The right to bear arms has been a favoured constitutional law since its establishment in 1791, but as more gun related violence and accidents occur, there has been increasing debate on whether or not guns should be banned in the US altogether, and if not, what regulations should be required for the purchase and handling of them. While guns should not be completely banned from the country, the rules and regulations of gun laws should be tightened. In the 2nd amendment, it clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While this statement still holds true, the evolution of firearms and how they have become more dangerous throughout the years is a clear sign of why the laws should be changed.
The second amendment of the constitution, the right to bear arms is a heated subject
A decrease in incidence of gun-related violence has also decreased in the US during the time when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was in effect. There are two arguments dominating the gun control issue. The anti-gun control people believes that the problem is with the people not with the guns and imposing heavier sanctions, harsher punishments on criminals, and more armed guards should solve the problem of gun violence. On the other hand, the pro-gun control people argues that the easy accessibility of firearms directly correlates gun-related violence and mass shooting (Lemieux, 2014). Both arguments have its merits, but in dealing with the gun control issue, it is important to put ethics and public health implications into consideration (Boylan,
The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of the constitution. The second amendment 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” (US Const. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports. In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided.
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.
The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of the constitution. The second amendment 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” (US Const. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports. In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided.
The question on whether the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. should be changed or not has become a widely discussed and argued topic as of recent, due to recurring incidents of shootings occurring on U.S. soil by its own inhabitants. While many would be in support of the right to bear arms, including myself, I do believe that the current gun laws need to be made more restrictive than they are in their current state, for the sake of the country and the safety of its people. I’m well aware that I am not a U.S. citizen and that I have no say in what decisions are made there regarding the country’s constitution, but I feel that what I have to say is shared by many of America’s people and that it’s not only Americans that are affected by guns but also those who are visiting the country from abroad.
Looking at the utilitarian approach, it is seen to have significant meaning for both those that are for and against gun control. As the utilitarian theory approach focuses on the theory that “an action is ethical if the good that it is predicted to produce outweighs the bad”. In this case, depending on the perspective of the individual, it can have significantly lead to different conclusions that supports both sides of the gun control debate. Specifically, gun control proponents have argued that the utilitarian approach is justification for gun control as the banning of gun ownership will protect society and make the world a better place through a lower chance of gun violence despite the restraining of civil liberties. On the other hand, gun control
A weapon in the wrongs hands is the maximum danger humanity can face. Nowadays, violence and delinquency in society are viewed as the maximum problem solver. Humanity is full of chaos; hate and envy seize our souls. Guns are the ultimate security for some citizens but for others, these add to a feeling of defenselessness. Throughout history, any topic related to guns means a plethora of problems. One of the most controversial issues our nation faces today is gun control laws. This controversy has been created due to the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states the right of citizens to bear arms; “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” (Cornell Law School). Anti-gun control laws believe that the amendment guarantees the right to bear any kind of firearms. On the other hand, we have does that believe that more controls laws should be implemented since the 2nd amendment was for the right of States to have an armed militia during wartime. Both sides have strong point, however, the safety of our children comes first, and a firearm means death in the wrong hands.
The use of and the owning of guns is a very hot and debated topic in society today. For many, this is a life and death debate due to the recent and numerous school shootings. These school shootings have caused an outcry for more gun control, specifically in relation to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Despite these calls, increased gun control is not the answer. Most gun owners’ use their guns responsibly and for good purposes. Gun control also limits our constitutionally derived right to own firearms. If gun control is enforced, law-abiding citizens will be forced to give up their guns and their right to own guns, while many criminals who own guns may illegally keep theirs. As the saying goes “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Guns are an important aspect of our society in many ways. They allow for protection, recreation, and hunting. They also do not have as many negative effects as some claim. The right to own firearms is a constitutional right that is important and needs to be upheld.
Before delving into these touchy subjects, there are six ethical points to touch upon with relation to gun control which is of importance since the debate is on each end of the issue. It is fair to accept that there will always be opposing sides with respect to gun control and groups who will depict the pros and cons of the second amendment, therefore, it is important to know the difference between all parties involved. However, it is equally important that privileges are not being abused or mismanaged rather used for the greater
In recent years, there’s not many topics on the political spectrum that aren’t absolutely polarizing. This essay will attempt to show each side’s generalized opinions, and find flaws in each of their arguments, as every ethical argument has flaws. Analyzing each side will help anyone understand their own opinions better, because without the demonization of the opposite party, ethics get much more difficult. Gun control is everywhere in the news right now, as three months into the year, the country has had12 school shootings in 2018. Exploring the ethics of gun control can get messy and emotional, but it’s important to understand all sides of a subject.There are two major sides to the gun control debate, and like everything
Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people. Gun laws have their positives and negatives, but the debate isn 't resolved yet.
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. Instead of banning or limiting guns, the evidence will show that removing the current restrictions and targeting individuals instead of guns will be a more effective process.
Since the Second Amendments’ ratification in 1791, Americans still debate with one another, because of its many controversy views. The amendment allows every citizen of the United States the right to own guns and to defend themselves when in danger. The problem arises when the laws being set are restricting people from their rights. There are so many gun control laws, varying from state to state. The development of arguments surrounding gun control correlates to the increased violence and altercations related to the use of fire weapons. This then led to the expansion of gun control laws and has strongly shaped and influenced the public’s opinion. The process of developing gun control remains to be a challenge still, due to its capacity removing individual rights and liberty, which undermine the value of guns and firearms in the promotion of deterrence and self-defense and inability to recognize the commitment of existing reasonable gun control initiatives already in