Brad Pitt has said in the past "I feel better having a gun. I don't feel the house is completely safe, if I don't have one hidden somewhere." Also, Washington DC attorney general Karl A Racine said that, “We believe that the District’s gun laws are reasonable and necessary to ensure public safety in a dense urban area.” The actual problem is not the gun, it’s the person. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
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. Fifth, the Second Amendment of the Constitution was meant for the military rather than the citizens.
This shows the court could waste a lot of money funding gun classes when they could be funding something more important like schools or homes for homeless people. Along with this fact why should mentally unstable citizens own a gun in the first place. Mentally unstable people should not have the right to own a firearm of any kind. With gun control it could lower the rate of suicide with firearms. According to the
Secondly,most people even if they can not get a gun they will easily just steal it. Banning guns will not do anything except make people steal more to get a gun which will just cause more problems. Also making stricter gun laws will also include police officers which will give them a disadvantage if they have no gun or have new rules while using the weapon.
One reason to keep guns in the hands of the people is fairly simple, but its impact is highly underestimated: guns stop criminals and in some cases prevent the crime before it even begins. Criminals are less likely to commit a crime with a gun such as mugging if they believe that there is a chance that they will get shot in the process. In situations a bit more extreme such as mass shootings, guns owners have the ability to take out the shooter and prevent a much greater loss of life from happening. According to an article published in Investors Business Daily, “A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun” (Lott). Often times civilians with concealed carry permits are on the scene much sooner than possible for law enforcement.
Someone that is mentally ill or has certain problems like Nikolas Cruz shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun in the first place. This is where it is believed gun control would have a good effect in the long run, if its harder to get a gun then these guns will not make it in the hands of a school shooter. A gun becomes dangerous when it is in the hands of a dangerous unsafe person. It is proven that most U.S. deaths are caused by gun violence.
In fact, gun control laws in states/countries with stricter laws tend to have lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides. Gun control in the United States is becoming a widespread issue and is becoming a problem everywhere as new threats are approximating, consequently one after the
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). Almost 25% of mass shooting killers are being considered mentally ill
Regarding the statement that whether citizens in United States should own guns, some people would say that arming themselves can prevent tragedy from occurring, while others assume that owning guns has been caused some problems and risks of violent events yearly. I tend to agree that guns for citizens should be reasonably banned in United States because of to reduce deaths from shootings and feasible solutions of gun-banning life. Guns in America has been already caused a large number of problems such as shooting and killing events. Guns are sometimes not considered as defending tools.
Guns have dramatically changed peoples lives for the better. Without guns people would have nothing to defend themselves against criminals; especially the police, they wouldn’t be able to fight certain crimes without guns. Despite the necessity, many other people believe guns should not be used at all in society. Guns can be used for self defense,reduce crime, and relieve your stress.
It will decrease the amount of mass crimes that are being committed in the United States. Studies have shown When the government outlawed something that huge, number of people very much want that outlawed item even more. This has been shown countless of times(Reed Fred,2).The endless debating conflicts in death caused by guns are why many states in order to The endless debating conflicts in death caused by guns are why many states in order to decrease the rate of violence should limit access to handguns.not only is it the government 's fault, but the people who ignore the symptoms of such mentally ill person. They also take part in not enforcing guns be in their loved one 's possession. A mentally ill man name Sergio Valen Cena Deltoro, was a veteran who served in
One argument for gun control is that gun levels affect the violent crimes rates. There have been several studies to determine if gun control laws actually decrease the levels of crime. However, it is impossible to accurately measure the changes over time of gun levels and crime because there 's no valid way to measure of these changes. (Kleck, Kovandzic and Bellows, Does Gun Control Reduce Violent Crime?)
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.