Overall comments Recently there have been many debates about gun control, this is because of the rise of gun violence in the US. Many Conservatives and Republicans think that guns are their right, and it is their second amendment to bear arms in order to protect themselves, claiming it is unpatriotic to change it. However, according to Scholastic, the constitution has been amended 27 times since it was written. Some of these people think the solution to gun violence is to arm teachers and fight fire with fire. Those who do not wish to create more violence want to take guns away. They believe that without guns the amount of violence would greatly decrease. This has been shown to work in Australia, after their biggest mass shooting they put more restrictions on guns and saw great results (say fortune.com),The same can be seen in Japan.“If you want to buy a gun in Japan you need patience and determination. You have to attend an all-day class, take a written exam and pass a shooting-range test with a mark of at least 95%,” say BBC news. We should raise gun restrictions rather than adding more guns because lives are being lost, guns only bring harm, and because we have seen the success of other nations who have raised restrictions. Guns violence has been on the headlines due to the recent mass shootings, this is because precious lives are being lost. Children, adults, and innocent people are being hurt. Not everyone that owns a gun wants to cause a mass shooting, but the
We need "common" background tests for the reason that there 's a very gigantic loophole in the existing federal regulation that enables detrimental men and women to receive possession of a gun. When the Supreme courtroom ruled that the possession of a gun for personal protection was a constitutional proper underneath the 2d modification, additionally they ruled that a few classes of people might be denied this right. Among the prohibited classes of humans are felons and the significantly mentally in poor health. Nearly everybody has the same opinion that these are confined and reasonable restrictions on the correct to possess a gun.
The general argument made by Shiha Dalmia in her work, “The Case Against Banning Guns” is that guns should not be banned in the United States. Banning guns is not going to stop people from killing other people. There is no possible way to collect every single gun in the U.S. and even if there was, people have other ways and items to hurt others. When something gets banned, everyone seems like they want to do that thing more. Guns should only be used for appropriate activities like hunting, for example, but there is no one to stop people from harming others.
Gun control has been a national issue for decades, if not centuries. The founding fathers created the Second Amendment that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This amendment was passed as part of the Bill of Rights and simply recognizing something that has existed or will continue to exist in the future. It was also another check on the government, if the people had no weapons to rebel against them, the government can oppress them easily and would make it easier for the government to assemble militia in a time of war. This Second Amendment doesn’t also mean that the people can’t have some measure of control in these extremely dangerous weapons.
The idea that gun laws will stop rising violence in America is comparable to putting a bandage on an open wound. People are so naive to think a bandaid will stop the bleeding. Sure the bandaid slows it down, but over time the blood will bleed through the bandage. The only way to completely stop the wound from bleeding is to go deep into the wound and stitch it up, often something Americans avoid. (Semicolon rule 1)For the past few years, America has been through countless demonstrations of violence; our wound is getting deeper and deeper.
Gun control is what restricts people from buying and using guns, but these laws are not strengthened at the extent they need to be strengthened. This leads to many people getting these guns and using them to cause mass shootings all over the U.S. For example, according to the Council on Foreign Relationship, a news article that covers major world issues, in 2017, mass shootings at a music festival in Las Vegas and at a church near San Antonio have rekindled the gun control debate (“U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons”). The fact that gun control is still not tightened is a huge margin and error, and still causes mass shootings as we just covered. Many people have said that we should not allow guns to be purchased, which would seem like the logical option. However, according to the same source, Council on Foreign Relationship, some states, such as Idaho, Alaska, and Kansas, have passed various laws attempting to nullify
Gun control laws should be reinforced and practiced in all states regardless of how many shootings take place. Furthermore, suicide rates have increased, and in general there is no actual control over suicide with gun
Gun violence has become an epidemic in the United States, taking the lives of thousands of innocent Americans each year. Gun control advocates argue that there is a clear need for more strict gun control legislation in order to reduce gun violence. Stricter gun control laws can be the solution to preventing future gun violence. Opponents of stricter gun control argue that it goes against their Second Amendment rights and that criminals will still find ways to obtain guns regardless of the laws in place.
Gun control is a topic that has been debated over the last few years. It is a subject that many people stand for and against the change in policy. Basically gun control would change the way firearms are regulated, by changing laws or polices that control how they are made, sold, owned, and used by civilians. However by trying to take away firearms from civilians would be infringing upon their rights as United States citizens. There are many ethical reasons why gun control should not be implemented towards law-abiding citizens such as it is hypocritical, neglects the reality of control, and is discriminating against gun owners.
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.
Strict regulations and limitations have been pursued already and clearly do not suffice. Statics brought to attention by gun control opponents, show that gun control laws have done little to reduce crime rates. Several restrictions have been made on certain guns, considered as overly dangerous, though in the hands of an unstable criminal even a legal hunting gun can be deadly. Countless restrictions have been made, however people have still found ways around them. If people are unstable and determined enough, they will find a gun, regardless of the restrictions or regulations.
Guns are just a tool, like knives and hammers and it completely depends on the people on how they use it. People who support guns and arms say that the Second Amendment secures individual’s right to carry guns with them and that gun rights is needed for self-protection, and was intended for military to have peace and defend the country if needed (Spitzer, 70). Most of the Americans use guns as a source to protect themselves and they believe that gun ownership prevents crime. A study conducted on November 26, 2013 showed that bans on weapons did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level (Lane, 5). Moreover, even if the rules and regulations are executed on gun control, not all criminals obey the law.
This way of thinking is understandable because if we don't get weapons, then how are we supposed to protect ourselves. I also disagree with this because if the laws are more strict then there will be less crime and this will make them not want to do the right thing. Some argue that making gun control laws more strict is not the best way to go. ( Sheldon Richman) argues that gun control is ineffective at preventing crime.
Instead of banning or limiting guns, the evidence will show that removing the current restrictions and targeting individuals instead of guns will be a more effective process. The topic of gun control has two polarized opinions. One such opinion targets the individuals responsible for the crime, instead of just the weapons. John Moorhouse and Brent Wanner tackle the issue of gun control in their article “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control”, which was published in 2006 in the twenty-sixth volume of the Cato Journal. These researchers looked at the effects gun control laws had on violent crime and gun violence in the individual states.
The number of incidents of gun violence last year in the United States was about 60,000. In recent years, the number of mass shooting has risen to about one mass shooting per day in the United States. The country is divided with some wanting to reevaluate our gun control laws and either ban or add additional regulations to the purchase of guns. Others say it is our right for Americans to own guns and something the founding fathers considered important to put in the Bill of Rights. The number of firearm sales has risen with the number of mass shooting many Americans question if banning guns or certain guns could help decrease the number of gun violence deaths.
Justification of Gun Control In other to justify my argument, first I will have to define the meaning of ‘’Gun control’’. Gun control can be defined as the limiting of gun ownership in the society. My argument can be supported by a very reasonable utilitarian argument. However, by restricting gun ownership, the tendency of people getting injured or killed by guns will be reduced.