The Argument For Gun Control

Even guns were used in illegal way, first, guns can be used self-defence as same time as harming other people. In the United States Constitution, there is an amendment that states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This allows people to own guns to protect themselves and gun control movement is anti-fundamental because it is against Constitution which is primary law in the United States. The guns are used not only for self-defence but also hobby such as hunting. According to the Statisticbrain.com, total people who are hunting annually is 12.5 million, and these people will be taken their hobby due to gun control movement. Also hunting

America has been set on ideals created centuries ago; focusing on freedom and fighting for the rights of many. However these ideals once used to protect the nation are being misinterpreted by far too many people today. Guns have always played a big role in the lives of Americans, and many believe it is a necessity and all should have the right to own one. What they are unaware of are the average 13,000 gun homicides that take place within a year. Guns are slowly but surely becoming the leading cause of death in America. We can all agree that guns are to be used for protection, yet somehow not everyone sees it that way. The corruption and power hunger that comes along with owning a gun has set a fear in the hearts of millions of Americans.Why

Some might argue that the US is one of the greatest countries in the world, but compared to others, it's one of the worst when it comes to gun control. It has become apparent that the gun control policies aren't as strict as they should be, as everyday in the US, an average of 36 people are killed at the hands of guns and more than 32,000 people are killed annually. Guns violence impacts society in many ways. Statistics show more people have been killed by guns than all the American wars since 1968 and it's estimated that 280 million people currently own a gun in the US. A country where 280 million people running around with firearms that cause fatal harm is incredibly alarming.

Topic: Ownership of Guns for non-professional reasons should be illegal in the United States General Purpose: To argue. Specific Purpose: The specific purpose of this speech is to argue for outlawing private gun ownership in the United States. Central Idea/Thesis Statement: Private ownership of guns in the United States should be illegal. Various specific reasons are presented to support this statement: (1) Banning private ownership of firearms, and, their distribution, would save a large number of lives that are lost as the result of gun violence.

The general argument made by Shiha Dalmia in her work, “The Case Against Banning Guns” is that guns should not be banned in the United States. Banning guns is not going to stop people from killing other people. There is no possible way to collect every single gun in the U.S. and even if there was, people have other ways and items to hurt others. When something gets banned, everyone seems like they want to do that thing more. Guns should only be used for appropriate activities like hunting, for example, but there is no one to stop people from harming others. She writes, “There are about 300 million guns in this country - nearly one for every man, woman, and child.” and “I am highly skeptical that reducing the number of guns will actually result in fewer mass killings.” In this passage, Dalmia is suggesting that even if there were to be a ban on guns, it would not help the fact that people are still going to use them for the wrong reasons. She states, “The grim lesson is this: There is nothing we can do to completely stop all killers at all times. The possibilities for mayhem are infinite. A society’s means to stop them are finite. Psychotics and terrorists will always find ways to exploit the cracks. No

"’Make no mistake -- they 're coming for our guns. And we freedom-loving gun lovers are totally defenseless! Other than, you know, the guns’ -Stephen Colbert” (Kurtzman 1). There are as many people who advocate for pro gun laws as the people who are opposed, which is the reason why gun control has become one of the most controversial topics as of right now. America is truly split between those who advocate for gun control and those who are opposed. In this controversial debate, background checks are another point to consider. Background checks are defined as “checks on any private transfers of guns” (West Coast Publishing 11). This similarly debated topic is a large part of the gun control debate. The second amendment argument is a favorite topic for both sides of this argument. It can be used to help aid both sides of the gun control debate. 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 Gun control is a major argument in today’s society. When discussing guns, most are highly against them. Not only are they used for a defense mechanism but are also used to provide a source of food to the public. Whether being a complete ban or people being forced to get a background check in order to purchase an armed weapon. While guns are banned, people will look for anyway they can to use guns, which leads to stealing and more possible deaths or injuries.

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.

A stronger focus on gun control in the United States involving restriction or even an outright ban of guns could serve to help the problem greatly. In 2015, 13,286 people were killed by firearms in the United States, with 26,819 suffering from non-lethal injuries (qtd. in “Guns in the US”). Taking away guns, the means that many urban criminals have to commit their crimes, would be very beneficial to cities. Recent studies found that the most effective way of reducing gun crime is to lower the amount of guns available in circulation. In the US specifically, studies show that the stricter gun laws are in a state, the lower the amount of deaths related to guns occur (Graham). While many believe that further restrictions on guns would not be feasible, both Australia and the United Kingdom managed to highly restrict or ban guns from their nations in order to reduce gun-related deaths and crime (Graham). Australia was able to rid the country of around 650,000 guns and their rate of robberies per 100,000 people sank from about 100 to 60 (cite later 1). This program of complete gun confiscation costed Australia $230 million. If a program of the same relative scale were to be done in the States, it would cost the government around $4 billion (Rieck). The alternative to a complete gun ban would be simply to restrict gun laws to make it much more difficult for a dangerous individual to purchase a gun. Background checks for all purchases of guns would become a requirement and

Many pro gun-control citizens believe that banning firearms will make them safer and some even protest. For reasons of self-defense, to assist the police, and because violence will always be present, the United States’ law regarding the legality of firearms should stay in place. One of the many uses of firearms is self-defence. “Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals

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.” After this attack, President Barack Obama said, “Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history.”

Research Paper Weapons have always distinguished mankind from animals. Animals use their resources and instincts for survival, while a man relies on weapons to bring about destruction. Guns give man the sense of power and control over nature, however, they are no empowerment, longer used for hunting, but instead are involved in cases of domestic violence, mass shootings and at blame for the loss of lives of innocent children. We cannot solely blame the gun owner, although they are at much fault themselves. We must also find culpability in the individual who sold the weapons.

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.

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.

The issue of gun control is a controversial debate that produces a variety of extreme arguments. However, when attacking the issue with the focus on child safety, the argument becomes more relatable and concerning. Moms Demand Action preaches the outlaw of guns and while that stance may seem too severe, the focus on children brings an ethical side to the argument that hits home to most Americans. The compelling stance on gun control produced by the advertisement is formed from the organizations tactics of using modes of communication that attract the viewer and forces reflection.