This would be what is known as the “Gun Show loophole.” Contrary to its name, it is not only a gun show loophole, but more of a private sale loophole. This loophole allows guns sold at gun shows or for example on the internet, to be sold without a background check being needed; “‘According to the US Department of Justice, because federal law fails to require background checks by every person who sells or transfers a gun—known as universal background checks–’individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the
Daniel Webster Professor of Health and Policy Management at John Hopkins University suggested making data on gun sellers safety records publicly available. This would encourage firearms dealers to only sell weapons so individuals they do not believe will commit a crime. In the state of Florida, and many other states mental health checks are not required when purchasing a firearm ("Possession of Firearms by People with Mental Illness"). Regardless of their mental state, if the dealer themselves choose to sell an obviously mentally ill person a firearm, they can. In many states, they do not require any live fire training before firing a firearm (Mascia, Jennifer).
In the United States of America certain regulations are definitely necessary for public safety. The regulations are there to better the nation and not further control it. The government can not get rid of everyone 's right to own and keep a gun but, they can simply control the amount of guns able to be purchased. Therefore, the government is not taking away peoples guns but, simply regulating those who can or cant not own them to better protect the citizens of America. And thus any remarks about the government taking away peoples guns are untrue, the government is doing this for everyone 's well
Just the presence of a gun makes an act of domestic violence much more likely to end in death. So why would anyone ponder on the idea of carrying concealed firearms to college campuses? Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the decision “should not be taken to cast doubt on … laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”, Scalia easily distinguishes the difference between security and danger towards the individual, therefore; States should also recognize the unique nature of college campuses and keep the guns
You state that “If you aren’t free to protect yourself - when government puts its thumb on that freedom - then you aren’t free at all.” Yet, freedom is not measured by how many guns one person can buy. Freedom is not the right to purchase weapons of destruction. Freedom does not result in everyday shootings because teenagers - psychopaths - murderers - are able to
Harris also says, “the liberal commentariat seems to have no awareness of what “sell-trained” signifies.” He goes on to say that it includes and understanding of what to do and what not to do when the danger of shooting innocent bystanders exists. We should be aware also that only special permit holder can legally carry a weapon in public currently and all the people who can have true reason and/or have taken an appropriate class in order to do so. In Source C it is stated “School Safety: A Shared Responsibility” I couldn’t agree with this statement more. We as a country need to come together, no protests, no yelling, no riots, just come together a talk about a solution. A common middle ground that fits what everyone wants at least partly.
The United States should not add stricter gun laws because Guns are used to protect people,guns are used for hunting,and the guns are not the problem the people using them are the problem. If guns were in the right hands then there would be no reason to ban them. The United States should not add stricter gun laws because gun are used to protect other people. People use guns to protect themselves from bad people trying to kill them. As an example, someone walks into someones house and tries to kill that person, if there are stricter gun laws then you might not be able to shoot back at them.
Gun violence occurs based on the unstable people in control of the gun not the gun itself. Likewise why should the government have to deal with these problems. The court system should not have to deal with these cases on gun violence they have more important problems to deal with. Court systems should not have to deal with unstable people who own and gun who have caused panic throughout their town or city. Stated in the article “10 Advantages and Disadvantages of Gun Control”, “ Funds could even be set aside so that licensing and safety classes are low-cost or free.” This shows the court could waste a lot of money funding gun classes when they could be funding something more important like schools or homes for homeless people.Along with this fact why should mentally unstable citizens own a gun in the first place.
It is impossible for the inanimate firearm to pull it’s own trigger. The person who is in control of the firearm is the one who is responsible for the trigger being pulled and the bullet leaving the chamber. Therefore, the firearm should not be the one to blame for the individual that pulls the firearm’s trigger. Many people will also bring up the point that there are countries in the world that have less gun violence than other countries. “Obtaining any of these types of guns requires citizens to attend gun safety classes; take written and practical gun-use tests; and submit to drug tests, background checks, and psychological evaluations” (“Gun Control”).
No one should be subjected to a random, unwarranted test for narcotics. By conducting these tests, we discourage our students to participate in school activities. Because of the violation of students’ liberty, I affirm the resolution: it is wrong to conduct unjustified drug tests on middle school students. A drug test is a technical analysis of a biological specimen, for example urine, hair, blood, breath, sweat, and/or saliva — to determine the presence of specified drugs. A drug is a narcotic which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.