Gun control is a heavily debated topic that many people stand for and against. Gun control has many different backgrounds as well. With gun control there will be less mass shootings like the 2016 shooting in Orlando and the 2017 shooting in Las Vegas (“Gun”). Gun Control laws will help prevent this because it will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and any other type of released terrorist the best it can.To understand gun control more, it is important to know about the laws passed, pros, and cons. Although there are many different topics that are important to Gun Control, some may believe that the most important is about the laws of Gun Control.
Society today think that just because guns kill a majority of people, if the government bans them, everything in society will be perfect and there won’t be murders or a police officer can always eliminate the danger. These accusations are not true and it’s all based on the place and time. In conclusion, assault weapons should not be banned. Previous bans have not been successful,
After hearing this, most people would probably say yes just because of the way it is worded. On the other end of the spectrum, someone who was against gun control laws could ask, guns protect families and are used for recreational uses such as hunting, do you think the United States should have gun control laws? This question makes someone really think about safety that guns can provide and how they are used for other things like hunting. These two questions show how just putting a little more information into the question can completely change someone’s
He is the founder of “Mayors against illegal guns” and he does also want a stricter gun control. He made a commercial in 2013 that appeared in the Super Bowl commercials. Mayor Thomas Menino from Boston is by Bloomberg’s side in the commercial and they say the following “But we both support the second amendment and believe America must do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. You know over 600 mayors across the country agree on common sense reforms, that would save lives”. The meaning of their words are that even though they believe in the second amendment it does not mean that it is impossible to believe in a better safety for the American citizens.
(Semicolon rule 1)For the past few years, America has been through countless demonstrations of violence; our wound is getting deeper and deeper. Many Americans blame loose gun laws as this problem, saying that it 's too easy to get your hands on a gun in today 's world. However, imposing stricter gun laws would only slow down the issue, not completely stop it.In more detail, it would be a fruitless attempt to solve rising violence in America. Mental health is at the root of this rising violence. Instead of focusing on imposing gun laws, America needs to focus on improving mental health in order to stop the rising violence.
Although Obama supports gun control, he has contradicted himself. If almost half of the guns owned by U.S. citizens are acquired improperly, it is likely he will fail to remove the guns in which he wishes to control. As a result, more people will be left defenseless against the real perpetrators -- the ones who acquired firearms without the proper
Regulating the amount of guns in the hands of American citizens, more guns preventing crime and the interpretation of the Second Amendment are all crucial topics in debating gun control. With less guns ownership, there would be a severe drop in homicides and other gun related deaths. Additionally, some contend more guns would associate with a lower crime rate. This is due to bystanders stepping in and stopping any potential crime or crime in progress. Lastly, the true meaning of the Second Amendment very controversial.
Some believe that this is a terrible amendment to have our country live by, this group supports enforcing gun laws or even abolishing guns all together. This is not the only side of the argument though, there are opposers to enforcing gun laws that believe that there are already enough laws for buying guns and what you can do with them. The opposers also believe that we should focus more of our efforts on the mental health of the people instead of the guns they use. The debate on gun control is a very pressing matter. Some believe that the laws on gun control should be stricter, while others believe the laws should be looser for self-defense and hunting.
With that being said, what will happen to gun laws in the future? According to the Wall Street Journal “The most significant development won’t be a nationwide swing toward gun rights or gun control-but widening and entrenched gulf that will divide American politically, socially, and even technologically” (Jennifer Carlson). Jennifer goes on to say “Gun-control initiatives will follow the approach blazed by the gun lobby, shifting away from the national stage and focusing increasingly on state level efforts” (The future of guns). Many of the state gun laws vary and some states have weaker laws then others. With varying laws gun trafficking has a way to exploit federal laws by moving illegal firearms to weaker states.
“Germany, has 371 gun related deaths, France 255, Canada 165, the united kingdom 68, Australia 65, Japan 39 and America, 11,200”. therefore to say that America does not need regulating is foolish and quite frankly ludicrous America needs regulating, but since the America has the highest number of deaths, Gun-control laws should support both sides of the debate it 's a constitutional right after all. Of course, each side won 't fully pleased with the laws created however that is one thing they have to cope with for the good of their country. Many believe that these shootings have occurred as a result of the increased
One of the most talked about topics in the United States today deals with Second Amendment Rights, especially as it relates to gun control. Just because guns are known by some people as a dangerous entity, they could also save the American people from danger. In light of the Sandy Hook incident, it begs the question: would teachers carrying firearms have helped? Ultimately, concealed weapons would have saved more lives than it took that particular day. The Second Amendment has “focused on whether it protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organization like the National Guard” (Lund and Winkler 1).
On the other side, there are theories that extremely strict legislation and even outlawing firearms completely would be the most effective solution. I disagree with this theory because it would be foolish to take away American citizens main form of protection. When most criminals possess firearms illegally in the first place, then the only ones that are being harmed are the innocent, or those whose intentions are self protection. Also, it is proven that every country who has completely banned firearms has seen an increase
If you recollect about it, this really should be an anticipated effect of gun control, though most people don 't remember far enough past the words "gun" and "control" to see it. When you do give up and recollect about it though, the criminals who are committing crimes at present are the ones still making this a relevant issue of discussion in the foremost position. They are the aces who are either getting access to certain weapons that are already illegal and/or the ones who are using legal weapons illegally. If it weren 't for them disregarding laws and causing these crime rates to fail up, gun control would not still be in
Most gun owners have guns as protection for themselves and for their families. One of the most prominent arguments for to pro gun ownership side is that guns are protection from a seemingly increasingly violent world. Also “...having guns gives [people] and least a fighting chance in the event of a burglar or home invader manages to get in.”(safewise.com). The second amendment gives people the right to own and use guns and is “...an undeniable personal freedom guaranteed by the constitution.”(openreader.org). 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.
CJ Grisham, the writer of this article, states that open carry is a good thing in America. He states that if a criminal sees a target with a gun they aren’t as likely to attack them because “Criminals prefer soft targets.” Even though CJ makes a good point here, he is forgetting some key information. What about the criminal? Open carry gives everyone the right to carry their guns out in the open, even the criminal attacking other people. Also, how are civilians able to tell how that person is going to use that gun?