In Molly Ivins publication of “Get a Knife, Get a Dog but Get Rid of Guns”, she brings up an interesting argument from the well-known thriller titled Jurassic Park. In this movie one of the main characters makes a statement that power without discipline, is making society into a wreckage. From what I can infer individuals who are power-driven or do not fully understand discipline are at danger, not only to themselves, but people people that they have authority over; at times with little to no regard for their well being. It is this ideology that can do great harm in many different ways. Ivins makes this comparison with the argument of American individuals, and their belief about the Second Amendment and how those individuals interpret their
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
I think it is clear that America’s lenient Gun Laws have no doubt been a huge factor on the staggering amount of gun violence for a long time. I do believe, however, in people’s rights to defend and arm themselves, it is part of their constitution, I just feel that it is necessary that the laws regarding the 2nd amendment need to be reinforced and should introduce some restrictions to ensure that only the people who are mentally capable of wielding a firearm, without causing harm to society, should be allowed to acquire one. I do also recognise that there are already a staggering number of guns in the possession of the general public, and I feel that the only way to tackle this issue is cultural change in America, changing the views of individuals on the idea of guns, but change is always
Updating the Amendment 2.0 The right to bear arms has been a favoured constitutional law since its establishment in 1791, but as more gun related violence and accidents occur, there has been increasing debate on whether or not guns should be banned in the US altogether, and if not, what regulations should be required for the purchase and handling of them. While guns should not be completely banned from the country, the rules and regulations of gun laws should be tightened. In the 2nd amendment, it clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While this statement still holds true, the evolution of firearms and how they have become more dangerous throughout the years is a clear sign of why the laws should be changed.
The Gun Control Debate In recent years, there’s not many topics on the political spectrum that aren’t absolutely polarizing. This essay will attempt to show each side’s generalized opinions, and find flaws in each of their arguments, as every ethical argument has flaws. Analyzing each side will help anyone understand their own opinions better, because without the demonization of the opposite party, ethics get much more difficult. Gun control is everywhere in the news right now, as three months into the year, the country has had12 school shootings in 2018. Exploring the ethics of gun control can get messy and emotional, but it’s important to understand all sides of a subject.
Since the Second Amendments’ ratification in 1791, Americans still debate with one another, because of its many controversy views. The amendment allows every citizen of the United States the right to own guns and to defend themselves when in danger. The problem arises when the laws being set are restricting people from their rights. There are so many gun control laws, varying from state to state. The development of arguments surrounding gun control correlates to the increased violence and altercations related to the use of fire weapons.
Gun Control Debate Jake Novak, in an article for CNBC titled, “Gun control isn’t the answer. We already know how to stop the violence,” gives his opinion regarding the controversial issue of gun control. Novak argues that gun control is not the answer to rising gun violence but that proper enforcement of the law would go a long way in reducing the cases of gun violence in America. He states, “We actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990’s and again in the early 2000’s by doing something radical. We enforced the law” (Novak 28).
As the ideal utilitarian approach focuses on the concept that the good will outweigh the bad, the good through gun control is easily identified through the way it will reduce the amount of violence as the restrictions of guns will reduce casualties. This has become the fundamental argument for the proponent camp where it is also seen how proponents argue the fact that “guns kill people” following cases of gun violence. As seen in the example of the cases that are ongoing in Baltimore, Maryland and Compton, California, these represents the clear fact that gun control is needed. The society will be a better place and it will be in the interest of the overall society for gun control to be needed. The clear advantages and good will be shown through the reduction of gun violence.
A weapon in the wrongs hands is the maximum danger humanity can face. Nowadays, violence and delinquency in society are viewed as the maximum problem solver. Humanity is full of chaos; hate and envy seize our souls. Guns are the ultimate security for some citizens but for others, these add to a feeling of defenselessness. Throughout history, any topic related to guns means a plethora of problems.
The Ethical Debate of Gun Control Introduction The debate of gun control presents an ethical dilemma in deciding which rights afforded by the US Constitution are more important. The ethical debate places the rights afforded in the Second Amendment to bear arms against the rights afforded in the First Amendment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Even though there are many people argue “the guns do not kill people but people do”. However, Evan DeFilippis states, in his article “Debunking the Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People Myth”, that the gun itself is not able to harm, and guns become harmful when people hold them. He highlights that when people hold a gun, they tend to kill more often and more efficiency than those who do not have a gun. He illustrates this is because the environment may affect people’s behaviors. If the surrounding environment is that everyone has a gun, people become more fractious and they may not able to control themselves under extreme emotions.
Some people might say that we need a gun to protect ourselves in the United States, but there are actually various ways to protect ourselves instead of using a gun according to the article, “How Americans Protect Themselves from Crime.” Transition to Conclusion: before the government legislates about the gun control law, we need to be the spearhead that is awake to this problem deeply and carefully. Restate Thesis: I am convinced that the entire civilian should not own guns to prevent the gun violence, and only government officers must be able to own guns. Review Main Points: we realize that erroneous gun possession contributes to horrible gun accidents.
The use of and the owning of guns is a very hot and debated topic in society today. For many, this is a life and death debate due to the recent and numerous school shootings. These school shootings have caused an outcry for more gun control, specifically in relation to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Despite these calls, increased gun control is not the answer. Most gun owners’ use their guns responsibly and for good purposes.
Even though gun violence has always plagued humanity, authorities still fail to remove the dangerous equipment at hand. Of course, in the article “The solution to gun violence is clear” published in December 12, 2012, issue of The Washington post, opinionated writer Fareed Zakaria makes his claim on why guns should be banned in the United States. Although this is an interesting subject Zakaria is not very authoritative on his claim. He argues that there are too many guns, too easy to obtain, and the country’s “permissive laws” are making it worst for Americans. Zakaria writes about how much of a better difference the lack of access to guns, have in other countries to make his point.
For others, a view that has arose later, guns are the “perpetuation of illicit social hierarchies, the elevation of force over reason,” and a promoter of collectivity and remover of individuality. This latter view of guns is a direct application of the conflict theory. For those who hold this view, and likely support the passage of gun control laws, guns are representative of social inequality that is abundant in modern society, that the usage of guns is a means of violently coercing those of lower classes to remain in their class. The view of guns as a symbol of protection is also an application of the conflict theory.
Research Paper Weapons have always distinguished mankind from animals. Animals use their resources and instincts for survival, while a man relies on weapons to bring about destruction. Guns give man the sense of power and control over nature, however, they are no empowerment, longer used for hunting, but instead are involved in cases of domestic violence, mass shootings and at blame for the loss of lives of innocent children. We cannot solely blame the gun owner, although they are at much fault themselves. We must also find culpability in the individual who sold the weapons.
Problem Solution Paper 95% of people think that america needs stricter gun control laws, yet the amount of shootings in the past years has risen exponentially. Gun violence is a serious problem and the people of the United States have wanted to solve this problem this for a long time. If people feel scared to go to school (which should be a safe learning environment for all children and all ages) that is a problem, and it needs to be solved, or at the very least put in barriers to deal with the mental disabilities and amount of guns associated with this problem. There has been an exponential rise in shootings in America since the 20th century. In the 20th century there were 226 shootings, in the first 18 years of the 21st century there have been 211 shootings.