I think that a good solution to this gun problem would be to educate people on guns. In lot of schools, there are no classes teaching about gun safety. Another solution would be to not make guns available for people with certain mental conditions. Passing a law that bans guns is not only
While a mentally ill person can buy a gun, it will be very hard to pass a background check, considering the gun control act of 1968. In summary, three reasons why increased gun control is not likely to happen is gun laws are rarely made, current laws are effective, and banning guns will not stop crime. In order to prevent trying to enforce harsher gun laws, people should learn about gun laws instead of using news stories to fuel disgust towards civillian owned weaponry. People want the banning of guns because they do not know about the laws for guns and think that anybody can own a gun when in reality there are certain restrictions.
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.
2. I don 't think that teachers should be armed either. I feel like someone that has a gun should go through an extensive training (that doesn 't just last a couple of days or a background check) and should prove they are capable of handing a gun only when necessary. I lived in one of the most dangerous countries in the world, and I saw how license guns only increased the violence. People used guns to protect their loved ones yet that one person who was harmed also had people that cared about them who wanted revenge.
They propose to instead focus on treatment for the mentally ill. That is like saying cars do not kill people, mentally ill people operating them do; so limiting those who drive, where they drive, what they drive and how they drive is pointless. It does not make sense to allow almost anyone to buy assault weapons without restrictions. Everything needs limits, including constitutional rights; and the fix for tragedies does not lie solely in mental health
What Paul Waldman suggests in this passage is that we need to start getting rid of all the items that are used to make guns more dangerous to trim down on these problems. In conclusion, Paul Waldman believes that cutting down all these extra gun parts will lead to a less awful death rate in the United States. In my opinion, I do not agree with what Paul Waldman has to say about banning guns. More specifically, I believe that banning items like bump stocks and lightning switches will not help with reducing the death rate by guns because no
Without bullets, guns are useless. Chris Rock expresses in his piece that by removing the method of killing (through making bullets absurdly expensive), the problem of unwanted deaths of civilians will cease to occur. Though simple in nature, this sentiment can be applied to mass shootings and terrorism. Without the means of carrying out violent attacks, radicals no longer have the necessary power to disseminate their morally inadequate
As Pollitt says in The Nation, “… without a gun, it’s difficult to kill and injure a whole crowd of people, no matter how much you’d like to” (484.) Background checks are necessary to keep guns out of the hands of people who will do harm with them. Background checks should not be limited to stores. More should be included as well on the background checks being done. There is no reason they should not also be used in purchasing arsenal.
This is why it is imperative to understand how the gun works in order to use it safely and “do not shoot the gun unless you know you have the proper ammunition” (NRA 7). When ejecting the ammunition, pull back the action and let the magazine fall out of the gun. The action is the mechanism that chambers the bullet when pulled back and the magazine is the storage for bullets not being used. To aim the gun, line up the sight with the target and fire. The sight is a device located on top of the gun barrel which assists with aiming a gun.
Another question is “Are guns really necessary in our daily lives?”. Many people buy guns for many reasons. However, there are others who abuse that power to inflict pain upon others. The sad truth is, banning all guns will not stop all the gun violence because ultimately, its not the guns that kill people. However if somebody wants to buy a gun, then there should be stricter background checks on medical records to see if there are any issues with mental health.
Gun control will make the people of the US weak because they will not be able to protect themselves when a dangerous man has gotten a gun illegally and wants to harm. “As columnist Thomas Sowell has noted: ‘The key fallacy of so called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available. Banning guns will not stop the crazed few who seek to open fire on the public’” (Hunter).
Solving this problem involves not only educating the public, but also eliminating head-first tackles and providing better equipment. Undoubtedly, football is a difficult, treacherous sport but currently no measures are being taken to improve players’ safety. Small things could make a big difference in the NFL. People are getting hurt before our very eyes, and we don’t do a thing about it, we should be appalled our lack of action and let it motivate us to make improvements and needed
A halt could be put on a lot of this by just tightening up loopholes in the system of buying guns and making stricter background checks when buying guns and clips to go in people’s guns; especially large round magazines or clips. Making stricter background checks will make mass shootings a lot less likely. If the criminal gets someone else to buy the gun for them, the person buying it might not do it for the criminal because he knows he is more likely to get caught now with the stricter background checks. As of now, under Federal Law, you only have to do background checks on people that buy a firearm if they buy it through a dealer. You can buy a gun offline or at a gun show or a private individual without having to get anything.
The Second Amendment was never actually intended for everyday citizens. In the writing of the amendment it states militia meaning that it was only intended for them to bear arms. Citizens have found easy access to the weapons that they use in their shootings. Therefore, guns are put into the wrong hands, which means gun regulations should be stricter and allow a more detailed background check with mental health evaluations. There have been gun purchases where there has been a flaw in the background check system, allowing mentally ill or irresponsible people to obtain guns.
Buying these guns online lead to dangerous situation in those danger situations lead to death and violence. Although these points are very accurate,(due to the amendments in the Constitution there is a large chance that these violent events will still happen in the US. It can also be hard because most people diagnosed with these conditions are never violent towards others and most violent individuals do not suffer from these major mental disorders(Swanson,Felthous 168). So that 's where history background should have been much more looked upon enforce to deny any person of mentally ill or disorders that will put others in danger and ruin their lives. Since mass shootings in crime rates increase throughout the US, many Americans have long debated over federal regulations of firearms with one party again And again.