This blog, is based on Evan Defilippis overview on the pros and cons of gun control. Defilippis develops well written and clear visual arguments on both sides of the issue. For example, he states “The main point of this argument is that criminals do not follow laws; therefore laws restricting gun ownership and types of guns would only hurt those who follow them.” “Gun control laws only help criminals, criminals do not play by the law. That is why we need to punish criminals, not law-abiding citizens by disarming them. Gun control laws is not the answer.” What he meant by this is why punish EVERYONE including people who abide by the laws that are already in place? Punish the criminals, they are the ones who do not care about abiding by the laws.
Gun control is a complicated topic with no foolproof solution to
1st Amendment: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridg-ing the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” In short, this amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion, protects freedom of the press and speech, and protects the right to assemble and petition the government. The establishment clause enforces the separation of church and state and prohibits the government from restricting a citizen’s religious practices and forbids the government from forcing religion onto its citizens.
Why take away the protection and recreational shooting practices of innocent citizens because others are irresponsible? Gun control laws are a major issue being discussed in the U.S. right now. Some believe that by condemning the availability of firearms to all, criminals and people with mental illnesses will be less likely to attain firearms. However they are then violating the people’s second amendment right, which give them the right to bear arms. According to the article on “Gun Control Laws” from the Issues and Controversies database, It all started on “June 12, 2016, when a gunman killed 49 at a gay nightclub in Orlando Florida.”
The gun control debate has been especially fueled in recent years with the emergence of school shootings, foreign and domestic terrorist attacks, and a rise in other gun related violence. With all of this a majority of people, including gun owners, believe that there should be some restrictions in place in an attempt to suppress gun related violence. Through the years it has been difficult for people to agree on any sort of action. All in all, gun control is an immensely disputatious topic in which there will always be controversy. To give some background on the subject, gun control legislation began in 1934 with the installation of new criminal penalties, taxes, and regulations on sawed off shotguns and machine guns as a response to the era’s gang violence related to criminals such as Bugs Moran and Al Capone.
Between 2000 and 2015, over 150,000 Americans were killed in gun related homicides (Zakaria). It has been estimated that there are over 310 million guns in the hands of United States citizens (Krouse). These statistics have rallied many gun-control opponents and proponents to action. Gun control opponents believe that the answer to this problem is to loosen gun control laws to dissuade potential shooters. Gun control proponents believe that the answer is to tighten gun control laws so that a gun is never put into a potential shooter’s hands.
It is clear and evident and most Americans know about about it and some have contrasting opinions and views of it. It is the ongoing heated debate of Gun Control in the states whether there should be more stricter laws on them. We have all seen and heard the stories of mass shootings throughout the country such as Sandy Hook, Aurora, Colorado and Columbine. There are multiple arguments that both support and oppose Gun Control and this paper is going to show you both sides of the ongoing dispute. Although guns are known for giving the ability for U.S. citizen to protect themselves over time and throughout history they have been also used for taking innocent lives thus there should be more stricter laws against them.
As Americans we are no longer safe. Instead of more gun control, we need to strongly look at concealed carry laws. This law has the potential to reduce crime, and prevent mass shootings. Most importantly, it is our constitutional right. First and most importantly, it is clear that concealed carry laws reduce crime.
The law is never something to take lightly especially when the specific law is set in place to prevent the loss of human life. Gun control laws have a basis set by the federal government and are expanded upon by each individual state as they deem fit. Federal gun laws and state gun laws have their similarities and differences, but both are set in place as a barrier of protection against those who could cause bodily harm to others if equipped with such power that a gun holds. The U.S federal Government has its own set of regulations concerning firearms and the state of California builds upon them to create a stronger gun policy, meaning both sets of codes and regulations have similarities and differences, but no matter the differences, these laws are set in place to prevent massacres like the Las Vegas, Nevada shooting, and while California gun laws are built upon federal laws, they can be improved for a safer more controlled environment. Federal gun laws are the foundation for state laws and the building blocks for more advanced restrictions set by individual
Gun control is a topic that has been debated over the last few years. It is a subject that many people stand for and against the change in policy. Basically gun control would change the way firearms are regulated, by changing laws or polices that control how they are made, sold, owned, and used by civilians. However by trying to take away firearms from civilians would be infringing upon their rights as United States citizens. 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 Debate Jake Novak, in an article for CNBC titled, “Gun control isn’t the answer. We already know how to stop the violence,” gives his opinion regarding the controversial issue of gun control. Novak argues that gun control is not the answer to rising gun violence but that proper enforcement of the law would go a long way in reducing the cases of gun violence in America. He states, “We actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990’s and again in the early 2000’s by doing something radical. We enforced the law” (Novak 28).
Strict regulations and limitations have been pursued already and clearly do not suffice. Statics brought to attention by gun control opponents, show that gun control laws have done little to reduce crime rates. Several restrictions have been made on certain guns, considered as overly dangerous, though in the hands of an unstable criminal even a legal hunting gun can be deadly. Countless restrictions have been made, however people have still found ways around them. If people are unstable and determined enough, they will find a gun, regardless of the restrictions or regulations.
Alexis Clarke Professor Frank English 110 29 October 2015 Gun Control Will Not Eliminate Crime The big issue of gun control in the United States, is that many people believe that it takes away the 2nd Amendment rights, which is the right to bear arms. Citizens of the United States are promised the the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and by applying gun control laws takes away that same right. Crime is high enough in cities with very few laws pertaining to gun control, but taking guns away from people who are registered with license will not solve the problem either. Placing more limitations on gun owners, particularly responsible gun owners, will not reduce gun violence.
Loopholes are another part of this grand argument, used by the side opposed to gun control, saying that loopholes are impossible to close, while the pro gun control side argues that stricter gun control and background checks make these loopholes not an issue. Both sides can be easily argued, but there is only one side that can save countless lives. Stricter gun control will work to pr otect citizens by limiting gun violence, keeping Second Amendment rights, and closing gun loopholes. Gun control and background checks go hand in hand, as background checks act as an aid to enforce safety. Background checks significantly curb gun
Everyday in the United States, ninety families are changed forever; guns claim an average of ninety lives every day in the United States, 33,000 lives in a single year. Gun control has been a debate in the United States for many years and is constantly thrusted back into the public’s attention by horrific shootings. These shootings constantly cause individuals to petition the government to place stricter and stricter regulations of guns. However, these policies cannot be the solution to this problem. To determine a solution that will be both effective and constitutional, we must look at statistics and research that has been conducted to determine the best course of action.
Justification of Gun Control In other to justify my argument, first I will have to define the meaning of ‘’Gun control’’. Gun control can be defined as the limiting of gun ownership in the society. My argument can be supported by a very reasonable utilitarian argument. However, by restricting gun ownership, the tendency of people getting injured or killed by guns will be reduced.