A family is sleeping late one night and a murderer comes to their home. He knows how to disarm the alarm system. The father hears the intruder downstairs and walks down to investigate. The father sees the man and yells, "what are you doing here?!" The murderer lifts up his gun slowly and shoots the father, then proceeds up the stairs. If the father was allowed to have a gun in his house, don't you think that this scenario would have ended differently?
             I do not believe that there should be stricter gun control laws. I think that the only people that would abide be these laws would be the upstanding citizens who would only use guns for sport and protection anyway. The criminals would still find ways to obtain guns. Then the people would have no means of defense.
             My first argument is that throughout history, the first thing that socialist leaders and dictators have done is confiscate firearms. Why did they do this you ask, and how does it relate to gun control in the United States? Well the reason they did it was to render the people completely defenseless. All of the major twentieth century genocides in Ottoman Turkey, the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia have started with gun control, and have resulted in the deaths of over 95 million people (Lott 1).
             In Nazi Germany, the first thing that the government did was disarm the Jews. Stephen Halbrook illustrates that, "Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people" (Halbrook 1). It was easy for the Germans to find the firearms owners and prosecute them because of the earlier gun control laws that Hitler induced probably with the eventual extermination of Jews in mind. In 1941, U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson called on Congress to e...