Right To Bear Arms Pros And Cons

Banning the use of firearms would only cause more destruction,more havoc, and make guns distributed illegally isn’t that against the point? The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, this was made after the American Revolution as a right that could not be taken away. The right to bear arms comes from the fact that all men and women should be able to defend themselves from threats. Some people do think guns are unnecessary and that now we are more civilized than before and that guns just cause destruction while

The people who want to go out and hurt someone obviously have it in their head to start off with, so they will find a way to get a gun or hurt someone in a different way, taking away gun rights isn’t going to stop people from killing if that’s what their initial intentions are in the first place. Adding to it, many Americans believe that that taking away gun rights is unconstitutional. “This is a freedom that Americans have acquired over time, but by banning guns it takes that freedom away, and thus going against the declaration of independence because it is a law that is restricting the people from their rights to own a weapon for protection.” (Debate). The biggest upset about the taking away guns from our people is the fact that it goes against everything America has always bragged out being, the land of the free.

The constitution gives United States citizens the right to bear arms and should not be infringed upon. If guns are banned then the black market and crime rate will be way worse, drugs are illegal and people can get them as they please, if firearms are banned people will do the same. Mental health is an even bigger issue than the guns themselves, if someone commits a mass murder there is something wrong with that individual and they are not mentally stable. People pull the trigger, the weapons do not fire

Topic: Ownership of Guns for non-professional reasons should be illegal in the United States General Purpose: To argue. Specific Purpose: The specific purpose of this speech is to argue for outlawing private gun ownership in the United States. Central Idea/Thesis Statement: Private ownership of guns in the United States should be illegal. Various specific reasons are presented to support this statement: (1) Banning private ownership of firearms, and, their distribution, would save a large number of lives that are lost as the result of gun violence.

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. Criminals are less likely to commit a crime with a gun such as mugging if they believe that there is a chance that they will get shot in the process. In situations a bit more extreme such as mass shootings, guns owners have the ability to take out the shooter and prevent a much greater loss of life from happening. According to an article published in Investors Business Daily, “A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun” (Lott). Often times civilians with concealed carry permits are on the scene much sooner than possible for law enforcement.

The presence of a gun makes an act of domestic violence much more likely to end in death. We need to ensure that college are a sanctuary untainted by gun violence. We believe gun do not make place safer people do. Students can be protected in campus in some other ways than being allow to carry gun. College should have more police officer to keep things safe.

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). Almost 25% of mass shooting killers are being considered mentally ill

An argument that is also commonly used against this part of the Common Sense Gun Laws would be how the federal government has a history of being completely ineffective in previous bans, such as The Drug War, and Alcohol Prohibition. Another part of this proposed plan exclaims, “Citizens need a limit on how many firearms they can own” again, the opposing side counters this by stating how the limit would do nothing but add more restrictions and regulation into the already over-regulated firearm industry. They state that it wouldn 't actually stop these tragic events from happening since the potential shooter would still have access to firearms. The final argument against Common Sense Gun Control attacks the part of the law stating how the “gun show loophole” is a major problem that needs to be solved. The loophole deals with private transactions and the belief that someone, who is under the age enforced by federal law, could go to a gun show or an online seller and create a transaction that is outside of the required minimum age to purchase a firearm.

We should raise gun restrictions rather than adding more guns because lives are being lost, guns only bring harm, and because we have seen the success of other nations who have raised restrictions. Guns violence has been on the headlines due to the recent mass shootings, this is because precious lives are being lost. Children, adults, and innocent people are being hurt. Not everyone that owns a gun wants to cause a mass shooting, but the

Likewise why should the government have to deal with these problems. The court system should not have to deal with these cases on gun violence they have more important problems to deal with. Court systems should not have to deal with unstable people who own and gun who have caused panic throughout their town or city. Stated in the article “10 Advantages and Disadvantages of Gun Control”, “ Funds could even be set aside so that licensing and safety classes are low-cost or free.”

In conclusion, the people for Gun Control are infringing rules that are immovable, and the against it are literally on higher ground because they know that the people for it are trying to fight America, which they are. Gun Control is just one big fight that was started by people that lust for control and use it to pollute the society. Even though gun laws are the top answer for less gun

Gun Control Essay: My view on gun control is that there should be stricter laws on the issue and harsher punishment regarding illegal gun carry. I also believe there should be a mental evaluation of all individuals, wanting to purchase handguns or military-assault rifles and gun permits because a criminal history check isn’t enough to qualify if someone is allowed to carry a deadly weapon. I’m not saying to eliminate the process of a criminal check, but to incorporate both the mental evaluation and criminal history to give someone the right to carry. I believe in the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms and self-defense but, many people abuse the power and capability of what a gun can truly do.

Although it largely depends upon the specific type, mental illnesses in general can degrade the rationality of a person’s decision-making ability. Since a person diagnosed with a mental illness is unable to properly make cognitive and logical choices, they are more likely to misuse firearms, thus posing a danger to themselves and others. Therefore, we must enact strict regulations that immobilize mentally-ill people from obtaining firearms. Gun regulations may seem repulsive to some people in our country, because for them, guns are the equivalent of freedom and security, and to regulate those firearms may be regarded as an encroachment upon American liberty. However, it is crucial to identify how this fallacy plagues our society; a gun is a gun, it is a weapon designed for the purpose of ending someone’s life.

People also “...support the rights of hunters, sport shooters, and recreational gunmen.” (openreader.org).Criminals are already breaking the law, so adding more won 't deter them. “Criminals will get hold of guns – indeed, by definition, if guns are outlawed, one becomes a criminal just by acquiring one – and leave non-criminals more vulnerable than ever.” (bigthink.com). Gun control laws do not help deter, and only slightly inconvenience them.

The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791 written by James Madison. The Bill of Rights was written and added into the Constitution in order to protect the rights of the citizens. The Bill of Rights was added into the Constitution by a compromise between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists. Federalists were citizens who supported the new Constitution. While Anti-Federalists were another group of citizens who were scared to have another king or a abusive government, basically did not support the Constitution.