To demonstrate whether a person should own a firearm or not, Joe Messerli wrote an article to compare the pros and cons of owning a firearm. In favor of gun control he first, stated that the right to own a gun should be restricted because it would reduce crime. Second, those mental disabled persons, kids who are bullied and aggravated workers could cause a dangerous incident that would not have occurred if gun ownership was restricted. Third, a person who has a gun would be in more danger than a person without one against a criminal. Fourth, suicide and crimes of love or jealousy are more likely to occur easier with a firearm available.
I think that handling a gun could lead to many thing like killing. I also think that handling a gun can tempt someone to do something bad. This further demonstrates that opponents say that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. On washington post it has many information about handling guns. This shows that some people think handling a gun makes them feel safe.
According to the article, the author suggested that passing more laws is not the useful solution of decreasing criminal rate. That is true the existence of estimate 260 million guns in the country raised the shooting death rate. We might build some places gun-free, but we cannot destroy all the guns. The killer can still bring guns to the gun-free zones from other places. In addition, the author suggested we should focus on dealing with dangerous and unstable personalities.
Assuming that guns were banned, those who want firearms, will get firearms, if it is harder for them to get guns, “those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow” (Wilson). People think that outlawing guns will lead to an ideally safe society. This idea of a gun-free utopia is absolutely false, as criminals will still gain access to them. Although it is true that the majority of guns used in crimes are stolen ones (Blow), there is no way to stop this from happening. Guns will always be part of society, whether people like it or not, and it is better to have an armed protected society than a defenseless unprotected one.
Some argue that the guns need to be taken away because guns take away Innocent people’s lives. However, the real reason people are killed by guns is that of the people using the gun. Regulating guns will not stop all of the killings that are occurring in America, and there are better ways to cease the killings than regulating guns. Body Paragraph One: Topic Sentence: Regulating mental health will be more effective in ceasing killings with guns than regulating guns. In an analysis provided, 22 percent of the perpetrators of 235 mass killing, could be considered mentally ill, many of which were carried out with firearms (Qui).
Therefore, they are always ready to scoff at anyone trying to control gun ownership. This makes us wonder why people can be so defensive over something like a gun that is so dangerous and has lead to a lot of deaths in the American society. Gun control is essential in our society today because it will help prevent unnecessary shootings and crime rate Gun control will play a major part in the decrease of the crime and murder rate. Therefore, in my point of view, guns should be totally controlled and regulated by the government. If gun ownership is controlled by the government, only a limited number of people will be allowed to own guns.
Our president Barack Obama is all for gun control laws, while everywhere he goes, he’s protected by many guns. He knows that having protection of a firearm makes him safer, yet he wants to take away the rights of responsible gun owners. Another reason why gun control is a bad idea is that police officers can’t be on the scene of a crime the moment it happens (Kerryg). If I was being attacked, I’d feel a lot more comfortable with an assault rifle in my hands than nothing. The final reason why gun control is unright is because banning them would be an attack on the second amendment.
Gun control is hypocritical because the point of gun control is to limit gun violence basically to save human lives but yet there are many other forms of violence that claim more lives each year than firearms. It neglects the reality of control because everyday criminal acts that have been made illegal are still committed. So even if gun control were in effect it would not prevent the use of those weapons, which would mean there is no real control. Also if gun control was allowed it would be targeting a specific group of people; gun owners, which would be discriminating against them. 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.
Despite this, gun control advocates say the recent shootings prove that the gun laws are way too weak. However, nearly all shootings have happened in no-gun zones. This is because violent shooters know that people in gun-free zones don’t have any fire-arms , meaning they can’t protect themselves. It’s pretty obvious that guns are the most reliable means of defense, and give people the chance to protect themselves from violent attackers and not get as hurt. All anti-gun laws do is take away the protection of citizens by disarming them, putting them in
Increased Gun Control While the Obama Administration is attempting to put restrictions on and do away with some specific guns, criminals are finding them on the black market. Putting restrictions on gun ownership violates the 2nd Amendment right which is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the right to self defense. The key to keep our nation safe is not having armed citizens but experienced and informed citizens. We need to focus on the values of our people, the part media plays in the violence and the huge lack of respect for our law enforcement. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” (debate.org) The President Obama administration in response to the gun crisis and violence happening in today 's society is attempting
CJ Grisham, the writer of this article, states that open carry is a good thing in America. He states that if a criminal sees a target with a gun they aren’t as likely to attack them because “Criminals prefer soft targets.” Even though CJ makes a good point here, he is forgetting some key information. What about the criminal? Open carry gives everyone the right to carry their guns out in the open, even the criminal attacking other people. Also, how are civilians able to tell how that person is going to use that gun?
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”.
You can buy a gun offline or at a gun show or a private individual without having to get anything. (Richards, Paragraph 4) With the system being like this it leaves for a lot of loopholes for the criminals and their helpers to get through to purchase a gun. Stricter background checks in gun shows and online websites would make for a safer gun buying experience because a person will know who is getting the gun that is being sold. The people that do not want this, say it is harder for them and takes more time to go through the process of getting a gun, but if they know they have a clean record then what do they have to lose? A stricter background check should not affect anybody but the bad people and criminals that do not have any business with guns anyway.
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.
Addressing a firm gun advocate in disagreement with this stance, one critic of more restrictions may quickly suggest the famous phrase: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Although the phrase may stand true in some literal sense, we can surely all agree that a person in possession of an automatic assault rifle has the ability to effortlessly kill an alarming rate of many, many more people in a short amount of time compared to a person with a weapon such as a pocket knife. Although the amount of kills last year from specifically automatic weapons were not an overwhelming amount, the restriction of these will make it that much more difficult to abuse if the average citizen cannot have access to any at all. One can admit a simple pistol