There are many ethical reasons why gun control should not be implemented towards law-abiding citizens such as it is hypocritical, neglects the reality of control, and is discriminating against gun owners. Gun control, in addition to be hypocritical, also contradicts the protection of human lives. For instance when looking at the argument for gun control it comes down to this: every human life is valuable, killing someone is immoral, guns can kill people, so create laws that decrease access to weapons. Gun control activist strive to push that guns are one of the main causes for death in the
Grifin M. Price Kendra Gallos English III H 3/21/18 Gun Control Will Not Solve Anything Guns are given a bad reputation because of the terrors that can be committed by people who want to cause harm. Those who are gun control advocates wish to ban certain weapons without basis, ban certain weapon attachments, and restrict the rights of the second amendment. Gun control supporters base their opinion on statistics about gun violence that use a portion of data that is not about gun violence just to boost the value of the number. Supporters of gun control dismiss the saying “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” because they are misinformed about the number of defensive gun uses (DGU) which far outnumbers the
Banning Guns Will Endanger Law-Abiding Citizens Gun control has been an idea since the 1800s, Gun regulations can be good and bad. History has shown that banning firearms from the populace led to disaster and civil unrest. ¨We the People¨ in the United States are very divided when it comes to dealing with gun control and regulations for gun ownership. Banning guns increase fatalities, decreases personal protection and safety, and prohibits citizens from their constitutional rights. The 2nd amendment of the United States is ¨The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.¨ This statement plainly states that every American has the right to bear arms, there are no other possible interpretations of this amendment that make any logical understanding.
Beatty 's motives were to protect himself from higher powers, revealing that people will do almost anything to protect themselves or people they love. In the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, after driving to Montag’s house, Beatty asked him to burn it down. Some would say that this was Beatty’s challenging Montag or that Beatty was doing right and protecting himself. However if Beatty had not taken the calls and burned Montag 's home down, he would have had consequences for disobeying the rules. The government in the book had been brainwashing their citizens into believing books were bad for society and were constantly distracting them.
He brings to light the fact that in other places in the world, dogs aren’t kept as companions. He also compares pigs to dogs, an animal commonly eaten yet he points out that pigs are just as intelligent as dogs. He also makes the claim that while it may be taboo in the U.S., in various places in the world it isn’t and there are no health risks to eating dog, making eating dog seem less like a taboo. On the surface it appears as if Foer is simply proving his other side wrong with logic. However, he is actually very manipulative in how he goes about incorporating logos within his essay.
The Unit command could not allow one of its own to just leave. This would create moral problems, this war was unpopular, to allow one of their own to troll the streets back in America without the standard debrief would only court certain disaster. The solution turned out to be simple. Send one of their own to “chase” and apprehend Greeley. If Greeley resisted and killed the chaser, CID could move in quickly and kill Greeley.
The prohibition of alcohol disrupted the way Americans were used to living. All of a sudden drinking was illegal. This was supported by some, and it irritated many. It opened up opportunities for organized crime to start manufacturing and distributing of liquor, while making millions of dollars along the way. This made police officers jobs more difficult because the people who wanted to drink had to do it illegally, and the cops were cracking down.
Any weapon can be deadly, but people want guns banned. Another example is that if there were a good guy with a gun the outcome would be different. In the same article, it states, “In this instance, however, we don 't have to ponder how different the outcome would have been had a "good guy with a gun" been present, since there was one: a police officer working extra duty. Despite being armed and exchanging gunfire with the shooter, the officer was unable to prevent him from gaining entrance to the club.” Sometimes a good guy can’t always save the day. 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.
Prohibition was an amendment that caused the ban of alcohol and anything related to it. America was suffering because of alcohol, so prohibition was enforced. Little did the country know, prohibition would cause America to suffer far more. America was facing various problems due to alcohol such as death, crime, and loss of money. America expected to solve these problems by banning alcohol; never did the country expect the problems to worsen.
Police officers were once known as peace keepers, however, now they are the ones to avoid. They’re more worried about quotas, and are using their power to arrest innocent people that quickly escalates to police brutality. Our constitutional rights are being violated and that’s the biggest issue in America now. Police are supposed to protect and serve the people, however their power is being abused and it’s causing riots.