The Gun Control Debate in the United States Republicans vs. Liberals The ineffectiveness of gun control is quite evident in the United States. Gun rights have been an ongoing social battle for many years (Kopel). People will always find a way to gain access to weapons if the person wants one badly enough. The United States is fast approaching the halfway mark in favor of stricter gun laws; however, the nation still questions the effectiveness of gun control.
We are unable to tell whether Seung-Hui Cho's act of the mass killings could have been stopped but what we do know is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that lawmakers want to see. Having guns in the right hands can be influential in stopping crime and having fewer guns in the wrong hands can make for more crime. Therefore, this makes gun control not equivalent to crime
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. The most frequently used argument against gun-control is that these laws simply are not effective. This is far from the truth as gun control has actually been shown to lower crimes rates.
That data point shows a need to improve access to mental health services, community supports, and other resources that can help people in crisis. It won’t change the value of a human life. Gun violence occurs because there is a lack of respect for the value of human life. Arguments devolve into violence because of an emotional reaction. Gangs use gun violence as a way to establish territorial control because they feel like their lives aren’t being valued.
The general argument made by Shiha Dalmia in her work, “The Case Against Banning Guns” is that guns should not be banned in the United States. Banning guns is not going to stop people from killing other people. There is no possible way to collect every single gun in the U.S. and even if there was, people have other ways and items to hurt others. When something gets banned, everyone seems like they want to do that thing more. Guns should only be used for appropriate activities like hunting, for example, but there is no one to stop people from harming others.
The enforcement of stricter gun control laws would be extremely beneficial for the safety of the people in the United States. Stricter gun control laws would ensure guns do not fall in the hands of people who would misuse them. For example, individuals who are 21-years-old and below should not be given the right to own or be around guns. For if they are not allowed to legally drink alcohol, how can they be trusted with a weapon that can easily take a life within seconds.
There just might be an opportunity to solve the problem of mass murders caused by disturbed individuals with guns. If we can get the politicians to stop talking long enough to listen. They may realize they are both wrong on the issue of gun control. Note how carefully I chose my words there. Guns do not kill people.
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.
First and foremost, banning guns will not stop criminals from obtaining and committing crimes with them. Furthermore, guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Lastly, guns prevent the government from becoming tyrannical and oppressive. At first, one may think that banning guns would be a superb solution to the growing problem of gun violence. However, doing this will not stop felons from procuring and committing gun-related crimes.
The second amendment states that there should and will be no possession of firearms for anyone with a felony and/or a mental illness. Yes, the second amendment protects individual gun ownership but is it not obvious that people should not sell firearms or weapons to anyone that seems challenged or incapable of keeping their community safe with a gun? Amendments of course make your liberty excessively known but it should not get
Overall, gun control laws are an important impact on each state. This article is about whether or not we should have gun control laws, people say it is necessary, other people say that even if we have gun control laws people don 't follow them. I disagree because with no laws more people are making their own guns and there are more attempts and acts of shooting attacks. With gun control laws people would safer and there wouldn 't be as many deaths caused by self