People should be allowed to protect themselves no matter where they are at. A responsible gun carrier could protect the innocent from the violent act of a shooter. A lot of people believe that gun-free zones are safety zones, but families of victims of shooters can disagree. Firearms aren’t the only thing that can be dangerous, yet chemistry majors create explosives without any concern. Guns aren’t the only thing that people should be concerned about, yet they overlook other dangerous factors.
Opponents of this argument, however, also fear losing safety. They fear that they will not be able to protect themselves on a daily basis, or in a worse case scenario, protect themselves if the government happened to turn on citizens of the country. They would also argue that people, especially criminals, can still find ways to gain access to guns. Guns should not be banned in the United States due to them being able
Grifin M. Price Kendra Gallos English III H 3/21/18 Gun Control Will Not Solve Anything Guns are given a bad reputation because of the terrors that can be committed by people who want to cause harm. Those who are gun control advocates wish to ban certain weapons without basis, ban certain weapon attachments, and restrict the rights of the second amendment. Gun control supporters base their opinion on statistics about gun violence that use a portion of data that is not about gun violence just to boost the value of the number. Supporters of gun control dismiss the saying “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” because they are misinformed about the number of defensive gun uses (DGU) which far outnumbers the
This adds more and more to my reasoning of just banning guns from unworthy people completely. Since the second amendment is not applied daily to all citizens, this indicates it is fully flawed and shouldn’t have to take people dying in order to change our unfair system. Most of the time -if not always- your skin tone defines how situations are handled for you. In certain cases of mercy, colored people don’t get into as much trouble but aside from that, people with a lighter color of skin are found hardly ever guilty of crimes they wrongfully
Peter Tucci, a free-lance journalist form the Daily Caller, argues against the establishment of more gun-control saying that it is not efficacious, widespread gun ownership protects citizens, and that gun control does not ensure the safety of the public. However, there is extensive research that suggests that the very opposite is true. The implementation of stricter gun control laws is now more important than ever because they are they are an effective means to reduce crimes and widespread gun ownership is deleterious to the safety of the public. The most frequently used argument against gun-control is that these laws simply are not effective. This is far from the truth as gun control has actually been shown to lower crimes rates.
The article states, “Gun control deters violent crime as well as the death penalty” (Hunter). The author uses logos here to point out that gun control is an ineffective as the death penalty when it comes to preventing violence. This supports his argument against strict gun control because, according to Hunter, many Liberals claim to oppose the death penalty because it does little to prevent future crime, yet Liberals are for strict gun control. However, strict gun control isn’t going to prevent criminals from committing crimes, because criminals do not follow the law
How a small percent of a society makes all these problems for rest of the people. America really struggles because people of this country tend to be faith-based, rather than evidence-based, and their fantasies mean more to them than the real world. It is the 21st Century with advanced technology, and there is no needed to scarify human, animals, and things for good lucks and bad lucks. In addition, people do not need having their personal guns, or they claim the ownership of this evil phenomenon. The United States of America has trained polices and expert armed forces, and they enforce the law and protect people 's rights.
We are unable to tell whether Seung-Hui Cho's act of the mass killings could have been stopped but what we do know is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that lawmakers want to see. Having guns in the right hands can be influential in stopping crime and having fewer guns in the wrong hands can make for more crime. Therefore, this makes gun control not equivalent to crime
There are very few mental illnesses that would make a person want to go and commit such a murder. Everywhere in the United States that sells guns should participate in better background checks, and better mental health checks. If someone shows any sign of a mental illness that could potentially make them owning a gun a threat to people around them, then they shouldn’t get the chance to own a weapon. On the other hand, it would be very hard to tell if someone has a mental illness because everything that comes out of their mouth could be a lie. The only thing as of right now that could prevent someone with a mental illness from buying a gun is if they have records of needing help with their illness.
Concealed carry is said to help deter and reduce crime, albeit it actually puts the general public’s safety at risk especially when the firearms are misused, either intentionally or unintentionally. 1. Concealed carry laws are inconsistent between each state and permits should not be given out to individuals with little or no training. 2. Background checks are not required and do not prevent people with criminal records or a history of mental instability from acquiring a weapon.