The right to bear arms has been a favoured constitutional law since its establishment in 1791, but as more gun related violence and accidents occur, there has been increasing debate on whether or not guns should be banned in the US altogether, and if not, what regulations should be required for the purchase and handling of them. While guns should not be completely banned from the country, the rules and regulations of gun laws should be tightened. In the 2nd amendment, it clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While this statement still holds true, the evolution of firearms and how they have become more dangerous throughout the years is a clear sign of why the laws should be changed.
The recent media footage of the destruction of innocent, young lives re-ignites the gun reform debate again, and what we as a community can do to prevent another tragedy. The outpourings of grief and horror are becoming all too frequent in our society. What has gone wrong? Why do human beings feel the need to express their anger and disappointment with their lives by resorting to such extreme violence? The ramifications of easily accessible firearms are like opening a Pandora's Box. If the owner is mentally stable, then the likelihood of the devastating consequences such as those we have been witness to in Newtown Connecticut, is small. However, if someone who is unstable, and who is unlikely to take responsibility for their actions, has easy access to high powered firearms, the likely consequences can be more readily predicted.
Being a debate, the conflict theory is a very applicable theory that can be applied to guns/gun control laws and their roles in society. A debate is something that is associated with conflict, so by observing how deep and exactly in what directions this conflict extends, one might be able to understand this topic in a new light. In other words, by analyzing the very nature of this argument, this sociological perspective can be used to generate a deepened understanding of the debate on the extent of gun control laws.
The sociological concepts behind the majority of all gun control arguments theorize that with stricter laws and regulations criminals and emotionally unstable individuals might be intercepted. Macrosociology, concerning the processes used to distinguish America as a gun culture, holds that constraints on Americans gun usage limits personal options at the micro level. Laws, the legal rules for functioning in society provided by a governing body that is capable of reprimanding those who do not comply, function to prevent gun violence to a degree. The second amendment guarantees protection of rights to keep and bear arms. In America, 37 states abide by the ‘Shall Issue’ providing that, upon completion of specified requirements, a law-abiding person
In today’s society, one of the most alienating issues in American politics is gun control. More specifically, the issue is whether or not guns should be banned in the United States. Some people would say that guns should be banned because it would reduce crime as a whole and keep citizens safer. These people, enthusiasts of stricter gun laws, fear being safe in their country where there are so many people who have access to guns. Opponents of this argument, however, also fear losing safety. They fear that they will not be able to protect themselves on a daily basis, or in a worse case scenario, protect themselves if the government happened to turn on citizens of the country. They would also argue that people, especially criminals, can still find ways to gain access to guns. Guns should not be banned in the United States due to them being able
Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. Many citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would reduce the threat of crime. People have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting and recreational activity. With the recent events involving firearms and mass shootings, people are skeptical whether to increase or decrease gun laws. Americans have a constitutional right to own handguns and stricter laws and licensing will not effectively save lives.
A weapon in the wrongs hands is the maximum danger humanity can face. Nowadays, violence and delinquency in society are viewed as the maximum problem solver. Humanity is full of chaos; hate and envy seize our souls. Guns are the ultimate security for some citizens but for others, these add to a feeling of defenselessness. Throughout history, any topic related to guns means a plethora of problems. One of the most controversial issues our nation faces today is gun control laws. This controversy has been created due to the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states the right of citizens to bear arms; “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” (Cornell Law School). Anti-gun control laws believe that the amendment guarantees the right to bear any kind of firearms. On the other hand, we have does that believe that more controls laws should be implemented since the 2nd amendment was for the right of States to have an armed militia during wartime. Both sides have strong point, however, the safety of our children comes first, and a firearm means death in the wrong hands.
