There have been many times when the court has made different rulings on the same court case causing confusion. People argue that taking away these guns from normal abiding citizens does not stop criminals from obtaining these weapons. (Zimring 441) Nobody knows if this is true or not, but it is a legitimate argument for those who want the ability to own guns. They also argue that criminals would be less likely to commit a crime if they know that the victim is armed.
People often wonder why guns are legal for citizens to own. Guns are put to blame for much of the crime that happens in the world but it is the people that do the crime not the guns. Gun control laws have been debated about and tried to be put in place for many years in the United States. There are laws restricting some types of weapons and where weapons can be used but some people want more laws controlling all guns and some wanting to ban all guns. Many people promoting gun laws are not educated on some of the statistics and ways that guns save and protect innocent people.
This is partially due to citizens being unaware of current statistics and conditions, as well as the fear of the government seizing guns acquired legally if certain bans are put into place. However, elections show that even among those against gun control, people do approve of some general regulations, like background checks and gun registration. Also, many approved of not allowing any past felons or anyone deemed mentally ill to own guns. No matter what the majority believes, however, the misuse of guns by unknowledgeable owners, not usually the guns themselves, endanger us.
According to a source at Smithsonian“People are more likely to feel safer in their homes if they; or someone that lives with them has a gun”, Having a gun makes you feel like you are ready for anything; it gives your self esteem a boost. Strict gun controls won 't make a big positive change because criminals don 't follow the law so whether you ban guns or not they will have a way to get to one. Like I said earlier if criminals can get to guns easier than your average person it will increase gun related violence. Not making guns available to people will just leave them defenseless in a time of terror.
So that means that a gun can make a situation seem violent. Others may also say that gun control laws do not determine crime but gun ownership determines crime, anyone who can read this would think that it 's not going to be true for everyone in the world because we are all different. So laws make people able to own guns so when you are able to own a gun it determines the crime so laws determine ownership and crime determines its
"The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them." Most can agree that, with gun control laws make it hard to own a gun and with such few people owning guns, criminals can’t steal guns. On the other hand, gun control laws don’t make it impossible to own a gun, therefore guns can still be stolen. “Even if the gun owner had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and would never use it in furtherance of a crime, is it likely that the same can be said for the burglar who steals the gun?”
Guns can either solve the problem or make it worse. Many colleges shooting happens when the student is the shooter. If more college allows this law into school its basically making the shooter mission easier. They are putting innocent people in danger. So many factors play a part in this law.
Gun control is a highly debated topic because hunters and recreational shooters carry and use guns for a living while others carry guns for malicious intent and a mind to kill. People argue about gun control because a lot of people do not misuse the weapons but all it takes is one well-coordinated
Meaning this law may restrict the health service from providing their treatment because people with mental problem can use the guns and kill the innocent people. This may be the reason why the law is against the treatment. From my opinion, these disadvantages are common sense. In one hand, people who are mentally sick are suppose to get treatment in order to reduce the amount of gun death. They use guns and shoot out of their sense and out of control.
This doesn 't mean that they don 't want change or feel that we need to change, they just believe we shouldn 't get rid of guns completely. They say that guns don 't kill people, people kill people, guns just make it easier for them to do it. According to CNBC and Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee “When somebody has an intent to do incredible damage, they 're going to find a way to do it." This trying to prove the point that guns don 't kill people, people kill people. Many believe it is a violation of their second amendment rights which states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
My personal belief on guns is that they are there to protect us as a society. Whether it be a police officer or a soldier or even your mom, guns can be used for good. I was brought up around guns and I learned how to safely handle them, but others do not have the experience I do and therefore misuse their weapon. We are protected under the second amendment right –the right to bear arms for all citizens—(US constitution) but all citizens includes criminals and mentally insane. Most crimes involving guns, the person is to later be found out to be insane, such as the movie theater killer, he obviously wasn’t in any frame of mind to own a gun.
from obtaining weapons that they could use irresponsibly may help to prevent the loss of innocent lives. The anti-gun control side states that gun control infringes on our second amendment rights thus threatening our freedom. I didn’t understand this defense too well, so I decided to investigate myself. To understand the other side better, I decided to interview a fellow acquaintance who is a gun supporter and who is quite dedicated to the cause, as he is the president of a pro-gun club. I wanted to know how the other side could believe and justify more guns as a way to actually prevent deaths, as more people die from weapon injuries in the United States than any other civilized country in the world.
A big argument that gun rights advocates make is “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Gun control advocates say that this argument is not good because people would more than likely end in one death, but guns can add up to more deaths. People get the argument wrong and assume that its talking about just the gun. The argument is saying that the people are the ones killing the people.
New, stronger gun laws are not the answer. “The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law abiding citizens while would-be criminals ignore them.” (Lott) We need to work on enforcing current gun laws to ensure the safety of others. While there should be a background check, looking at criminal history, history of
Gun limitation is an unpopular opinion, and the elimination of guns altogether can be protested with evidence from the Constitution. The Second Amendment gives the citizens the right to bear arms, and there is a section of the document that states that the “pursuit of happiness” is a right that the government is not allowed to remove. Granted, the pursuit of happiness argument is unstable, because the ending of lives due to guns is another violation of the constitution, but the argument is valid for those who use guns responsibly, and do no harm to others with them. Even though eliminating guns is an unpopular opinion, the evidence still point to the fact that mass shooting numbers have increased substantially in the most recent decade. There are however, some people who have a viewpoint on the other end of the spectrum-meaning that they want no restrictions on guns at all.