Arguments Against Gun Ownership

Gun Rights in the United States The National Rifle Association is working day after day to make the world with guns in it a safer place. However, many People feel that day will never come. They are working on taking guns away from Americans altogether.

I also think that handling a gun can tempt someone to do something bad. This further demonstrates that opponents say that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. On washington post it has many information about handling guns. This shows that some people think handling a gun makes them feel safe. Some people also think that handling a gun can make a kid do something bad with it.

More specifically, I believe that gun violence will always be an issue whether they are banned or not. If someone plans on hurting someone, they will not care about rules. For example, Guns are very easy for people to buy, but how is the seller going to know what they plan to do with it. It is not like they are going to say that they are going to kill someone with it.

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

“A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that "legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death"(-https://gun-control.procon.org/). There is such a thing as an unlicensed dealer selling handguns without a background check and proper documentation and it is legal. Those gun buyers are mainly causing chaos with mass shootings and yet others think the Second Amendment defends the right to own a weapon for “self-defense”. It is time for tougher gun control laws; the safety of the citizens depends on a safe environment free of guns from those using them for villainous purposes such as mass shootings or homicides.

Making the assumption that more innocent people will only get wounded in a serious attack by a criminal, rather than being killed. Even though this might be true, Desuka does not use any factual evidence to prove her claim. She only states the most logical outcome of a house robbery situation, which would be for the victim to run away from the

As mentioned various times in the article, banning guns would be unpropitious. As guns are extremely accessible, anyone can have it. This is extremely disadvantageous to the robber, as in states like Texas, it is completely authorized to shoot and kill someone invading your property. I am strongly in favor with James when he mentions “ It's also important to note that guns play an important role in self-defense.” If the robber has conscious he can be severely damaged or attacked, the probability of him stealing or invading is smaller.

This makes us wonder why people can be so defensive over something like a gun that is so dangerous and has lead to a lot of deaths in the American society. Gun control is essential in our society today because it will help prevent unnecessary shootings and crime rate Gun control will play a major part in the decrease of the crime and murder rate. Therefore, in my point of view, guns should be totally controlled and regulated by the government. If gun ownership is controlled by the government, only a limited number of people will be allowed to own guns. In addition, the regulations will make it difficult for people to access guns unless they have a concrete reason as to why they need the weapon.

Responsible gun owners know how to treat a gun when they buy it, that’s why we have developed an organization to separate these people from irresponsible people who choose to act by a distinct set of the ruling. (Sola, par. 3) This means that some people will have guns, but only the ones who choose to use them for necessary causes. This suggests that people who don’t want their guns to be taken away or banned, will possibly be able to keep them if they show responsibility, and if they don’t, then they will get punished by losing their guns.

The following argument is in favor of gun control. The restrictions on guns in place today are not nearly sufficient considering the level of gun violence seen on a daily basis. In the article “Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives” it is stated, “The fact is that very few federal laws regulate the manufacture, sale or possession of firearms, and those currently on the books are filled with loopholes or significantly tie the hands of law enforcement.” Arming citizens would not reduce crime or allow for self-defense, it would merely place guns into the wrong hands of people who are not trained enough or mentally stable to handle them. This is why there are so many school shootings and public massacres on television constantly broadcasted

Principally, this tends to favor injustices in our society over the logical fallacies. Beyond a shadow of doubt, my personal disposition would lean more toward that of the rational route: to promulgate a revision to the laws and impose actively enforced control - thus banning the privilege of private ownership of automatic weapons in The United States forevermore, to bring justice to our many lost gun violence victims’

One of the major arguments for the elimination of firearms, and derivatively for gun control laws, is that such measures would reduce the number of criminal homicides.' It has been argued, however, that eliminating guns would have no such effect because if somebody wants to kill, he will find a weapon to achieve "his destructive goal"; there is, it is said, more than one way to skin a cat. This paper is an attempt to bring this phase of the gun control debate closer to a resolution, through analysis of data from the Police Department of the City of Chicago on reported criminal homicides and serious, but not fatal, criminal assaults during 1965, 1966, and 1967.