in the 1960s — have expanded dramatically, yet crime continues to remain at historically low levels. The plain reality is that more guns in the hands of responsible citizens do not increase crime.
In fact, some researchers argue that expanded gun rights actually decrease crime. John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010), wrote an op-ed titled "Media Silence Is Deafening About Important Gun News," in which he observed the following after Washington, D.C., and Chicago's bans on handguns were struck down as unconstitutional:
"Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate… In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year — back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago's murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982."
Expanded gun rights, less crime.
"Jobs, taxes, and conservation funding from firearms industry"
"Majority of Americans support gun rights and concealed carry"
When one takes all these factors and statistics together, it is clear that responsible gun ownership is good for America. Owning a firearm is — first and foremost — a constitutional right that ensures a free society. Beyond that, and to the frustration of gun-control advocates, more guns in the hands of responsible owners do not increase crime; they may even reduce it.
You’re 70% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.