It all in would cause more damage than letting people own firearms. 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. Making these laws don’t just take away peoples weapons it takes away their sense of home, safety, and freedom.
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. (2) Banning the private ownership of guns would also save lives that are lost due to successful suicide attempts with firearms.
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.
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).
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
Gun violence occurs based on the unstable people in control of the gun not the gun itself. 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.” This shows the court could waste a lot of money funding gun classes when they could be funding something more important like schools or homes for homeless people.Along with this fact why should mentally unstable citizens own a gun in the first place.