If you go through the safety training nothing accidental should go wrong when you are carrying a gun. If you are carrying a gun in the event of a shooting you could stop the shooting. Some people say that there are police officers to stop the shooting but according to procon.org it said that one time it took a police officer to respond to a shooting in 58
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.
Furthermore, concealed handguns will protect people who don’t always rely on police forces for their protection. This means that because of what’s happening in society with the police today, certain adults might not trust the police forces with their life. As a result, they would want to carry their own handgun for their own protection. One reason adults should carry a concealed handgun is so they can protect themselves when no one else can. For example, someone can be walking and suddenly get mugged by a bystander.
There are many businesses and institutions that have armed guards in their building to protect employees from danger. Why not protect innocent children the same way? These officers have had many hours of gun training and would be an added protection for schools. President Trump explained, “that professional armed guards such as retired Marines could prevent attacks at schools” (“Trump: Teachers Carrying Concealed Guns Could Prevent Future Attacks”). However, a resource officer alone cannot protect an entire school of
In light of the recent school shootings, many parents, students, and other civilians believe the US should impose stricter gun control laws. Many people do not understand the reason for stricter gun laws. Some of the reasons on why we should create and impose stricter gun control laws is because, our students need better learning environments, the laws would be safer for the public, and we have to face the fact that the NRA (National Rifle Association) has too much influence in our government today. The developing children today, the adults of tomorrow, they need healthy and safe place to learn and thrive as students and people. “... merely America’s 18th school shooting this year,” (Text 1, Lines 11-13).
Arming able faculty and staff with assault grade rifles to serve and protect the students of their school is the only viable solution to gun violence. Teachers cannot protect against the types of weapons that school shooters typically use unless they are equipped with the most lethal of guns. Instead of providing educators with the training and tools to teach against violent behavior, placing an army style weapon, such as an AR-15, in reach of potentially violent children and teenagers is a well-thought out and calculated suggestion. As well, to reinforce that violence and aggression will not be tolerated, children who exhibit such behaviors will have to sit in an isolated seat with a loaded gun pointed at their heads until they apologize for said behavior. The gun would constantly be loaded to show the idea that teachers have all the power in that situation.
As of now anyone can buy and own a gun at the minimum age of 18 or 21, depending on the type. There is a required background check when buying a gun (legally) but it is not in depth enough to raise suspicion of possible psychological factors that could cause the weapon to be used for a wrong purpose. A test, similar to the object of a polygraph, should be given when a person wishes to purchase a firearm. Following the psychological evaluation should be a mandatory class for those who want to continue the process of getting a gun. With the rising awareness of the negative consequences with the possession of guns, people will learn to handle them more carefully because of their
So why not take this kind of action with gun control? I feel as if scientist think 21 is when the body is fully developed; I would think the brain would be too. Raising the age to legally purchase a firearm would not hurt the general public. Yes, It would make them upset, but it wouldn’t affect the 2nd amendment. We would still have the right to bear arms, but some of us would just have to wait a little longer to enact that
Almost every school in America is a “no gun zone” which leaves the schools defenseless to school shootings. Donald Trump had the idea of making schools, “a gun zone.” That does leave the argument that “some teachers are not qualified to carry a gun” (Phillips). The schools could have the teachers who wanted to bear the guns register and receive training from the police department. Then tell the community that a certain number of teachers have a gun at the school but do not release any names. If those teachers were out a day, people would not feel the school was less protected.
Instead, it states the opinions of both parties while posing a series of questions. Within the article, questions such as “Should schools arm teachers and guards?” are asked and responded to from both a left wing and right wing perspective. The left wing response to this question brought up how an Oregon community college that just had a shooting massacre wasn’t a gun free zone; students and staff were allowed to conceal and carry a firearm, none of which stopped the shooting. This argument also brings up how costly training all staff at schools would be, which is why it should not be implemented. The right-wing response uses sources from the NASRO postulating that if staff were armed in schools, students would be able to feel much safer.
The supporters for concealed carry on college campuses argue that students and teachers should be able to open carry on campus because it will reduce the number of school shootings. The great state of “Texas has made carrying a concealed weapon on college campuses legal as of August 2016” (New York Times).
In fact, the prospect of guns in the classroom is more likely to cause professors to keep the conversation tepid and avoid certain controversies; everyone else will watch what they say, how they say it and to whom. This would be quite the opposite of the open and transformative exchange that universities have made it their mission to offer. There is a further point. As we saw in the aftermath of the Ferguson and Staten Island police incidents, and earlier with the Occupy Wall Street movement, university campuses are places where political protest takes root. Perhaps colleges are not quite the haven for political protest that they once were -- like, say, in the 1960 's.