Not only would it reduce crime, it would make people feel safer. Gun violence has come to the attention of most citizens over the past years because of the disagreement of whether or not firearms should be restricted. There will always be those who oppose gun control but they may not know the mayor consequences’ having a gun implies. You could be the next victim of a shooting by a person who owns a
Prohibition in any form never seems to work, the law is always going to be the law and people are always going to break them. Hunters are very offended by these prohibition acts of gun control. Not all people use these fire arms for a defensive item but to put food on their families’ tables. Guns have always been around in today’s society; they have saved our country and made it what it is today. Taking away rights not only hurt what defense we have with them but it takes away the sport and enjoyment of those who hunt (1).
Less gun, more beautiful life Now, gun ownership is being legalized in many countries, but crimes committed by the people who have guns are likely to imminently endanger the life or property safety of innocent citizens. There has been a mass shootings in the United States recently (Newman & Hartman 2017). As a result, it made the controversial topic “whether the government should control guns more strictly” have more debate value. Gun control is defined as a way that aim for “protecting the safety of citizens through limits on and regulation of firearms” (“GUN CONTROL:A.” 1984). There is an argument that the government may control the number of people can legally posses a gun and the time the people could posses a gun more strictly.
This term can also be used to describe other related matters, such as limitations on the various types of ammunition or technological developments for different kinds of firearms. Current state and federal gun laws constrain certain civilians from owning firearms; specifically those with criminal records, mental illnesses, or drug/ alcohol addictions, as well as immigrants without legal status, and veterans who left the military with dishonor (Charles). These gun laws also require that only licensed gun dealers may sell guns, and must “conduct background checks of their customers through F.B.I run databases” to ensure that their customers are not prohibited from obtaining certain forms of firearms (“Gun Control”). Advocates believe that these laws enhance the safety of Americans and reduce the likelihood of violent crimes committed with the possession of guns. However, opponents such as the National Rifle Association, argue that fewer restrictions on guns protect an individual’s right to self defense, as implied in the second amendment, and result in safer communities (“Gun Control”).
Lastly, the true meaning of the Second Amendment very controversial. Gun rights groups suppose it means universal ownerships to any citizen while Gun Control groups take it as gun ownership should be reduced to those in militaries. Some further thoughts regarding this topic are implementing universal background checks on all purchasers of firearms. According to an article by Ariel Edwards for the Huffington Post, this would make it harder to purchase a firearm from a shop or privately if the potential buyer has been convicted of a misdemeanor violent crime in the past. Additionally, although there would be control on firearms, how well would they be enforced?
The United States is fast approaching the halfway mark in favor of stricter gun laws; however, the nation still questions the effectiveness of gun control. Republicans support the right to own, use, and carry guns as stated in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (Kopel). Republicans also believe it is an individual’s right to protect family and property through gun ownership. Gun laws should be left to the individual states
No matter if you are for tighter/stricter regulations or not, it will always resort back to the Second Amendment. Sure you can set limitations and have guns regulated state by state, but we as American citizens will always have the right (so if we choose) to own a gun and protect ourselves, as long as it is established the proper way. I also would say that if there was a stronger dynamic to the guidelines that are already in place for gun control, then we could keep the guns out of the wrong hands, as such the mentally ill, convicted felons and under aged adolescents. I believe in this day and age that we live in, as sad as it is, we will always have gun violence. In order to minimize it, as times change we need to evolve, just as with anything.
Most importantly as United States citizens under the second amendment we have the right to bear arms, which is why most importantly gun control should not be allowed. This is why gun control should not be implemented towards law-abiding
First and foremost, banning guns will not stop criminals from obtaining and committing crimes with them. Furthermore, guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Lastly, guns prevent the government from becoming tyrannical and oppressive. At first, one may think that banning guns would be a superb solution to the growing problem of gun violence. However, doing this will not stop felons from procuring and committing gun-related crimes.