What the article is saying is that if you take away the handgun of a citizen who has done no harm, and when there is a need for the protection of your family and they have no gun then they have nothing else to do but hide and hope the criminal does not find them before the police come. In conclusion, Gun Control can be good in many different ways, until it interferes with the protection of someone else's life or family. To understand gun control more it is important to know about the laws passed, pros, and cons. The laws that were passed play an important role in Gun control and they can help the crime rates with guns go down. Gun Control can do its job with interfering with law abiding gun owners as little as possible.
Chances are that there will be a negative outcome, whether it’s death or simply the loss of property. Incidents like these and many more suggest that some form of gun laws need to stay in place in order to protect those who feel threatened. The first reason why the Second Amendment should not be abolished is because we, as citizens have the right to defend ourselves. Word for word, 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” (Constitute). That means that citizens have the right to own a firearm to defend from the government and/or criminals.
We must also find culpability in the individual who sold the weapons. Whether this was obtained in legal or illegal circumstances, it does not change that fact that we need to create regulations on automatic weapons.Weapons like everything else, should have limits. For example a person cannot have more than 2-3 dogs or they will be cited. Another example is that although we have freedom of speech, we can not yell fire in a crowded room where there is no fire; there are limits to our free speech. Why do we have limits on everything else but weapons, does human life no longer have value.
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,
I think that that is wrong because it is not an assault weapon until it is used to assault something. The gun cannot be blamed for that. The bans California has include banning high capacity magazines, banning pistol grips that the thumb can be wrapped around on rifles, and handguns must be certified for sale(). California has very strict laws, but there are a lot of people who live there and many big cities. I believe their laws are a little extreme, but good for their situation.
These issues support that the important of banned gun. Gun wasn’t useful as what we thought. In some case, the gun making our life more serious and bad situation. If we choose to without gun, the society will be becoming more peaceful, and more safety. If you have a choose, you would to buy a gun to fear when I will kill people by accident or thinking when people going to hurt me, or you would choose to trust people without hurting others.
They are put into place to avoid problems that are not necessarily against the law but are not behaviors people should be participating in. Ethical standards for law enforcement officials can include not taking any bribes or money from criminals who want to get out of a situation. This can include not taking money for traffic violations or drug convictions. While this behavior is illegal, it definitely also constitutes as unethical. The biggest reason lies behind the fact that if more police officers exhibit this type of behavior, then it will be more common for criminals to commit these crimes since nobody is being punished for
Criminals know that they can get guns, however, the citizens cannot. These laws infringe upon the second amendment, which 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’’ (Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, Taft-Hartley Act). If gun control laws were put into place across the nation, Americans would no longer have a militia if it was ever needed. By examining the issues surrounding gun control it is clear that prohibiting guns is not the answer to stopping violent crimes from happening; it only restricts law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. “Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns.
Many militia extremists claim to be protecting the U.S. Constitution, other U.S. laws, or their own individual liberties by force or violence if they feel it’s necessary. ( Domestic Terrorism Focus on Militia Extremism) There aren’t many stories about pro-gun control extremist because they don’t react violently. Most of them are grieving family members who call for immediate action due to a traumatic incident involving firearms. Most of the time they will call for attention from local communities, politicians, and news outlets. They believe that after the traumatic event that caused them the have this pain that something must be done to ban all firearms regardless of who uses them.
Everyone deserves the right to own their own guns, and should have the right to carry them wherever they go. If we were to do that then maybe all the shootings would no 't have happened, and more people would be protected rather than injured. All general topics have people for or against it, so is gun control as important as everybody thinks it is or is it overrated? The United States Constituion says this in Amendment 2:- “ 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 should in no way be changed or banned. Changing the aAmendment would just cause more confusion and frustration for the people changing it, and for the people .
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). Another concern about banning weapons from people with severe mental illness is that the policies cause the population to develop harmful ideas about individuals with severe mental illness (McGinty et al., 2013. Consequently, people with severe mental illness do not go into treatment (McGinty et al., 2013). Misconceptions about severe mental illness are not the only contributors to stigma; labels can also have a large effect on how the general population feels about those with severe mental
In fact, it may actually prove to be counterproductive. If someone has the intention of shooting another person or hurting as many people as possible, they know that no one will stand against them because they are in an area where firearms are not allowed to be carried. Who’s to stop them? However, if that person who wanted to hurt someone knew that there was a chance that they could get hurt because it was allowed for other firearms to be carried, they might think twice before committing any acts of violence. The second amendment allows me to feel safe where I am because I know that if someone is around me who wants to hurt me, I am allowed the right to be able to protect myself.
I can see no validity in this argument as yes I agree that people kill people not guns however what I believe is that these weapons are too easily accessible and in some states can be purchased without any form of license. So yes guns don’t kill people. But the small percentage of people who wish to carry out these atrocities can make these purchases of so easily and without any hindrance is simply terrifying. Also the ammunition of these weapons are just as easy to obtain than the weapons themselves, In that ammunition can be purchased online. However those in favour of tighter gun restrictions believe that “The Constitution of the United States Really needs to be edited” I too concur because the Second amendment states “The right to keep and bear arms” this supporting the natural rights of self defence however if this amendment is in place for peoples safety then how is it possible to identify those who keep arms for protection and those who wish to carry out murder.
Guns themselves are not responsible for crime; it is the peoples who are guilty for it and using gun for killing peoples. Guns are the weapon which can be used for self-defense and protecting peoples but never hurting anyone. According to me government should restrict or normalize the use of guns by selling to people, because there are some good peoples who use gun for hunting, shooting practice and competition. As stated by Mytheos Holt, “Guns in the right hands help public safety. Guns in the wrong hands harm public safety”.
Doing this would please both the people that believe that we should completely abolish the right to bear arms, and the people that strongly believe the public should have the right to own guns. Making background checks stronger will make sure that the mentally ill and people who are angry don 't get guns. This will bring down shooting rates because if there is nobody that can get a gun with the intent to hurt someone else, there will be nobody to pull the trigger at an innocent person. If we just abolished the 2nd amendment and made guns illegal, that would cause people to riot and anger many people around the country, and if we don 't do anything then things will stay the same and shootings will