Thus, guns are using for self-defense, the advantages of gun using greatly outweigh the disadvantages. Since people are able to protect themselves by using guns when they are in danger, the government should encourage people to own guns instead of prohibiting them. Guns are not the key factor that cause numerous violent incidents, they do not kill people, but people do. The main reason of causing those incidents is people’s morals and values.
More specifically, I believe that gun violence will always be an issue whether they are banned or not. If someone plans on hurting someone, they will not care about rules. For example, Guns are very easy for people to buy, but how is the seller going to know what they plan to do with it. It is not like they are going to say that they are going to kill someone with it.
According to “Gun Control,” these “High-Risk” folk are purchasing firearms because of the flawed system (“Gun Control”). People opposed to gun control argue that taking guns from the citizens does not prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, as they will just get them illegally anyways. People who oppose gun licensing, mandatory waiting periods and background checks argue that the “normal” gun owners must and do these things, not the criminals. They also argue that criminals are less likely to commit crimes if they think their victims may be armed. Notably, another viable source of information is Bitto, Dana, and Elisa Juliano’s report on the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting in 2012.
Citizens need to stand up and not take the blame for other individuals who choose to inflict harm. Law-abiding citizens should not be penalized for the actions of a few deranged people. It is true some weapons do not belong in the hands of untrained people, and the National Rifle Association has been instrumental in pushing for responsibility and safety on the part of gun owners without imposing too much on the Second Amendment right (Kopel). Critics such as David DeGrazia of George Washington University argue that private ownership of handguns leads to more social harms than it prevents (Hsiao and Bernstein). David DeGrazia proposes a moderate control of guns meaning that only individuals with a need for self-protection be allowed to own a gun and only after a complete course in safety (Hsiao and Berstein).
This means law abiding citizens would not be able to defend themselves from a criminal with a gun. The elderly who cant fight for themselves would be in danger if someone broke in their home. Home defense would be a lot tougher if guns were taken away. (Farago).
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Many believe this, but columnist Nicholas Kristof, author of “Our Blind Spot about Guns,” published in 2014 in the New York Times, disagrees. A rhetorical analysis should consist of: logos, pathos, and ethos. Kristof’s use of logos is strong due to the amount of facts and statistics he offers to his audience, but he fails to strongly use pathos and ethos, due to the lack of these elements Kristof’s argument is weakened.
The article states, “Gun control deters violent crime as well as the death penalty” (Hunter). The author uses logos here to point out that gun control is an ineffective as the death penalty when it comes to preventing violence. This supports his argument against strict gun control because, according to Hunter, many Liberals claim to oppose the death penalty because it does little to prevent future crime, yet Liberals are for strict gun control. However, strict gun control isn’t going to prevent criminals from committing crimes, because criminals do not follow the law
Amendments of course make your liberty excessively known but it should not get
This sounds like the perfect solution; however, it is not true. Criminals will always find a way to obtain guns, leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. Since 1976, it has been illegal to own a handgun or to keep any gun from your home unlocked and fully assembled in Washington, D. C.; however, it is the “murder capital of the world” (Kopel). As you can see, banning guns does not eliminate
Having a body camera recording all the time would not be very practical, but it would still capture everything that the officer does; holding them responsible for everything they do. Some could argue that there would have to be some instances where officers could turn the cameras off, but if the officers would be allowed to turn the cameras off they could get away with dreadful deeds. Body cameras could also be seen as an invasion of privacy, but nothing a police officer does while on the job should be private. As well as everyday behavior, the cameras would catch footage of defendants being arrested. The defendants may not wish to be recorded during these moments, but if they did not wish to be recorded they should not have committed a crime.
People who don 't believe in the need of stricter or new laws concerning guns argue that owning a gun doesn 't cause a crime, it deters it. Guns are necessary for protection and to be able to defend oneself and their family in case of attacks because the government isn 't able to take care of every individual, in conclusion there’s no other way to guarantee one’s safety but to arm oneself. If the gun laws were different and if it was harder to buy these kind of weapons, criminals would find other ways to arm themselves, people argue, consequently it is necessary for ones safety to be able to own a gun.
The Second Amendment is a frequently debated topic in today’s society. The Second Amendment states, “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.” The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights were passed. The Amendment was easily accepted because of the majority consensus that the government should not have the ability to take weapons away from people. In many countries, corrupt governments use armed soldiers and other arms to control and oppress people.