Guns control laws are meaningless, prohibit guns cannot make people feel safer. People should purchase guns and keep them in the safe place. Sometimes, guns can help people out of danger. Moreover, the government should improve the gun laws and fix the loopholes to make the laws perfect enough. People live in this country rely on guns to protect
People don’t want guns at all, but there will always be firearms weather they like it or not. The problem we have is the people who have the guns. “Gun control laws are just as old or older than the second amendment, the gun control wasn’t as strict as they are now. There still were laws, people were imprisoned if they were doing something illegal with firearms.” (Should more gun control laws be enacted) Mentally ill people are not allowed to own or purchase firearms. These people can be mentally unstable and end up doing something tragic and not even care.
It talks about that even though cars kill many people every year they are not banned, so why should guns be banned. The texts are mainly against banning guns, but the first debater believes that running background checks are important for the safety. Another point of view on this matter is given in text 2 by the third debater, where the writer argues for banning guns. The debater supports this argument by
According to “Gun Control,” these “High-Risk” folk are purchasing firearms because of the flawed system (“Gun Control”). People opposed to gun control argue that taking guns from the citizens does not prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, as they will just get them illegally anyways. People who oppose gun licensing, mandatory waiting periods and background checks argue that the “normal” gun owners must and do these things, not the criminals. They also argue that criminals are less likely to commit crimes if they think their victims may be armed. Notably, another viable source of information is Bitto, Dana, and Elisa Juliano’s report on the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting in 2012.
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. Therefore, I conclude that banning guns is not worth it because people who want to use them for negative reasons will even if they are banned.
Things such as gun laws, more FBI involvement and more security at schools can keep the schools safe because the government can keep stopping bad people from getting through all the “loop holes” and causing harm to innocent people. The shooter used a rifle called an AR-15, which many people think it means “assault rifle” but it really means Armalite Rifle design 15. Gun laws should be stricter on the mentally ill aspect. Nicolas Cruz, the Parkland shooter was mentally ill and bought a rifle legally which should not have been allowed to happen. Now making gun laws stricter will not mean the death rate or shootings will decrease right away because mainly the only people that go to a gun store to buy a gun are law abiding gun owners.
Following this attack, numerous solutions have been argued and purposed. However, a definite solution still has not been reached and America is split on the topic. The solutions currently enacted focus on guns, yet America still has a serious issue with gun related crime attacks, and fatalities. Solutions should not solely target the actual guns, because guns are powerless without the person who fires the weapon. The solution should not be to take away guns, but to consider the people who have access to them.
Gun control only puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. Many criminals already get their guns illegally and still find a way to get their hands on them. This means law abiding citizens would not be able to defend themselves from a criminal with a gun. The elderly who cant fight for themselves would be in danger if someone broke in their home. Home defense would be a lot tougher if guns were taken away.
(Farago) After the recent shootings in our nation, there are people really starting to stand up and protest our guns. They ask does a well-regulated militia need AR-15s and AK-47s, which are “weapons of war and mass destruction”. (Nilsen) The people that say this need to realize that we have had these guns for multiple decades and that they don’t walk around and shoot the people by themselves. We can’t punish the people that are using these guns lawfully, let 's make it so the people that shouldn’t have these guns can’t get them. The Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms if we use them in a legal
Firstly, the arming of students, faculty and staff should be prohibited because its unsafe. The debate on whether staff, faculty and students should carry firearms on campuses has been going for years now. Some colleges have debated that a law should be passed were staff and faculty should carry firearms on campus, but other colleges have dismissed this case because it is dangerous and unsafe. According to Jesus Villahermosa’s essay “Guns don’t belong in the Hands of Administrators, Professors, or Students” he states, “I agree that allowing guns on campuses will create problems, not solve them.” This statement is true because not everyone is capable to handle a gun or even use one. Also, according to the website The Campaign to Keep Guns off
Looking up the family history can be a big break on whether or not if this is person is acceptable. Even though there is already a “National Instant Criminal Background Check”, there needs to be a law that doesn 't disturber “big guns”. Big guns shouldn 't even be allowed to be sold in the United States. The reason being is that some people 's backgrounds are a disappointment