“There have been fewer than 20 terror-related deaths on American soil since 9/11 and about 364,000 deaths caused by privately owned firearms.” (Burnett, 2015) Using a second amendment is part of an old rule. We have to start changing this. Nowadays, the police are widely spread, which means people are quite safe and there is no need for keeping guns. If guns were to be banned, criminals would have to buy weapons from black markets and illegal places, which are maybe unreachable due to their lack of knowledge. When your enemy or opponent attacks you with a gun you probably will have absolutely no chance of escaping, so you are dead.
The United States of America is known to be a free country, but would it be defined as being free if permission is granted for citizens to have access to a gun(s) with them wherever they go? In my perspective, I strongly disagree with the fact of that specific reason which makes America an unfree country. This is hazardous because by carrying a gun around with you will often have the reasons like safety but it could also make you a terrorist like other people who want to use it to plot murder occasionally for money or revenge. Some people would agree and disagree with this idea because of many reasons. I personally think that banning guns is a better idea than keeping them for all citizens.
Firstly, as the author mentioned in “ Gun Control Won’t Protect US”, gun is only a tool that used by the killer to attack others. And gun is not the only weapon the killer used. Secondly, most of people who abide by the law will limit by the gun control. They have no weapons to against people who don’t care about laws and try to kill others. Additionally, allowing people have guns will infuse people’s courage to against terrorist activities.
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. Instead, they become dangerous toys and even for entertainment because some of youth consider that holding a real gun like characters in movies excites them. Some of them do not have the consciousness that guns can be factually used to kill livings.
“We have found that when large capacity magazines [and assault weapons] are regulated, you get drastic drops in both the incidence of gun massacres and the fatality rate of gun massacres.” (Klarevas, 2018) It is unrealistic to imagine all gun access to be nonexistent, the cease of access to any type of gun causes chaos in its own sense, and illegal weapons would be purchased, which would ensure even worse repercussions. A gun ban is not realistic, however gun control is. Critics argue limiting deadly assault weapons does not solve the nation’s gun issue. The critics also correctly argue, that the vast majority of gun related deaths are committed with handguns, making the significance of an assault weapons ban on the overall crime rate minimal. Supporters of an assault weapons ban, like Senator Dianne Feinstein, argues for the goal of the bans is to prevent horrific mass shooting incidents, not stop the run-of-the-mill gun violence that kills multiple Americans each day.
Someone’s life does not have to be cut short because of gun. It is such a tragedy with the violent death of a loved one, so in order to prevent other deaths then gun control must be issued. Guns are very powerful weapons, and should not be offered to just anyone. If guns fall into the wrong hands it can be a very dangerous and scary situation. Most of the time officers are not always quick to address a situation, and sometimes situations involving guns can be out of the officer’s
These countries are aware that how things were in the past and the laws that worked back then wouldn’t work in a more modernized and free world. Staying one step ahead of its people and shifting towards better things that will benefit their countries. The United States 25 killing is nothing compared to the “36,000 Americans who were victims of firearm-related deaths in 2015 alone”. If these numbers are scary then imagine what they look like today with the increased mass shootings, and easy access to such weapons. If this isn’t waking America up and making them aware that things must change then nothing
Gun violence occurs based on the unstable people in control of the gun not the gun itself. Likewise why should the government have to deal with these problems. The court system should not have to deal with these cases on gun violence they have more important problems to deal with. Court systems should not have to deal with unstable people who own and gun who have caused panic throughout their town or city. Stated in the article “10 Advantages and Disadvantages of Gun Control”, “ Funds could even be set aside so that licensing and safety classes are low-cost or free.” 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.
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).
An argument that is also commonly used against this part of the Common Sense Gun Laws would be how the federal government has a history of being completely ineffective in previous bans, such as The Drug War, and Alcohol Prohibition. Another part of this proposed plan exclaims, “Citizens need a limit on how many firearms they can own” again, the opposing side counters this by stating how the limit would do nothing but add more restrictions and regulation into the already over-regulated firearm industry. They state that it wouldn 't actually stop these tragic events from happening since the potential shooter would still have access to firearms. The final argument against Common Sense Gun Control attacks the part of the law stating how the “gun show loophole” is a major problem that needs to be solved. The loophole deals with private transactions and the belief that someone, who is under the age enforced by federal law, could go to a gun show or an online seller and create a transaction that is outside of the required minimum age to purchase a firearm.
Even though gun laws prevent deaths, they infringe so many rights in the immutable Bill of Rights, which is one of the foundations of the great United States. Gun laws give too much power to the government and way less from the people, which will lead to government corruption. And, stated by ClearPictureOnline.com,”Guns don 't kill people, people do. We need to concentrate on the values and morals of our citizens and at the role the media plays in glorifying violence and the lack of respect for law.” (Shootout: Do We Need More Gun Control Regulations?) What people don 't understand is that they are taking away their own freedoms with Gun Control.
In another view, many of those who are on the board of having guns have limited reasoning. Winkler even states “On the Other hand , gun advocates are too quick to assume that laws allowing guns on campus will discourage mass murderers.” Even in Arizona, which was an example in the article, it had passed a liberal carrying law, and with that, there was still a shooting of a man hurting a representative and killing six other people along with it. This remark goes back to the last paragraph and how it could make a setting bitter and uncomfortable instead of having people feel safer because they would be able to “fight back”. Also in a shooting that could happen at a school people could have a gun on them and still would not be able to protect himself, but also can shoot a bystander because they could have thought it was the shooter. This reasoning is also a representation of how having a gun to protect oneself is a good idea.
This amendment guarantees the citizens a means to defend themselves in case the need arises. This right remains paramount in ensuring self-defence and limiting these rights are the initial steps for the government to take away individual rights. Additionally, it is important to note that mass shooters do not abide by the law and most of the guns used in these shootings are acquired illegally either through illegal purchases or through theft. This implies that the shooters are not subject to gun regulations and background checks. Therefore, stringent gun regulations will do nothing to prevent these shootings and these regulations will not be easy to implement due to the lack of time and resources to investigate and prosecute individuals who provide inaccurate
Lapierre implies, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” This may be true, but what if neither party had a gun? I’m not saying that all guns in America should be banned, but instead no more of these assault rifles and firearms should be allowed in the average citizen 's hand. All guns sellers should have to provide a background research, psychological test, and a contract of intent on how the buyer will use the product. With these new selling strategies in place Adam Lanza would not have had the chance to commit this horrendous
People also “...support the rights of hunters, sport shooters, and recreational gunmen.” (openreader.org).Criminals are already breaking the law, so adding more won 't deter them. “Criminals will get hold of guns – indeed, by definition, if guns are outlawed, one becomes a criminal just by acquiring one – and leave non-criminals more vulnerable than ever.” (bigthink.com). Gun control laws do not help deter, and only slightly inconvenience them. Guns are a high trade item in the US, so there are definitely many other illegal sources. Also making strict gun laws takes power from the people.