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
Topic: Ownership of Guns for non-professional reasons should be illegal in the United States General Purpose: To argue. Specific Purpose: The specific purpose of this speech is to argue for outlawing private gun ownership in the United States. Central Idea/Thesis Statement: Private ownership of guns in the United States should be illegal. Various specific reasons are presented to support this statement: (1) Banning private ownership of firearms, and, their distribution, would save a large number of lives that are lost as the result of gun violence. (2) Banning the private ownership of guns would also save lives that are lost due to successful suicide attempts with firearms.
Gun Control is a good thing in many different ways for many people. However, when you have a law abiding citizen who can not purchase a gun because the restrictions are too high then there is a problem. Gun Control was made to keep a person who has something on their record like drunk driving multiple times, armed robbery, or illegal citizen from buying a gun because the government wants to keep everyone safe and does not want to harm anybody. As stated in my research found in a world encyclopedia, “Many people own guns for the protection of their home.” (“Gun 440”). What the article is saying is that if you take away the handgun of a citizen who has done no harm, and when there is a need for the protection of your family and they have no gun then they have nothing else to do but hide and hope the criminal does not find them before the police come.
The United States should not add stricter gun laws because Guns are used to protect people,guns are used for hunting,and the guns are not the problem the people using them are the problem. If guns were in the right hands then there would be no reason to ban them. The United States should not add stricter gun laws because gun are used to protect other people. People use guns to protect themselves from bad people trying to kill them. As an example, someone walks into someones house and tries to kill that person, if there are stricter gun laws then you might not be able to shoot back at them.
There just might be an opportunity to solve the problem of mass murders caused by disturbed individuals with guns. If we can get the politicians to stop talking long enough to listen. They may realize they are both wrong on the issue of gun control. Note how carefully I chose my words there. Guns do not kill people.
The Second Amendment contains two distinct phrases. It states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed (limited).” The NRA maintains that it speaks for hunters and citizens who believe in the right to protect their families and possessions and not to harm others. However, they believe background checks are time-consuming and not effective against criminals, because they will obtain guns illegally. They also reject required safety locks on guns, arguing they would be a burden on manufacturers and defeat the purpose of keeping guns for protection. “The organization has been criticized as being merely a lobbyist for the gun industry, and it was reproached for its suggestion to arm teachers and security guards in elementary schools after the 2012 shooting of twenty children and six teachers at a school in Newtown, Connecticut.” ("Gun
Anti-gun activists believe that imposing “gun-free” areas will reduce the number of weapons, thereby, decreasing the number of violent and heinous acts. By keeping firearms out of the public people’s hands, they hope to eliminate the threat and if needed, they will rely on the police to ensure their safety. However, despite all the effort the anti-gun activists exuded to produce this proposal, their idea has shown to be unsuitable and unsustainable. Gun-free zones are soft targets, only law-abiding citizens adhere to the policies. Since gun-free zones have no positive effect on unstoppable, determined, homicidal intent, gun-free zones make the perfect target for mass murders (Proffitt & White,
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.
Personally I believe that some of the laws we have asked for will not help any of our problems, but instead make many legal gun owners become criminals simply because of the weapons they choose for defense, hunting, or sports shooting. The people who wish to see more laws do have some sound logical requests. Due to the blanket type laws that are proposed, many of these views are altered because people have not thought of the aftermath of passing such laws. One item that has been proposed on many levels of state and federal government is to ban assault type weapons. Many Americans that believe we should do this, have a faded vision of what an assault weapon actually is.
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.