If mentally ill people are only helped during emergencies, they are free to do whatever they want if they give a ‘normal’ disposition, such as buying weapons to inflict harm upon others. While a mentally ill person can buy a gun, it will be very hard to pass a background check, considering the gun control act of 1968. In summary, three reasons why increased gun control is not likely to happen is gun laws are rarely made, current laws are effective, and banning guns will not stop crime. In order to prevent trying to enforce harsher gun laws, people should learn about gun laws instead of using news stories to fuel disgust towards civillian owned weaponry. People want the banning of guns because they do not know about the laws for guns and think that anybody can own a gun when in reality there are certain restrictions.
Mental illness does not appear on current background checks. Pollitt makes the remark that, “… you have to be mentally ill to commit mass murder …” (484) It’s possible if a mental illness would have been included in a background check, recent shootings may not have been able to take place. Stephen Paddock of the Las Vegas shooting was mentally ill and bought several guns himself. Like Dvorak mentions in her column for the Washington Post, “The group calls for clear standards and stronger compliance for reporting mental health issues to the National
United States Supreme Court ruled in 2008 and 2010 that the reference to militia is just an explanation of why Congress ratified the amendment (civil-rights.lawyers.com). A human right is to bear arms, it states it in the second amendment. There are multiple reasons why you should be able to own a gun. Protection and hunting are two big reasons. Also, people kill people, not guns.
The metamorphosis of gun laws is a topic rarely spoken of. Not only do you have to evaluate the history of the amendment that made this right to bear arms possible, but also you need to take a look at how it has evolved. The way guns are perceived is drastically different than it was years ago. Today, the average American will think of either two things when they think of guns: violence or safety. Which is it?
In fact, people say it is simply just a distraction. Questions have been asked and many others have been formed due to the debate of whether or not gun control is needed. The argument is that the guns themselves are not the problem. The point being made by these people are that the guns that are used for mass shootings are usually legally bought, therefore, it is not the gun killing people but the people who own the guns. Also, that these mass shootings have happened in places where guns are not
He supports his argument by saying that making strict gun laws will lead to a time where only the terrorists and bad guys will have guns, leaving the other citizens unarmed and unprotected. He believes that the people are responsible for killings with firearms and not the guns. The first and second debaters in text 2 share the same attitude towards gun laws as Donald Trump. The text compares guns with cars. It talks about that even though cars kill many people every year they are not banned, so why should guns be banned.
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
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.
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
We must also find culpability in the individual who sold the weapons. Whether this was obtained in legal or illegal circumstances, it does not change that fact that we need to create regulations on automatic weapons.Weapons like everything else, should have limits. For example a person cannot have more than 2-3 dogs or they will be cited. Another example is that although we have freedom of speech, we can not yell fire in a crowded room where there is no fire; there are limits to our free speech. Why do we have limits on everything else but weapons, does human life no longer have value.