It’s a true fact that people kill people, not guns. However, people use guns to kill people. So then, it would be understandable to think that it is necessary to control who can get guns. But yet, a large number of guns are sold to people whose backgrounds aren’t checked. This means America isn’t completely controlling who all can get guns — nobody is.
What I am saying, is a criminal can easily get their hands on a firearm if they wanted to. But too strict of gun control can lead to great, law abiding citizens without protection of their selves or their families. The debate whether we should arm our teachers is also a good subject. I do not believe in teachers having a gun in the classroom unless they want to go through the training provided by school funding and
There are so many different reasons why people want guns in this world. One of them is to protect themselves from intruders or if they are getting attacked. But, if we let everyone have a gun that will be just as dangerous as a professional with a gun. A professional will know when to use a gun but if just some random guy gets a gun he will use it at the wrong times and the wrong places. They also say we should have them for hunting, which I believe they should have them for hunting but, I think they should only use it for hunting.
I think that attacks such as the Las Vegas Shooting are so common these days because gun control isn 't strict enough to prevent them from happening. At this point, even mentally unstable individuals such as Stephen Paddock are allowed to get guns. Even though background checks are performed to see if the person is part of criminal activity or anything like that, they still shouldn 't have the authority to purchase them because you never know whether or not they 'll take advantage of their weapons. Stephan Paddock, for example, passed the background checks but later converted his gun into a machine gun and shot many innocent people at the country festival. If gun control was more strict, shootings like this wouldn 't happen in the first
And if that’s the case does stopping people from getting guns and using them actually stop crime? These are the things many people think of before starting to actually make laws to restrict the purchase and use of guns. The debate over gun control is nothing new. Guns are extremely powerful and dangerous weapons. They can cause death and harm a lot of things and can be used to defend and protect or to threaten and kill.
Some argue that the guns need to be taken away because guns take away Innocent people’s lives. However, the real reason people are killed by guns is that of the people using the gun. Regulating guns will not stop all of the killings that are occurring in America, and there are better ways to cease the killings than regulating guns. Body Paragraph One: Topic Sentence: Regulating mental health will be more effective in ceasing killings with guns than regulating guns. In an analysis provided, 22 percent of the perpetrators of 235 mass killing, could be considered mentally ill, many of which were carried out with firearms (Qui).
Positive Impact of Guns In America Americans have the privilege and the right to purchase and own personal firearms for the means of self defense. Some citizens, however, exploit this right for the sole purpose of harming those around them. Mass shootings are some of the most common and terrifying events that can happen to someone in America today. Despite all the harm that guns cause, they should not be banned because they also have many positive effects for the American people that we would not want to lose. One reason to keep guns in the hands of the people is fairly simple, but its impact is highly underestimated: guns stop criminals and in some cases prevent the crime before it even begins.
Gun control means control, it means control for the government and government start controlling the people, Gun control is a board term that covers any sort of restriction on what kinds of firearms can be sold and bought, who can posses or sell them, where and how they can be stored or carried. Gun should be allowed anywhere,citizens need guns for self defense, the Second Amendment provides the United States people the rights to bear arms despite the fact more guns equal more crime. In my opinion Gun control is not a problem, but to other people guns is an issues. To some people gun control is a crime issue, it is a right issue. In my opinion Gun control is a safety issue, an education issue, a racial issue, and a political issue among others.
We are willing to discuss banning guns for “killing people”. So, should we also discuss banning hands, because they also kill people? People have been killing since the dawn of time. It’s awful and sad, but getting rid of guns is not going to fix that problem. what we really want to ban is violence, murder, and
A stricter background check should not affect anybody but the bad people and criminals that do not have any business with guns anyway. In a separate study, “Webster found that firearm-related homicides in Connecticut dropped 40 percent after the state adopted a 1995 law that required anyone seeking to buy a handgun to apply for a permit with the local police, complete at least eight hours of safety training, and be 21 years old.” (Richards, Paragraph 6) this system could spread across the whole country and work to help keep guns out of criminal’s hands and to stop
Therefore, if that argument does not make sense Ivins, she would naturally support the banning of guns because “[g]uns do kill” (215). By outright banning guns, this may result in the creation of a black market for guns. Since guns would be illegal, more people would resort to underhanded methods of obtaining firearms. This is similar to what happened when there was a prohibition of the sale, transportation, and manufacturing of alcohol across the nation. During this prohibition, places became dangerous because gangs were at war as a result of trying to remain in control of alcohol smuggling operations.
Many are against concealed carry because it would lead to an arms race. As said by Kelly Sampson, on behalf of the Brady Campaign, allowing concealed carry would force the criminals to get higher damage guns, which would lead to an unnecessary amount of guns. If criminals got higher grade weapons, it would mean more violent crimes and more deaths. Obama once said “There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America. So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer?” and many people on the pro-gun control side stand by this.
This blog, is based on Evan Defilippis overview on the pros and cons of gun control. Defilippis develops well written and clear visual arguments on both sides of the issue. For example, he states “The main point of this argument is that criminals do not follow laws; therefore laws restricting gun ownership and types of guns would only hurt those who follow them.” “Gun control laws only help criminals, criminals do not play by the law. That is why we need to punish criminals, not law-abiding citizens by disarming them. Gun control laws is not the answer.” What he meant by this is why punish EVERYONE including people who abide by the laws that are already in place?
Under such a program, the police would look for weapons on anybody ceased for minor infractions. Such a program would try to dissuade the unlawful exchange of guns on our boulevards. Still another program is force harsher punishments for criminals who utilize guns over the span of their