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.
Regulating guns will not stop all of the killings that are occurring in America, and there are better ways to cease the killings than regulating guns. Body Paragraph One: Topic Sentence: Regulating mental health will be more effective in ceasing killings with guns than regulating guns. In an analysis provided, 22 percent of the perpetrators of 235 mass killing, could be considered mentally ill, many of which were carried out with firearms (Qui). Almost 25% of mass shooting killers are being considered mentally ill
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
Secondly,most people even if they can not get a gun they will easily just steal it. Banning guns will not do anything except make people steal more to get a gun which will just cause more problems. Also making stricter gun laws will also include police officers which will give them a disadvantage if they have no gun or have new rules while using the weapon.
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. Criminals are less likely to commit a crime with a gun such as mugging if they believe that there is a chance that they will get shot in the process. In situations a bit more extreme such as mass shootings, guns owners have the ability to take out the shooter and prevent a much greater loss of life from happening. According to an article published in Investors Business Daily, “A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun” (Lott). Often times civilians with concealed carry permits are on the scene much sooner than possible for law enforcement.
Likewise why should the government have to deal with these problems. The court system should not have to deal with these cases on gun violence they have more important problems to deal with. Court systems should not have to deal with unstable people who own and gun who have caused panic throughout their town or city. 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.”
Only having a gun around and relying on its intimidating look will scare an attacker off is really not a good idea. You can´t know if he tries to take it from you, fight for it with you or even worse – pull out his own gun and you bet, he will be ready to use it. So after you are really determined to get a firearm, next question that comes into mind is the sort of firearm you want. A pistol is easy to conceal and carry with you anytime.
Someone that is mentally ill or has certain problems like Nikolas Cruz shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun in the first place. This is where it is believed gun control would have a good effect in the long run, if its harder to get a gun then these guns will not make it in the hands of a school shooter. A gun becomes dangerous when it is in the hands of a dangerous unsafe person. It is proven that most U.S. deaths are caused by gun violence.
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.
One of them is to protect themselves from intruders or if they are getting attacked. But, if we let everyone have a gun that will be just as dangerous as a professional with a gun. A professional will know when to use a gun but if just some random guy gets a gun he will use it at the wrong times and the wrong places.
People also “...support the rights of hunters, sport shooters, and recreational gunmen.” (openreader.org).Criminals are already breaking the law, so adding more won 't deter them. “Criminals will get hold of guns – indeed, by definition, if guns are outlawed, one becomes a criminal just by acquiring one – and leave non-criminals more vulnerable than ever.” (bigthink.com). Gun control laws do not help deter, and only slightly inconvenience them.
There are many people out there who thinks that gun control laws will eliminate the crime happening now a day but it will prevent from having good guys to have the
No more people need to get shot, we need to fix loopholes but protect the 2nd amendment at the same time. But some people think that in order for no more people to get hurt, the public should be stripped completely of their right to bear arms. And even though that would bring down shooting rates by a lot, that would anger the side of people that strongly believe that we should be able to own guns. So what we should do is make a compromise that allows the people to own guns, but make background checks much stronger. 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.
A halt could be put on a lot of this by just tightening up loopholes in the system of buying guns and making stricter background checks when buying guns and clips to go in people’s guns; especially large round magazines or clips. Making stricter background checks will make mass shootings a lot less likely. If the criminal gets someone else to buy the gun for them, the person buying it might not do it for the criminal because he knows he is more likely to get caught now with the stricter background checks. As of now, under Federal Law, you only have to do background checks on people that buy a firearm if they buy it through a dealer. You can buy a gun offline or at a gun show or a private individual without having to get anything.
This source is an organization's informational page. Gun owners of America is a non profit organisation aimed at educating and promoting gun rights for the Americas. With over one and a half million members, and thirty-five plus year of experience in serving American. It highlights how guns save lives in a simple, organized format of bullet point facts. With three main sections, the first proving that guns prevent injuries.