In today 's society, weapon brutality is a sparking debate and controversy on how to control gun violence. Anyone who thinks that we have enough gun control laws is either the NRA, or severely misguided individuals. All across the nation, a large number of laws and directions have been made to help in the control of firearms. Through much research, the gun laws and regulations have very little effect on the number of firearm-related deaths and injuries. More needs to be done to establish an effective way to create stricter gun laws to help reduce violence.
Many people oppose or agree for many reasons dealing with the Second with what Gun Control is. Although most people can say they understand what gun control actually is, some people can not. Gun control is an effort to strengthen laws to restrict firearms (Zimring 440). These laws aim to reduce the criminal use of guns (Zimring 440). Gun control decisions
The exact wording of the second amendment is, "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." Should there be regulations on peoples gun rights? Are these gun regulations necessarily needed? These are the questions that some people have been asking. Just to be clear, certain gun regulations are necessary for public safety.
These are the things many people think of before starting to actually make laws to restrict the purchase and use of guns. The debate over gun control is nothing new. Guns are extremely powerful and dangerous weapons. They can cause death and harm a lot of things and can be used to defend and protect or to threaten and kill. Either way guns are very powerful.
Should guns be illegal in the US? The most common debate is about guns being illegal in the US like in other countries, however not all agree. Guns are usually used to protect people, but in other cases, they are also used to scare them and even cause crimes. However, all these depend on the people.
The second amendment of the constitution, the right to bear arms is a heated subject for everyone across the world right now. Many people believe that taking away gun rights is “Not American” and goes against everything we are about, here in the land of the free. Many can argue also that it’s not the guns that kill people, it’s the people. It is unfair to take away something from everyone when only certain people shouldn’t be using them, because they aren’t mature enough to handle weapons. To begin with, many people believe that guns should be taken away because of all the shootings and dangerous events going on all around the world.
An argument that is also commonly used against this part of the Common Sense Gun Laws would be how the federal government has a history of being completely ineffective in previous bans, such as The Drug War, and Alcohol Prohibition. Another part of this proposed plan exclaims, “Citizens need a limit on how many firearms they can own” again, the opposing side counters this by stating how the limit would do nothing but add more restrictions and regulation into the already over-regulated firearm industry. They state that it wouldn 't actually stop these tragic events from happening since the potential shooter would still have access to firearms. The final argument against Common Sense Gun Control attacks the part of the law stating how the “gun show loophole” is a major problem that needs to be solved. The loophole deals with private transactions and the belief that someone, who is under the age enforced by federal law, could go to a gun show or an online seller and create a transaction that is outside of the required minimum age to purchase a firearm.
One may call me fatuous for making these points, because one may think I agree to the existence of good and evil because I stated it is artificial. Well, be prepared to be debunked, as when one references good and evil, they use no scientific evidence of its existence. It’s typically based off of one’s moral compass, law, and literature, but is never genuinely based on a highly accredited scientific source. However, one may argue that you can use people with mental issues who do crimes are evil. But, I believe that is an irrational fallacy because they aren’t mentally intact enough to make competent decisions.
When policy and claimsmakers label crimes as social problems, they do not always account for all representations of crime. They neglect to realize that crime is a reality that filters through a series of human decisions running the full scale of the criminal justice system (Silver 265). Jeffery Reiman states within “A Crime by Any Other Name” that, “although there is a wide range of behaviors that the law defines as criminal, people tend to view crime as involving only certain kinds of acts committed by particular populations of individuals”. For example, the rhetoric presented within the War on Terror in the United States lead to moral panic which exaggerated and distorted perceived deviant behavior (Silver 330). Similarly, the rhetoric presented
Besides, the difference between revenge and retribution is that retribution should be restrained and measured. Therefore, death penalty should not be allowed as it fails to act and fulfill the original expectation( Bloomberg). Every coin has two sides. If some people agree with one side, there must be another group of people disagree with this
Gun laws give too much power to the government and way less from the people, which will lead to government corruption. And, stated by ClearPictureOnline.com,”Guns don 't kill people, people do. We need to concentrate on the values and morals of our citizens and at the role the media plays in glorifying violence and the lack of respect for law.” (Shootout: Do We Need More Gun Control Regulations?) What people don 't understand is that they are taking away their own freedoms with Gun Control.
However, helping those with serious mental illness cannot merely involve banning weapons from them. There are two issues that arise from placing gun restraints on people with severe mental illnesses. One issue is the fact that there is not a direct association between violence and severe mental illness (McGinty et al., 2013). Individuals with serious mental illness can have concurring conditions that may lead them to violence, for example, drug dependence (McGinty et al., 2013). For the most part, individuals with a severe mental illness are not violent and thus, placing gun restraints on everyone with a severe mental illness would not target the correct subgroup that would most likely conduct violence (McGinty et al., 2013).
The current criminal justice system has implemented countless policies that are unsupported or are determined ineffective by research and evaluation. Research and evaluation play an extremely limited role in policy making. Rather than having policy supported by empirical testing our current system promotes policies that are designed to win the approval of organizations and individuals that can promote polices and accelerate their implementation. When research and evaluation does not provide specific answers or raises more questions, it causes policy makers to dismiss research. Research often provides complex answers to our complex crime issues and this does not allow for policy makers to create quick fix policies for crime issues.
This right remains paramount in ensuring self-defence and limiting these rights are the initial steps for the government to take away individual rights. Additionally, it is important to note that mass shooters do not abide by the law and most of the guns used in these shootings are acquired illegally either through illegal purchases or through theft. This implies that the shooters are not subject to gun regulations and background checks.
Although it largely depends upon the specific type, mental illnesses in general can degrade the rationality of a person’s decision-making ability. Since a person diagnosed with a mental illness is unable to properly make cognitive and logical choices, they are more likely to misuse firearms, thus posing a danger to themselves and others. Therefore, we must enact strict regulations that immobilize mentally-ill people from obtaining firearms. Gun regulations may seem repulsive to some people in our country, because for them, guns are the equivalent of freedom and security, and to regulate those firearms may be regarded as an encroachment upon American liberty. However, it is crucial to identify how this fallacy plagues our society; a gun is a gun, it is a weapon designed for the purpose of ending someone’s life.