Those who properly own guns would not be able to defend themselves if a situation came to that point. Making something illegal means that its production will spread into homes of such criminals, thus possibly making weapons less safe. New, stronger gun laws are not the answer. “The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law abiding citizens while would-be criminals ignore them.” (Lott) We need to work on enforcing current gun laws to ensure the safety of others. While there should be a background check, looking at criminal history, history of
from obtaining weapons that they could use irresponsibly may help to prevent the loss of innocent lives. The anti-gun control side states that gun control infringes on our second amendment rights thus threatening our freedom. I didn’t understand this defense too well, so I decided to investigate myself. To understand the other side better, I decided to interview a fellow acquaintance who is a gun supporter and who is quite dedicated to the cause, as he is the president of a pro-gun club. I wanted to know how the other side could believe and justify more guns as a way to actually prevent deaths, as more people die from weapon injuries in the United States than any other civilized country in the world.
Gun limitation is an unpopular opinion, and the elimination of guns altogether can be protested with evidence from the Constitution. The Second Amendment gives the citizens the right to bear arms, and there is a section of the document that states that the “pursuit of happiness” is a right that the government is not allowed to remove. Granted, the pursuit of happiness argument is unstable, because the ending of lives due to guns is another violation of the constitution, but the argument is valid for those who use guns responsibly, and do no harm to others with them. Even though eliminating guns is an unpopular opinion, the evidence still point to the fact that mass shooting numbers have increased substantially in the most recent decade. There are however, some people who have a viewpoint on the other end of the spectrum-meaning that they want no restrictions on guns at all.
While a man from the NRA, Brian Calabrese, said self-defense is used in various ways, the thought of a panicked person with a gun during a crime is not beneficial. From my perspective, I don’t want to live in a society where the at any point in time, I should be ready to shoot a gun. The arms race which Kelly Sampson was talking about, also made me think about how different society would be if the arms race ensued. Most of society would have to adapt to the norm of owning a gun, which would force the criminals to get stronger and higher capacity firearms. In this hypothetical society, I believe there would be a much higher death and crime rate.
Then we hear the counter argument “People with guns kill people”. David Kyle Johnson Ph.D. made a good point; what if you place in another word for guns such as cars or bazookas (Guns Don’t Kill People, People Do?). Does the line the NRA uses as its slogan effectively convince people that it’s the one and only truth? Johnson also says the question is inconclusive. When putting cars into the statement, you realize cars aren’t meant to kill people.
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
In another view, many of those who are on the board of having guns have limited reasoning. Winkler even states “On the Other hand , gun advocates are too quick to assume that laws allowing guns on campus will discourage mass murderers.” Even in Arizona, which was an example in the article, it had passed a liberal carrying law, and with that, there was still a shooting of a man hurting a representative and killing six other people along with it. This remark goes back to the last paragraph and how it could make a setting bitter and uncomfortable instead of having people feel safer because they would be able to “fight back”. Also in a shooting that could happen at a school people could have a gun on them and still would not be able to protect himself, but also can shoot a bystander because they could have thought it was the shooter. This reasoning is also a representation of how having a gun to protect oneself is a good idea.
Therefore, limiting the number of teachers able to carry guns in school lessens public worry. The teachers going crazy with their handguns has now become a huge concern in the public. Even though most people think it is a horrid idea; the reality is, that increased publicity has caused people to react negatively. They need to understand that there is a specialized handler training for those teachers that do carry, in-depth background checks for those individuals and schools could limit the number of teachers with guns. So, honestly, the public needs to research and look into the positive and negative interests of carrying handguns onto public school campuses before they jump to indecisive conclusions.
A big argument that gun rights advocates make is “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Gun control advocates say that this argument is not good because people would more than likely end in one death, but guns can add up to more deaths. People get the argument wrong and assume that its talking about just the gun. The argument is saying that the people are the ones killing the people. Yes, they might be using a gun, but the gun is not the one that is making the decision to do it.
According to the second amendment of the constitution of the United States of America, the citizens have the right to possess and bear arms. This passage has been used for gun control advocates and gun control opponents alike; both parties agree that not all citizens should be allowed to own guns. People opposed to gun control legislation think that all upcoming legislations should be focused on mental health problems. They acknowledge that there is no gun problem in the U.S, we just have a cultural problem. Americans feel safer having a gun at home, in some homes in the U.S. they own a gun for extra protection.
One of the arguments Obama makes in his speech targets the need for laws regulating gun safety. He begins by stating that thoughts and prayers are not enough. This is because they do not represent the grief and anger, that demand to be felt, nor do they change anything. He feels it has become routine when one of these shootings occurs and that we come to give a cavalier response. He feels we should politicize it and make changes to laws to make them safer, since it should not be that easy to get a gun in the United States.
Merriam-Webster defines gun control as a set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of fire arms by civilians. No matter what, this topic seems to always bring up controversy. Some people believe that the banning of guns will significantly reduce crime rates and other incidents gun related. While others strongly believe that gun control will not at all help reduce crime rates whatsoever, and criminals will always find a way to carry illegal weapons. Looking at crime rates from state to state can tell us much more about the effectiveness of different gun laws.