Arguments Against Gun Control

The question on whether the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. should be changed or not has become a widely discussed and argued topic as of recent, due to recurring incidents of shootings occurring on U.S. soil by its own inhabitants. While many would be in support of the right to bear arms, including myself, I do believe that the current gun laws need to be made more restrictive than they are in their current state, for the sake of the country and the safety of its people. I’m well aware that I am not a U.S. citizen and that I have no say in what decisions are made there regarding the country’s constitution, but I feel that what I have to say is shared by many of America’s people and that it’s not only Americans that are affected by guns but also those who are visiting the country from abroad. There are many problems regarding America’s very unrestrictive gun laws at present, whether it’s the fact that there is no federal minimum age for possession of a long gun, or the fact that individuals don’t

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.

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.

One of the most controversial issues our nation faces today is gun control laws. This controversy has been created due to the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states the right of citizens to bear arms; “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” (Cornell Law School). Anti-gun control laws believe that the amendment guarantees the right to bear any kind of firearms. On the other hand, we have does that believe that more controls laws should be implemented since the 2nd amendment was for the right of States to have an armed militia during wartime. Both sides have strong point, however, the safety of our children comes first, and a firearm means death in the wrong hands.

Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people.

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 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.

Everyday in the United States, ninety families are changed forever; guns claim an average of ninety lives every day in the United States, 33,000 lives in a single year. Gun control has been a debate in the United States for many years and is constantly thrusted back into the public’s attention by horrific shootings. These shootings constantly cause individuals to petition the government to place stricter and stricter regulations of guns. However, these policies cannot be the solution to this problem. To determine a solution that will be both effective and constitutional, we must look at statistics and research that has been conducted to determine the best course of action.

The following argument is in favor of gun control. The restrictions on guns in place today are not nearly sufficient considering the level of gun violence seen on a daily basis. In the article “Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives” it is stated, “The fact is that very few federal laws regulate the manufacture, sale or possession of firearms, and those currently on the books are filled with loopholes or significantly tie the hands of law enforcement.” Arming citizens would not reduce crime or allow for self-defense, it would merely place guns into the wrong hands of people who are not trained enough or mentally stable to handle them. This is why there are so many school shootings and public massacres on television constantly broadcasted

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.