"Guns are why we 're free in this country and people lose sight of that when tragedies like this happen" says Scott Ostrosky. He also stated, " A gun didn 't kill all those children. A disturbed man killed all those children." Tragedies like these shootings are the purest example that we need to make sure that the wrong people do not get their hands on these tools. And they are the purest example that gun laws are weak and so are background checks.
The thought of a society without a militia is sickening with terrorists being able to attack any helpless citizen. Sure, the alternative weapons are useful, yet they don 't have any range upon the enemy and some people can not acquire the physical force or tactical skill needed to fortify. Gun control makes it so only the fittest of the fittest survive, which means even more deaths when terrorists attack. To add, gun laws do not prove any use. Even though gun laws prevent deaths, they infringe so many rights in the immutable Bill of Rights, which is one of the foundations of the great United States.
There are accidental deaths that happen everyday where a child accidentally shoots him or herself or someone else. One of the most dangerous myths of America’s gun debate is that passing federal gun control laws is the only way to prevent gun violence and save lives and that therefore the issue is hopeless and nothing will change. Another big way to reduce gun violence is Demand that
In another view, many of those who are on the board of having guns have limited reasoning. Winkler even states “On the Other hand , gun advocates are too quick to assume that laws allowing guns on campus will discourage mass murderers.” Even in Arizona, which was an example in the article, it had passed a liberal carrying law, and with that, there was still a shooting of a man hurting a representative and killing six other people along with it. This remark goes back to the last paragraph and how it could make a setting bitter and uncomfortable instead of having people feel safer because they would be able to “fight back”. Also in a shooting that could happen at a school people could have a gun on them and still would not be able to protect himself, but also can shoot a bystander because they could have thought it was the shooter. This reasoning is also a representation of how having a gun to protect oneself is a good idea.
The revision is for the general population and not the state. Individuals who don't look into the owning of handguns and structure their feeling off of what they see on the news are left oblivious. A standout amongst the most misjudged ideas is that more weapons cause more savagery. This is false more weapons don't mean more crimes. In 1973, the handgun stock was 36.9 million and the murder rate was 9.4 for every 100,000.
‘In the late 1980s, gun control groups realized that they had failed in their original goal—getting handguns banned—and began campaigning against semi-automatic firearms they called "assault weapons," most of which are rifles’(“A ban on assault weapons would not reduce crime”). From 1994 to 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons (F.D.A) banned semi automatic weapons from having more than 10 rounds. The easiest way to define gun control is by saying it a government regulation sale of any type of handgun, or assault rifle. It’s just a certain style the government sales firearms, if you have a criminal background or criminal history you are not allowed to purchase a firearm due to gun control. I personally think gun control doesn’t cause any harm to today’s society, considering the fact that i’m constantly around guns and I have no violent urge to put anyone in danger.
Nationally, guns are used in 68% of homicides, which helps explain why America experiences more gun homicides than any other modern nation in the world (Hirsh 86). If America wants to make a real change, then its legislators and constituents must have the will to improve its current gun control laws. By recognizing the lack of any meaningful laws, society can start focusing on the failures of the political system. Currently, there are twenty-two thousand gun control laws in place (Hirsh 86). Due to the large number and minimal impact on America, it appears that these laws are ineffective and in need of a restructuring focused on the gun retailer.
This problem can be contributed to the increasing power of guns, and a lack of mental health coverage, gun control and school safety. When the 2nd amendment was established, the most complex guns we had were muskets, and we needed to defend ourselves from what we felt was tyranny; the American Revolution was still in the rearview mirror for all Americans to consider. Ever since those words were written, however, gun technology has dramatically increased – despite fully automatic weapons being banned from the public, bump stocks that simulate a fully automatic weapon can be purchased with relative ease. Most Americans feel we can do better when it comes to gun control; in a Washington Post article by Scott Clement and Emily Guskin, 77% polled said more effective mental health screening could have
Guns are a cost-benefit ratio along with everything else in this world. Guns don’t fire by themselves, so why do we need to outlaw guns when the gun doesn’t pull its own trigger? Instead, we need to work with the people using them. Gun laws are to keep people that aren’t supposed to have guns from getting guns and they are also in place to protect the people who have guns and give them the right to bear arms. Studies show that gun ownership has increased incredibly while at the same time crime has decreased to historic lows The second amendment says people have the right to bear arms and they can’t be taken away.
Less gun, more beautiful life Now, gun ownership is being legalized in many countries, but crimes committed by the people who have guns are likely to imminently endanger the life or property safety of innocent citizens. There has been a mass shootings in the United States recently (Newman & Hartman 2017). As a result, it made the controversial topic “whether the government should control guns more strictly” have more debate value. Gun control is defined as a way that aim for “protecting the safety of citizens through limits on and regulation of firearms” (“GUN CONTROL:A.” 1984). There is an argument that the government may control the number of people can legally posses a gun and the time the people could posses a gun more strictly.
Lapierre implies, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” This may be true, but what if neither party had a gun? I’m not saying that all guns in America should be banned, but instead no more of these assault rifles and firearms should be allowed in the average citizen 's hand. All guns sellers should have to provide a background research, psychological test, and a contract of intent on how the buyer will use the product. With these new selling strategies in place Adam Lanza would not have had the chance to commit this horrendous
Millions of guns each year are sold without a criminal background check, there is no way to know if a person who is openly carrying an AK-47 is a responsible gun owner, or if that person is a threat to moms and children. Making sure children are safe is one of the most important steps to a great nation people take and allowing the carry gun law to be legal is not a step forward but a step back. The community worries the most about our next generation because they have the key to the