The Moral Right to Self-Defense with a Firearm

People in the United States disagree over how stringent our gun laws should be. There are many advocates for the right to own firearms, while there are others who would advocate for gun-control. In my presentation, I argue that people should have the right to own firearms for self-defense, and further have an advantage over most attackers. I will also argue that there are gun-control measures that do not conflict with this right. Firearms should be available to the people in their homes or in some other situational locations where their protection should be paramount. There are other locations where I believe the average citizen should be restricted in the firearms they have, such as schools or government buildings. I believe there are firearms that should be allowed such as semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols to name a few, and some that should be restricted such as fully automatic rifles, high explosive launchers, and high caliber rifles. Furthermore, I would argue that there are weapon attachments that would be permissible such as optic mounts or suppressors and weapon attachments that need to be regulated like bump-stocks and other conversionary applications. All these positions stem from the fact that people have a right to an advantage over attackers in their own home. My goal is to show that if we reflect critically on the arguments for and against gun control, we will find that the moral right to self-defense with a firearm proves true. Afterwards, we can find through modern and historical legislative examples such as the current bump-stock ban that we can have regulation that does not infringe upon said right, while also creating more that will make this nation safer, while maintaining the freedom of its citizens