The Pros And Cons Of Passing Gun Control Legislation

This blog, is based on Evan Defilippis overview on the pros and cons of gun control. Defilippis develops well written and clear visual arguments on both sides of the issue. For example, he states “The main point of this argument is that criminals do not follow laws; therefore laws restricting gun ownership and types of guns would only hurt those who follow them.” “Gun control laws only help criminals, criminals do not play by the law. That is why we need to punish criminals, not law-abiding citizens by disarming them.

There are accidental deaths that happen everyday where a child accidentally shoots him or herself or someone else. One of the most dangerous myths of America’s gun debate is that passing federal gun control laws is the only way to prevent gun violence and save lives and that therefore the issue is hopeless and nothing will change. Another big way to reduce gun violence is Demand that

One may ask why this kind of act is happening in such harmless places such as schools. Mass shootings happen more frequently in gun-free zones than in areas where guns are authorized. Blogger and professor of law at the University of Tennessee, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, eludes to the thought that gun-free zones are a “magnet for mass shooters” (Reynolds, 2015). Anti-gun activists believe that imposing “gun-free” areas will reduce the number of weapons, thereby, decreasing the number of violent and heinous acts. By keeping firearms out of the public people’s hands, they hope to eliminate the threat and if needed, they will rely on the police to ensure their safety.

Every time a mass shooting occurs Republican politicians make a number of excuses, but the one excuse that is ubiquitous around the Republican world is that the problem is mental illness and not the abundance of guns. If one were to make this excuse, they should probably not pass a law that gives mentally ill people more access to these weapons. (Waldman) III. All that gun control will do to this nation is make the citizens defenseless and weak.

As said by Kelly Sampson, on behalf of the Brady Campaign, allowing concealed carry would force the criminals to get higher damage guns, which would lead to an unnecessary amount of guns. If criminals got higher grade weapons, it would mean more violent crimes and more deaths. Obama once said “There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America. So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer?” and many people on the pro-gun control side stand by this.

By limiting the freedom to own guns with measures like the Undetectable Firearms Act or the unsuccessful Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, our 2nd Amendment rights become increasingly at risk from being taken away. The solution is not in restrictions on gun ownership, but the education that comes with gun ownership. The government should consider the prospect of providing gun safety training to congress as an alternative to gun control. The National Rifle Association did a study on gun violence. They conclude that “gun safety has proven to be effective against gun homicide” (NRA 2013).

Anyone that thinks gun control is the answer to the killing that is going on is wrong! Nothing will change until parents start teaching their children right from wrong. Gun Control is too much of a political something you do to win a battle or to get what you want and failing. Politicians talks about the need to increase gun restrictions to stop gun crime, but new and current gun laws are designed to fail in order to allow certain people to own them and make unhappy because of not having a vote others.

many people in our nation have different views and can easily argue on wither or not Gun Control is being implemented or not. the question is if gun control nonsensical. in my opinion, it is not but that facts that there are people who believe that the supreme courts need to take away our right to guns from every individual is out rages. the reason why the passing of elimination guns will never happen is because, if the government were to take away the citizens guns it would be violating our Second Amendment which is defined as, 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. It also states that the right to bare arms allows us to protect ourselves

"’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.

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). Almost 25% of mass shooting killers are being considered mentally ill

Another reason is current gun laws already established aren 't enforced and the reason for that is we don 't care enough. Why don’t massacres at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Charleston and now Orlando inspire voters who support gun safety to make it a principal demand? Why doesn’t the ongoing carnage in our urban centers, and the obscene death toll by gun violence, outrage voters, and embarrass them in front of the rest of the world? The answer is the much stronger voice of Gun rights advocates. Gun rights advocates certainly prioritize their position; they are single-issue voters above all the rest.

There are two sides to the gun control issue, the people that want some weapons banned because they believe that doing so will help stop mass shootings and other firearm related deaths, and the opposition, which believes that the Second Amendment cannot and should not be infringed,

Gun control laws are very strict. There are only certain guns that are legal. The places that are generally under attack are gun free zones. The criminals and psychos know where they can do the most harm. People that intend to commit crimes with firearms will commit them.

We need as many gun restrictions in America as possible, why? Because at least over 28,000 children were killed over an 11 year period, and on average 31 people are shot and killed. Proposition 63 requires background checks to purchase ammunition and firearms, it also prohibits the possession of large capacity magazines. Society’s mentality has evolved into shoot first ask questions later, resulting in many deaths among all age, cultural, and ethnic groups. Proposition 63 should be in full effect because it will prevent mass shootings, decrease the statistics of those who die from gun violence and abolish accidental deaths among the younger generations.

Owning guns or banning them is a highly controversial topic in the United States today. Everytime, there is a mass shooting or violence commited the issue resurfaces. The real question is should the government make strict gun control laws and legislations? Would it help to decrease the crime rate or will it be the opposite effect? The nation is divided on this issue, some believe there should be bans on guns some think there shouldn't be any.