Gun Ownership Arguments

Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people. Gun laws have their positives and negatives, but the debate isn 't resolved yet.

Weapons have always distinguished mankind from animals. Animals use their resources and instincts for survival, while a man relies on weapons to bring about destruction. Guns give man the sense of power and control over nature, however, they are no empowerment, longer used for hunting, but instead are involved in cases of domestic violence, mass shootings and at blame for the loss of lives of innocent children.

Gun control is in the forefront of the national new stemming from the mass shootings at schools and public places across the United States. Concerns have been raised both by the public and our nation’s government about gun violence and creating more strict legislation. One of the measures looked at is the use of smart technologies to make guns safer. This call for smart technologies to be incorporated into firearms has a lack of consensus on both sides of the gun control issue making smart technologies a slowly researched and developed area. For this reason, smart gun technologies should not be incorporated into gun control legislation.

Gun control is a topic that has been debated over the last few years. It is a subject that many people stand for and against the change in policy. Basically gun control would change the way firearms are regulated, by changing laws or polices that control how they are made, sold, owned, and used by civilians. However by trying to take away firearms from civilians would be infringing upon their rights as United States citizens. 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.

Why take away the protection and recreational shooting practices of innocent citizens because others are irresponsible? Gun control laws are a major issue being discussed in the U.S. right now. Some believe that by condemning the availability of firearms to all, criminals and people with mental illnesses will be less likely to attain firearms. However they are then violating the people’s second amendment right, which give them the right to bear arms. According to the article on “Gun Control Laws” from the Issues and Controversies database, It all started on “June 12, 2016, when a gunman killed 49 at a gay nightclub in Orlando Florida.” After this attack, President Barack Obama said, “Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history.”

Gun violence has become a topic we are accustomed to hearing about on a daily basis. There is a very high chance that when watching the news you will hear about a recent shooting or other incidents in which a gun was involved. Specifically in the United States gun violence is responsible for many deaths. The number of deaths occurring due to gun violence has increased over the years and will continue to increase if the proper precautions are not taken. Americans argue that stricter gun laws need to be implemented in order to resolve this issue. However, this is sufficient enough. In my opinion, I believe it would be more beneficial to make advances in mental health and focus on the motives that lead to

The National Rifle Association is working day after day to make the world with guns in it a safer place. However, many People feel that day will never come. They are working on taking guns away from Americans altogether. Our hope is to find a solution so we can keep guns a part of our history, while, at the same time, protecting the people in the United States.

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. Yes, they might be using a gun, but the gun is not the one that is making the decision to do it. The people are ultimately responsible for it all, not the gun (11).

Gun control has been a national issue for decades, if not centuries. The founding fathers created the Second Amendment that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This amendment was passed as part of the Bill of Rights and simply recognizing something that has existed or will continue to exist in the future. It was also another check on the government, if the people had no weapons to rebel against them, the government can oppress them easily and would make it easier for the government to assemble militia in a time of war. This Second Amendment doesn’t also mean that the people can’t have some measure of control in these extremely dangerous weapons. Gun violence had increased over the past few years. Studies published in Everytown

Think of all of the advantages people could have by owning and knowing how to use a gun. A gun could help people to survive on their own, to kill their own food, to protect their family, and they would not have to rely on anyone else to get them food. Too many people are dependent, but if everyone had a gun, knew how to correctly and safely use it everyone would be a whole lot more independent.

There was a shooting in December of 2013 at Sandy Hook School in Connecticut. This shooting killed 20 children and 6 adults. This shooting was the second worst school shooting in U.S. history. There has been multiple shootings in public areas where more than one person was shot. These shootings caused arguments about gun control. Some people are arguing about we need more laws with gun control and some people think more laws are not going to help. Even though these shootings have happened the united states does not need stricter gun control laws.

On February 14, 2018 seventeen innocent people were shot and killed at a school in Parkland Florida. The shooter being over the age of eighteen, legally purchased the gun that caused this massacre, back in February of 2017. The federal law states, anyone with a clean criminal record over the age of eighteen can legally purchase a gun. This brings people to wonder, is our gun control enough? Should there be more? This is a common debate all across America, weighing whether or not gun control will benefit the safety of men and women. Both sides have expressed strong, yet different views about gun control.

Gun control has become a polarizing and controversial issue around the globe. There have been many reported issues of mass shootings both in schools and in the public, making it a hot button issue. Proponents argue that, if the government strictly controls the ownership of guns, such tragedies can be prevented. Most Americans have an obsession with guns because the law allows them to do so. Therefore, they are always ready to scoff at anyone trying to control gun ownership. This makes us wonder why people can be so defensive over something like a gun that is so dangerous and has lead to a lot of deaths in the American society. Gun control is essential in our society today because it will help prevent unnecessary shootings and crime rate Gun control will play a major part in the decrease of the crime and murder rate. Therefore, in my point of view, guns should be totally controlled and regulated by the government. If gun ownership is controlled by the government, only a limited number of people will be allowed to own guns. In addition, the regulations will make it difficult for people to access guns unless they have a concrete reason as to why they need the weapon. Moreover, if the ownership of guns is limited, it will help prevent unnecessary deaths and violence caused by gun owners, especially students. Gun ownership should be totally controlled and regulated by the government because they will help in limiting the number of people who own guns. When gun

Gun violence leads to more than 31,000 deaths and 78,000 nonfatal injuries every year according to Dewey Cornell, a forensic clinical psychologist at the University of Virginia. Many of the most horrific cases of gun violence are mass shootings, which appear to be growing more frequent. Even though there have been multiple publicized massacres that have taken place in recent years (such as Sandy Hook, Aurora, and other mass shootings) there is little awareness of the growing controversy of how to prevent these incidents and others involving gun violence in the public. This controversy has led to the continued debate of gun-control. Peter Tucci, a free-lance journalist form the Daily Caller, argues against the establishment of more gun-control saying that it is not efficacious, widespread gun ownership protects citizens, and that gun control does not ensure the safety of the public. However, there is extensive research that suggests that the very opposite is true. The implementation of stricter gun control laws is now more important than ever because they are they are an effective means to reduce crimes and widespread gun ownership is deleterious to the safety of the public.

Closing statement: The debate about gun control is inappropriate, because it does not go far enough. Only a completely ban of privately owned firearms can help drastically reduce the number of firearms related deaths and save countless lives. Without a doubt, the proposition of a complete ban of firearms will be met with fierce opposition. Critics will point at their eagerness to hunt, shoot for recreational purposes, and use guns for self-defense. However, recreational hunting and target practice are hardly basic rights that must be preserved at all costs. Moreover, guns are ineffective for self-defense in many situations. In other words, the risks outweigh the potential advantages by far. Moreover, what is right should not be abandoned, only because it is difficult to implement. It is time that the ownership of guns is restricted to those who need them for professional reasons. The result would be a safer and better