This paper will examine the problems, laws, and response to guns over the past decades. First of all, guns have been a huge problem for many citizens lives in the US today. Guns in a crime are a lot more likely to cause a death than other weapon, so laws are put in place to stop this. (Zimring 440) With so much power, guns are
What would anybody think if you saw a stranger having a gun on them because you don 't often see people with them, they may think it 's going to be a mass murderer or something similar. So that means that a gun can make a situation seem violent. Others may also say that gun control laws do not determine crime but gun ownership determines crime, anyone who can read this would think that it 's not going to be true for everyone in the world because we are all different. So laws make people able to own guns so when you are able to own a gun it determines the crime so laws determine ownership and crime determines its
Some gun control laws should be removed because gun control laws don't make you feel safer, they will prevent you from defending yourself and your family, and they don't stop criminals from obtaining guns or using them. Gun control laws say you can’t have a gun that doesn’t make you feel any safer at all because anyone could obtain it. They prevent you from defending yourself, so if you need to save yourself you can’t because you probably don’t have a gun. Lastly, any criminal could steal a gun and use it despite the gun control laws. Overall some gun control laws should be removed because most of them don’t really help at all.
In the year 2014 much debate began on gun laws and whether they should be authorized. This political fight became a disputable issue among Americans. A source at the Smithsonian said, “More Americans thought it was important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than to control gun ownership.” Most Americans believe that their gun ownership is unrelated to someone else 's gun use in crimes. Many people want strict gun control but that won 't help because mass shooters don 't follow the law; strict gun laws won 't reduce violence and the removal of guns would leave people defenseless, especially in a time where terrorism is rampant. Making gun control more strict won 't really make it harder for mass shooters.
Today, one of our nation’s most frequently brought up issues is gun control. The United States has been relatively split by opinions regarding the topic. The threat of the misuse of guns has been widely debated by both the government and media for years now, and while many think otherwise, measures must be taken to ensure the safety of citizens and to control the amount of gun violence in our current society. By recent statistics, almost three-fourths of all homicides are associated with gunfire. While guns will most likely not be banned from general ownership because of the Second Amendment and the argument centered around it, stricter laws need to be put in place for the safety of gun owners and others alike.
Many people promoting gun laws are not educated on some of the statistics and ways that guns save and protect innocent people. Gun laws should not be in place because guns are essential for people’s safety, guns prevent mass shootings and terrorism, and banning guns goes against the second amendment. Many people that are pro-gun control want laws because of the fear of robbery or home invasion when in reality if a burglar knows that there is a gun in the house they are targeting, chances are they will not try to rob or invade the home. In Switzerland where crime and homicide rates are some of the lowest in the world, there is a gun in nearly every house in the country. Switzerland’s citizens are
Second, as Michael Boylan wrote in his book, since a large number of gun owners do not regularly use their guns, they are not prepared enough to cope with dangerous situations (130). In cases like armed robbery, these law-abiding gun owners tend to have a false impression that they are able to use guns properly but fail to protect their safety when dealing with criminals. On the contrary, if they don’t rely on this incorrect apprehension, they would be able to seek other forms of risk control. Thus, law-abiding citizens are able to protect themselves even with stringent gun control
Yes, protecting American’s Second Amendment right is necessary for some people. For example, those who live in remote areas and need gun to protect them from wild animals and thieves because it will time before police or someone assistance can arrive. However, such protection could be provided by one or two rifles. Normal Americans do not need semi-automatic guns for protection. Moreover, it is highly unlikely for an person going to a concert to bring a gun for protection.
Back than when guns was always used more everyone didn 't know how to not put them down. killings here killings these Killings EVERYWHERE. They were not used for the right reason back then, many people want to kill and get back at one another. Would have you believe that guns stop murders? Gun and Crimes are worse than racism.
This isn’t really solving the problem, because the police response time isn’t really fast enough in life or death situations. If more officers are on patrol they still can’t be everywhere at any given time. This is also a waste of taxpayer money because that money can be used somewhere else, because this issue can be easily solved with less gun control. The words stop or I’ll shoot are very powerful words against criminals caught in the act of assault, battery, or theft. My proposal, isn’t to give more opportunities to rapists, murderers, or thieves.
Someone intent on committing a crime may have a gun, but not be planning on using it. However, once faced with a gun from someone else, they may choose to use theirs, thus creating a bigger, more dangerous situation. Even citizens who know how to properly use a gun may not be able to fire accurately when faced with a life or death situation. Their misfire could cost someone else their life. Although they could be trying to assist by threatening the “bad guy”, they may just threaten him enough to cause him to become extremely violent.
Society has always had problems with guns and the laws made around them, but even with the laws that have been made, guns are one of the number one sources of violence. The gun issues are getting worse each day, which is why something must be done. If nothing is done to stop this issue, what will happen? Guns in today’s society have gotten so bad, a call for gun control must be taken into action. Guns are causing many different problems, but the real problem is how easily accessible they are.
I think it is extreme to not let someone own a gun for racial or political reasons. Even though today we are very lax on gun control, saying people such as Catholics can’t obtain guns is ridiculous. There should be a clause in the second amendment that states “No person who has been imprisoned or deemed mentally insane can own a fire arm, and if they are found with one, the necessary methods will be taken to
Yes, they might be using a gun, but the gun is not the one that is making the decision to do it. The people are ultimately responsible for it all, not the gun (11). Some other big arguments that gun right advocates talk about are, criminals will always find a way to obtain the guns, so taking away the guns from citizens will leave them without something
While a man from the NRA, Brian Calabrese, said self-defense is used in various ways, the thought of a panicked person with a gun during a crime is not beneficial. From my perspective, I don’t want to live in a society where the at any point in time, I should be ready to shoot a gun. The arms race which Kelly Sampson was talking about, also made me think about how different society would be if the arms race ensued. Most of society would have to adapt to the norm of owning a gun, which would force the criminals to get stronger and higher capacity firearms. In this hypothetical society, I believe there would be a much higher death and crime rate.