And if it is not known the second amendment does not exactly say that everyone in the U.S is allowed to own a gun for what they want and the government cant do anything about it. The exact wording of the second amendment is, "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." Should there be regulations on peoples gun rights? Are these gun regulations necessarily needed? These are the questions that some people have been asking.
It all in would cause more damage than letting people own firearms. Banning the use of firearms would only cause more destruction,more havoc, and make guns distributed illegally isn’t that against the point? The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, this was made after the American Revolution as a right that could not be taken away. The right to bear arms comes from the fact that all men and women should be able to defend themselves from threats. Some people do think guns are unnecessary and that now we are more civilized than before and that guns just cause destruction while
ProCon facts have found that “57% people believe that gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens”. They are those who believe that they have to protect themselves because no one else will do it. Many of whom lack the knowledge of the government and how much power they possess. They are unaware of the three branches of government that secures the rights of citizens. No one can ever gain complete control without the people having a say.
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.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Many believe this, but columnist Nicholas Kristof, author of “Our Blind Spot about Guns,” published in 2014 in the New York Times, disagrees. A rhetorical analysis should consist of: logos, pathos, and ethos. Kristof’s use of logos is strong due to the amount of facts and statistics he offers to his audience, but he fails to strongly use pathos and ethos, due to the lack of these elements Kristof’s argument is weakened.
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.
In District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, The US Supreme Court agrees with me when they say: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home(gun-control.procon.org). But if gun control is enforced, this will not be true. It will leave lawful
Positive Impact of Guns In America Americans have the privilege and the right to purchase and own personal firearms for the means of self defense. Some citizens, however, exploit this right for the sole purpose of harming those around them. Mass shootings are some of the most common and terrifying events that can happen to someone in America today. Despite all the harm that guns cause, they should not be banned because they also have many positive effects for the American people that we would not want to lose. One reason to keep guns in the hands of the people is fairly simple, but its impact is highly underestimated: guns stop criminals and in some cases prevent the crime before it even begins.
Stated in the article “10 Advantages and Disadvantages of Gun Control”, “ Funds could even be set aside so that licensing and safety classes are low-cost or free.” This shows the court could waste a lot of money funding gun classes when they could be funding something more important like schools or homes for homeless people.Along with this fact why should mentally unstable citizens own a gun in the first place. Mentally unstable people should not have the right to own a firearm of any kind. With gun control it could lower the rate of suicide with firearms.According to the
The United States of America is known to be a free country, but would it be defined as being free if permission is granted for citizens to have access to a gun(s) with them wherever they go? In my perspective, I strongly disagree with the fact of that specific reason which makes America an unfree country. This is hazardous because by carrying a gun around with you will often have the reasons like safety but it could also make you a terrorist like other people who want to use it to plot murder occasionally for money or revenge. Some people would agree and disagree with this idea because of many reasons. I personally think that banning guns is a better idea than keeping them for all citizens.
Nationally, guns are used in 68% of homicides, which helps explain why America experiences more gun homicides than any other modern nation in the world (Hirsh 86). If America wants to make a real change, then its legislators and constituents must have the will to improve its current gun control laws. By recognizing the lack of any meaningful laws, society can start focusing on the failures of the political system. Currently, there are twenty-two thousand gun control laws in place (Hirsh 86). Due to the large number and minimal impact on America, it appears that these laws are ineffective and in need of a restructuring focused on the gun retailer.
I’m against gun control because I like shooting guns. I wish gun owners weren 't limited to their selection. Because there is a law called 2nd amendment that says that you have the right to bear arms. There are a lot of people that live in america and are scared of guns and don 't like it, I think part of the reason is because the image people bring to when thought of guns, protection and hunting should be the only reason why a gun should be fired. In the United States of America, there is something called second amendment , it gives you the right to own a gun and protect and arm yourself if things went south they would have a chance.
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.
Studies done after the sandy hook shooting have found that, “ Contrary to pro-gun lobby claims, research into prevention of gun violence has shown that reasonable reforms could reduce the excessively high rates of firearm deaths in the US while preserving access firearms, possession is not illegal for people proposed do not infringe on law abiding citizens ',” (Vittes 6). This has two main point to it, the first and most clearly is that it is irrelevant on what one 's believes might be, reasonable gun control will save Americans lives. The more subtle meaning behind this study was that gun lobby 's push the agenda that their companies are protected by right. The gun manufacturing business is no small group of occupations. They receive money by having customers purchases firearms, which they donate to political parties to pass different legislation.
It makes sense to believe that if firearms are harder to possess than there will be less violence involving them. Well, based on research this is not true and we should not strictly control firearms. I tend to agree with this proposal based on the fact that stricter gun control leads to more violence, for example Mexico has some of the strictest laws in the world when concerning gun legislation, yet has 10 homicides per 100,000 people compared to the United States’ 3 homicides per 100,000 people (Gun Control ProCon.org). This shows that stricter laws may not necessarily work for the United States as it is evident that gun violence per capita is much higher in a country with more restrictions, and the problem is most likely going to need a more complex solution. On the other side, there are theories that extremely strict legislation and even outlawing firearms completely would be the most effective solution.