Throughout history, especially recently, the question of whether gun control violates the 2nd Amendment has been a question which many people claim they know the answer to, but it may not be that transparent. I believe gun control is constitutional, and it deters crime and makes society safer, meaning I side with the pro-gun control ideas. Within the topic of gun control, there are many factors in which people must take into consideration when proposing an answer such as whether it deters crime, what the economic impact is, and what should be changed. NEW PARAGRAPH... Gun control can date way back, but what really made it controversial was the court case of Heller vs DC in 2008.
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
It is important not to punish those who have done nothing wrong for the actions of a few, meaning that the ideas of a majority party come into play. Even though there are many people that are in support of eliminating guns all together, there are also people on the other extreme side of the spectrum. They want to remove any restrictions on guns all together, and have many reasons to support this belief. Because there are so many differing opinions on how to handle the gun violence issue that has risen, there must be a compromised solution that both allows for gun violence to decrease, and for the Second Amendment to be followed. One solution that could be
The use of this rhetorical strategy is meant to mock owners of such guns saying that gun owners are really just paranoid and have succumbed to social pressure; they don't really need these objects, they just want them. People from all walks of life don't see owning these objects as something they want, but as something they need for protection, along with the fact that people who don’t own a gun currently aren't entirely opposed to owning one in the future. Actually over half, 52%, of all non-gun owners say they are open to owning a gun some point in the near or further future. This shows that it is not “social pressure” making gun owners continue to keep their firearms, rather they would want to continue protecting their families and that other people are seeing that as a viable option for themselves. If anything, in the current political climate we are in today, there would be much more social pressure for one not to own a gun than there would be to continue owning one.
They need to understand that there is specialized handlers training for those teachers that do carry, background checking on the individual applying for the concealed carry license, and the schools are limiting the number of teachers with guns. Some people need to realize that the effect of teachers’ carrying handguns could have a positive influence on the environment and
This is a good rule but only in some situations, because if this rule is in place and someone is allowed to have a weapon then they couldn’t do anything also if this was in place it would be much harder to do things like hunting and other gun sports. Beginning with, A lot of people own guns. In an article on mcpl there was an article about
Some people might say that we need a gun to protect ourselves in the United States, but there are actually various ways to protect ourselves instead of using a gun according to the article, “How Americans Protect Themselves from Crime.” Transition to Conclusion: before the government legislates about the gun control law, we need to be the spearhead that is awake to this problem deeply and carefully. Restate Thesis: I am convinced that the entire civilian should not own guns to prevent the gun violence, and only government officers must be able to own guns. Review Main Points: we realize that erroneous gun possession contributes to horrible gun accidents.
My intent in this letter is to inform you of the effects of these events. Citizens have to think twice before going into public places. Always in fear of a massacre, citizens are scared to exercise their most basic rights because of these events.
(Ingraham, 2015) In conclusion, based on the information provided, depending on where you stand there are both pros and con gun safety. The pro is that when it comes to gun safety, there should be policies in place, such as gun lock requirements to help prevent childhood gun deaths. The con is that many gun owners feel that it is not the government’s place to tell them how to store their guns and feel that it is an invasion of their
(Richards, Paragraph 4) With the system being like this it leaves for a lot of loopholes for the criminals and their helpers to get through to purchase a gun. Stricter background checks in gun shows and online websites would make for a safer gun buying experience because a person will know who is getting the gun that is being sold. The people that do not want this, say it is harder for them and takes more time to go through the process of getting a gun, but if they know they have a clean record then what do they have to lose? A stricter background check should not affect anybody but the bad people and criminals that do not have any business with guns anyway. In a separate study, “Webster found that firearm-related homicides in Connecticut dropped 40 percent after the state adopted a 1995 law that required anyone seeking to buy a handgun to apply for a permit with the local police, complete at least eight hours of safety training, and be 21 years old.”
The debate surrounding gun control and gun violence has been an ongoing controversy in many communities and America as a whole. As gun violence increase each year, views and opinions are rising, which not only have created tension in communities, but also has become a major debate in society. Although some critics argue that guns bring an overall negative impact to the country, others comment that guns are crucial to the beliefs and views of people today as well as important to their culture. In the context of today's society, many people in America are viewing gun control as an infringement of their rights and its threat towards their ability to protect, thus questioning: To what extent should gun use and possession should be controlled?
The open-carry crowd says now people can better protect themselves, they don't have to bother with concealing a gun and, anyway, it's already legal in 44 other states, so why not in gun-loving Texas? For Michael Cargill and Trina Spells, handgun instructors and firearms enthusiasts who both openly carry handguns, they couldn't wait to take advantage of the law. On a recent walkabout in an Austin Wal-Mart, no one really seems to be paying attention to the guns on their hips. Personal safety can cut both ways. Open carry is controversial among gun owners.
Concealed carriers are in more and more danger when having to warn people. The carriers and people around are getting hurt because of it. Concealed carriers should not have to warn before shooting a robber or intruder. Warning before shooting could put carriers in danger.
Self-defense is key to survival in the day that we are living. The concealed carry law allows any person from the age of twenty-one years of age or older to carry a firearm, if they have a permit to carry that firearm. The law was passed so that you could legally carry a firearm in public to protect yourself. It is called the Second Amendment. There is two sides to this argument some people believe you should be able to carry a handgun on your hip in public.
America today is divided. Many topics are dividing the people, but I came to put one to rest. Since 1950, every public mass shooting has occured in a place that doesn’t allow weapons (Davis). The only thing gun control does is take away our rights of the constitution and the right to defend ourselves. Gun control within the states is ineffective.