Gun Carry: The Right To Bear Arms

There are many ethical reasons why gun control should not be implemented towards law-abiding citizens such as it is hypocritical, neglects the reality of control, and is discriminating against gun owners. Gun control, in addition to be hypocritical, also contradicts the protection of human lives. For instance when looking at the argument for gun control it comes down to this: every human life is valuable, killing someone is immoral, guns can kill people, so create laws that decrease access to weapons. Gun control activist strive to push that guns are one of the main causes for death in the

Another problem with taking guns away, or banning them, is that the government cannot expect everyone to abide by the laws. In past circumstances when guns were banned, criminals were the kind of people that the government wanted to make sure did not have guns. In reality, they were always the ones who still had the guns (Lott). People can say that gun crime is a serious firearm problem, but guns are not always the exact cause of the crime. Even if the government tries to deny groups access to guns, they could still find their way around the law and gain access to one

They believe that after the traumatic event that caused them the have this pain that something must be done to ban all firearms regardless of who uses them. Everyone fall on this spectrum and that is the issue no one can be one hundred percent right meaning someone will be unhappy with the result. From constitution being first ratified to today the idea of gun control has still existed. Gun control is the regulation of guns through their purchasing, owning, and use. As such starting with the second amendment of the United States constitution which says, “A well regulated Militia, […and] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

“Assault Weapons” are a key focus for gun control. Advocates for gun control state that these types of weapons should not be attainable by civilians. They feel those types of firearms are too dangerous for the common people. No facts are provided as to why these rifles like the AR-15, which has become a hot topic in the gun control community, are more dangerous than any other firearm. Bump stocks are another point of interest for gun control supporters.

They also argue that criminals will find a way to get a gun even if more gun control measure are put into place. While it is possible that may happen, stricter gun laws will at the very least allow less guns to be put out into the general public and as a result, decrease the chance a criminal is able to get a gun. When it comes to guns, many Americans

Lastly, the last source that will be synthesize into essay is another article from the same database as the first source and second sources titled, "Is Gun Control the Answer to Mass Shootings?" By Charles Scaliger which is against gun control. By looking at the tone of the article and Scaliger 's usage of words such as "anti," "criminalizing," "utopian," "sin," and "evil," one can argue that article is against gun control. These sources were chosen because they provide strong evidences that both support

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.

Another question is “Are guns really necessary in our daily lives?”. Many people buy guns for many reasons. However, there are others who abuse that power to inflict pain upon others. The sad truth is, banning all guns will not stop all the gun violence because ultimately, its not the guns that kill people. However if somebody wants to buy a gun, then there should be stricter background checks on medical records to see if there are any issues with mental health.

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.

David DeGrazia proposes a moderate control of guns meaning that only individuals with a need for self-protection be allowed to own a gun and only after a complete course in safety (Hsiao and Berstein). DeGrazia also believes that owning a gun increases the likelihood that a person will be killed in their own home whether accidentally or intentionally (Hsiao and Berstein). The Democratic Party believes that stricter background checks will deter guns from being purchased by the wrong people. That might be true, but will it stop a violent person from committing a