Society today think that just because guns kill a majority of people, if the government bans them, everything in society will be perfect and there won’t be murders or a police officer can always eliminate the danger. These accusations are not true and it’s all based on the place and time. In conclusion, assault weapons should not be banned. Previous bans have not been successful,
Maybe those adults who are tempted to use their firearm unlawfully will start a shooting spree, but those who are responsible will help stop that from happening. Lots of adults have the common sense and realize that once they do something wrong, it may change your whole life. In both sides of the argument, there are still pros and cons, but it would be better if concealed handguns were allowed in public
This is very unusual, as guns in America are used to protect people, but these guns are more commonly used to kill other people. This happens in real life because the Las Vegas shooting killed almost half of ten thousand people were injured or killed. The main evidence here that proves my point, is “A background check did not stop this killer, but tighter background checks can keep war weapons out of the hands of those who are known to be mentally unstable.” This helps me prove my point because the killer would not have obtained a gun if stricter background checks occured. Without a gun, the killer become weak, and unable to kill people. This would make us much safer if killers don’t have access to guns.
Instead of focusing on imposing gun laws, America needs to focus on improving mental health in order to stop the rising violence. When will we ever learn that bandaids don 't fix the problem? Taking away Americans guns would only decrease the rate that violence in America is increasing. A clear example of this is that most of the convicts of mass shootings have suffered from some kind of mental health disorder. In a recent study, 78% of the school shooters in America, we found to be suicidal.
Regulating the amount of guns in the hands of American citizens, more guns preventing crime and the interpretation of the Second Amendment are all crucial topics in debating gun control. With less guns ownership, there would be a severe drop in homicides and other gun related deaths. Additionally, some contend more guns would associate with a lower crime rate. This is due to bystanders stepping in and stopping any potential crime or crime in progress. Lastly, the true meaning of the Second Amendment very controversial.
Changing the aAmendment would just cause more confusion and frustration for the people changing it, and for the people . Banning the Amendment might just possiblye cause a riot or an uproar in a lot of pro- gun states. In general, just leave the Amendment alone., Lliterally in the second sentence it says “ the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, which in short means the right to keep, /carry, and use guns shall not be broken. (Infringed-actively break the terms of) WAnd when more people (mostly politicians) say they want to ban guns, and itwhen that does no 't work they wi’ll just keep adding on to the pile. Saying, “we need to be more stricter and tighten the grip on gun control” when really guns are no 't the issue.
Some people might say that we need a gun to protect ourselves in the United States, but there are actually various ways to protect ourselves instead of using a gun according to the article, “How Americans Protect Themselves from Crime.” Transition to Conclusion: before the government legislates about the gun control law, we need to be the spearhead that is awake to this problem deeply and carefully. Restate Thesis: I am convinced that the entire civilian should not own guns to prevent the gun violence, and only government officers must be able to own guns. Review Main Points: we realize that erroneous gun possession contributes to horrible gun accidents. To protect ourselves from the death, we possess our guns, but these guns can be the boomerang that brings the death back to our families and us. Today, we should imprint the solution that I suggest today.
As a result of the extremely high number of school shootings, the debate about gun control is more relevant than ever before. It is also a debate there is very to have an opinion about and the politicians’ opinions are also very divided in 2 camps where the president is on the side where they want a stricter gun policy and the gun lobby and the people in the National Rifle Association does not want the law any stricter. Obama wants to save peoples life. To do that he wants to limit the capacity in the guns and he wants to ban the assault riffles. We can
For an example, a good law is that “felons cannot own or be around any guns or weapons” (“Gun Control”). By doing this, the criminals’ weapons are legally taken away. Another good gun control law is the “Seven Day Cool Off Period.” With this law, a person has to wait seven days to receive a gun after purchasing it. If a person gets mad at their boss and wants to buy a gun to kill him, they have to wait seven days to get their gun. At this time, most normal people would have cooled off and would not be a danger.
Grifin M. Price Kendra Gallos English III H 3/21/18 Gun Control Will Not Solve Anything Guns are given a bad reputation because of the terrors that can be committed by people who want to cause harm. Those who are gun control advocates wish to ban certain weapons without basis, ban certain weapon attachments, and restrict the rights of the second amendment. Gun control supporters base their opinion on statistics about gun violence that use a portion of data that is not about gun violence just to boost the value of the number. Supporters of gun control dismiss the saying “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” because they are misinformed about the number of defensive gun uses (DGU) which far outnumbers the
Even though gun laws prevent deaths, they infringe so many rights in the immutable Bill of Rights, which is one of the foundations of the great United States. Gun laws give too much power to the government and way less from the people, which will lead to government corruption. And, stated by ClearPictureOnline.com,”Guns don 't kill people, people do. We need to concentrate on the values and morals of our citizens and at the role the media plays in glorifying violence and the lack of respect for law.” (Shootout: Do We Need More Gun Control Regulations?) What people don 't understand is that they are taking away their own freedoms with Gun Control.
Therefore, if that argument does not make sense Ivins, she would naturally support the banning of guns because “[g]uns do kill” (215). By outright banning guns, this may result in the creation of a black market for guns. Since guns would be illegal, more people would resort to underhanded methods of obtaining firearms. This is similar to what happened when there was a prohibition of the sale, transportation, and manufacturing of alcohol across the nation. During this prohibition, places became dangerous because gangs were at war as a result of trying to remain in control of alcohol smuggling operations.
Doing this would please both the people that believe that we should completely abolish the right to bear arms, and the people that strongly believe the public should have the right to own guns. Making background checks stronger will make sure that the mentally ill and people who are angry don 't get guns. This will bring down shooting rates because if there is nobody that can get a gun with the intent to hurt someone else, there will be nobody to pull the trigger at an innocent person. If we just abolished the 2nd amendment and made guns illegal, that would cause people to riot and anger many people around the country, and if we don 't do anything then things will stay the same and shootings will