Most pistols hold around 15-16 rounds, but an AR can hold around 30-100. Furthermore, Assault weapons should not be banned because previous bans were not effective, citizens would not be able to protect themselves, and criminals would still find weapons to use. First of all, Assault weapons should not be banned because of previous bans have not been effective. The crime rates hardly decreased in 1994 when the first AWB was put into action. For Example, in the article, “Do Local Assault Weapon Bans Work?” written
Death Penalty According to the 2010 Gallup Poll, 64% of the United State of America are supporting the death penalty, I as an American am part of that 36% that is against it. I do not believe that we as human being should determine whether another person should live or die. A second reason that I am against the death penalty is for the reason that the accused person could be innocent and normally the accused person only has one court presentation and is only judged by the judge not a jury of their peer, and is sent to death row where they pay for a crime that they haven’t done. My final reason that i do not believe that the death penalty should count as a punishment for the American people is because, a person that has done a massive massacre shouldn’t just be able to leave the world just like that without paying and suffering for what they have done, Or should the death punishment continue as it is for it has a great benefit to us as citizens of the United States. Will you stand with us or against us?
I don 't think it should be abolished simply because innocent people have been executed. There are many more innocent people that would be killed due to there being no capital punishment. As well as this capital punishment works as a deterrent and makes people think twice about comitting as they are aware of the consequences. A crucial reason why I think capital punishment shouldn 't be abolished is the fact that it leaves the majority of society happy. Some critics of my viewpoint might point out that capital punishment goes against our human rights.
The Death Penalty The death penalty has been, and still is, one of the most discussed topics in the United States. Its opponents argue it to be an unnecessary and violent punishment because it seems no less barbaric than the crime, as well as it is sometimes not believed to serve its purpose as a deterrent. However, there is a fundamental difference between the loss of an innocent life and the execution of a criminal in accordance with the law. Death penalty might not be the most ideal solution, but abolishing it would put in danger the lives of many innocent and law-abiding citizens. Not only has the death penalty proven to be constitutional, cost effective, ethically correct deterrent of future murders, but it also is a punishment that fits
It does not work in the public’s favor, and it is not applied fairly. Why do we get to take another’s life when they are not a direct threat to society anymore? Is there ever a good reason for us to kill another? Yes, but only in self defense. But, if the criminal is captured and taken to prison, they are not a threat anymore.
However, the dissenting side believe that keeping the there should be a life in prison punishment for juvenile who commit heinous crime regardless of their age. I agree that abolishing the mandatory part but not abolishing the whole Juvenile Life Without Parole sentence because I believed that there are cases when a juveniles should get Juvenile Life Without Parole while there are juveniles who should not deserve it. Some deserve it because they non-repentance killers or to be serial killers while other should not deserve it because of the circumstances required them. Juveniles who killed people without any mercy should be treated as an adult and be given Juvenile Life Without Parole(JLWOP). For example, the murderer of Jennifer Jenkins’ pregnant sister and her husband.
For example, a person speeding over the posted speed limit would not need to be sent to prison like a person who murders someone. The Utilitarian perspective is that of whatever results in the greater good for the greatest number of people is what is right. Punishment can only be justified, according to the Utilitarian perspective,
Nathanson uses his essay, Does It Matter If the Death Penalty Is Arbitrarily Administered, to combat the notion that capital punishment is an effective outcome for criminals. It is my goal to propose that capital punishment in itself is as fair outcome, and point out that it should remain established as long as the ones sentencing criminals to this fate are held to higher, more fair standards. The driving force behind Nathanson’s argument against capital punishment is statistics. While no one comes forth to outright say that race plays an important role in the decision on who receives capital punishment, there are statistical findings put forth by Bowers and Pierce state that killers of whites have the highest chance of being executed
They may have been an influence on the death, but it was never proved. She was often sick, which could have been a bigger influence. Since there are multiple influences on a person, this judge should not be able to determine if an influencer should have consequences or not. People should be responsible for their actions; however, due to an infinite amount of influences on a person’s life, not everyone should have repercussions. Likewise, only people who committed an act of murder should have consequences created by an unbiased court and not the morals of one man.
Even though there are many mass shootings in the US, assault weapons are actually not even connected to a significant amount of crime in the US. Assault weapons only many effect mass shootings, and even then not all mass shootings involve assault weapons in the first place. If anything a ban on assault weapons would just lead to a ban on handguns. Trying to get assault weapons banned will just lead to the broader focus which is a ban on handguns, which are more crimes are committed with anyway. Also, you can never really put a stop to psychopaths in the US, people can always find a way to get ahold of dangerous assault weapons.
Should the right to bears arms be more restricted? The governments primary role is to protect the right 's of law abiding citizens, so when did restricting those rights become so popular? The school and mass shooting 's that have plagued our country over the recent years have been the result of mentally disturbed criminals. The fundamental problem with gun bans or further restricting gun rights is that it only works on citizens that are already predisposed to obey the law in the first place. Criminals, which by definition have no regard for the law, will not be phased by the governments restrictions with such laws.
The criminals who think they can get away with their crimes, also think that they will not be executed if convicted. The way to stop people from committing horrific acts is to not say how bad the punishment will be, but to have a more effective police force laying down the
Even though gun laws prevent deaths, they infringe so many rights in the immutable Bill of Rights, which is one of the foundations of the great United States. Gun laws give too much power to the government and way less from the people, which will lead to government corruption. And, stated by ClearPictureOnline.com,”Guns don 't kill people, people do. We need to concentrate on the values and morals of our citizens and at the role the media plays in glorifying violence and the lack of respect for law.” (Shootout: Do We Need More Gun Control Regulations?) What people don 't understand is that they are taking away their own freedoms with Gun Control.