The use of and the owning of guns is a very hot and debated topic in society today. For many, this is a life and death debate due to the recent and numerous school shootings. These school shootings have caused an outcry for more gun control, specifically in relation to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Despite these calls, increased gun control is not the answer. Most gun owners’ use their guns responsibly and for good purposes. Gun control also limits our constitutionally derived right to own firearms. If gun control is enforced, law-abiding citizens will be forced to give up their guns and their right to own guns, while many criminals who own guns may illegally keep theirs. As the saying goes “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Guns are an important aspect of our society in many ways. They allow for protection, recreation, and hunting. They also do not have as many negative effects as some claim. The right to own firearms is a constitutional right that is important and needs to be upheld.
‘’Guns are responsible for over thirty-three thousand deaths in the United States annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).. In 2014, the CDC reported that 11,008 of the 15,872 homicides committed in the United States that year involved a firearm. Of the 42,826 suicides reported that year, 21,386 involved a firearm. These statistics have inspired efforts at the federal and state levels to enact gun control legislation to reduce crime and violence’’(‘’Gun Control’’). According to the statistic guns are held for over 33,000 deaths in the United States. CDC also reports that 11,008 homicides involve a gun. Over half of the suicides cases in America involved a some kind of a gun. Although Americans have the Right To Bear Arms there should be more restrictions on guns because guns are responsible for a lot of deaths across America.
There is a glass of water filled halfway with water sitting on a table. Is the glass half empty or half full? Many people have heard this divided interpretation of a glass of water before and have differing views of whether it is half full or half empty. Yes, a glass of water is not a huge issue the country is facing, however, there is another issue this country is facing currently with the same principle that is escalating with time. Everyone learned in school about the bill of rights and about the amendments of the Constitution, which states every United States citizen’s basic human rights. Recently, the second amendment, the right to bear arms, has been under intense scrutiny and misinterpretation of this amendment is a growing problem spreading
Closing statement: The debate about gun control is inappropriate, because it does not go far enough. Only a completely ban of privately owned firearms can help drastically reduce the number of firearms related deaths and save countless lives. Without a doubt, the proposition of a complete ban of firearms will be met with fierce opposition. Critics will point at their eagerness to hunt, shoot for recreational purposes, and use guns for self-defense. However, recreational hunting and target practice are hardly basic rights that must be preserved at all costs. Moreover, guns are ineffective for self-defense in many situations. In other words, the risks outweigh the potential advantages by far. Moreover, what is right should not be abandoned, only because it is difficult to implement. It is time that the ownership of guns is restricted to those who need them for professional reasons. The result would be a safer and better
In recent years, there’s not many topics on the political spectrum that aren’t absolutely polarizing. This essay will attempt to show each side’s generalized opinions, and find flaws in each of their arguments, as every ethical argument has flaws. Analyzing each side will help anyone understand their own opinions better, because without the demonization of the opposite party, ethics get much more difficult. Gun control is everywhere in the news right now, as three months into the year, the country has had12 school shootings in 2018. Exploring the ethics of gun control can get messy and emotional, but it’s important to understand all sides of a subject.There are two major sides to the gun control debate, and like everything
Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people. Gun laws have their positives and negatives, but the debate isn 't resolved yet.
Since the Second Amendments’ ratification in 1791, Americans still debate with one another, because of its many controversy views. The amendment allows every citizen of the United States the right to own guns and to defend themselves when in danger. The problem arises when the laws being set are restricting people from their rights. There are so many gun control laws, varying from state to state. The development of arguments surrounding gun control correlates to the increased violence and altercations related to the use of fire weapons. This then led to the expansion of gun control laws and has strongly shaped and influenced the public’s opinion. The process of developing gun control remains to be a challenge still, due to its capacity removing individual rights and liberty, which undermine the value of guns and firearms in the promotion of deterrence and self-defense and inability to recognize the commitment of existing reasonable gun control initiatives already in
The debate of gun control presents an ethical dilemma in deciding which rights afforded by the US Constitution are more important. The ethical debate places the rights afforded in the Second Amendment to bear arms against the rights afforded in the First Amendment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ethical predicament has roots in societal views of violence and how it is observed by both sides of the debate.