All it did was create more crime and illegal buying of alcohol (The Party of Principal). This is the same thing that would happen with guns. Also, hunters and sportsmen would be penalized unnecessarily when they’re just doing something they enjoy doing (Conservatives United). We will not take away the right to own guns of the people of our
Some gun control laws should be removed because gun control laws don't make you feel safer, they will prevent you from defending yourself and your family, and they don't stop criminals from obtaining guns or using them. Gun control laws say you can’t have a gun that doesn’t make you feel any safer at all because anyone could obtain it. They prevent you from defending yourself, so if you need to save yourself you can’t because you probably don’t have a gun. Lastly, any criminal could steal a gun and use it despite the gun control laws. Overall some gun control laws should be removed because most of them don’t really help at all.
NOT “i can carry a hand cannon whenever i want wherever i want” The rebuttal “guns don’t kill people people kill people” is false Guns are the tool the device that is used for the killing. It is true that shoot outs don’t happen everyday but as time goes on the frequency of these shootouts increases (Burrus) . all of this evidence listed here has 1 thing in common there is little to back up this evidence what backbone does the argument “guns don’t kill people people kill people have” the second amendment doesn’t even mention concealed carrying or for everyday use . Guns Should be restricted if not all guns than just military weapons in civilian possession. If we as americans as humans and we don’t make a change or anything more people will
Most of which are unarmed. This is usually only in developing countries but this has spread into the United States. We need legal arms to protect ourselves. An argument from the other side is, why not just hire more police officers to help us be more safe and secure. This isn’t really solving the problem, because the police response time isn’t really fast enough in life or death situations.
Assuming that guns were banned, those who want firearms, will get firearms, if it is harder for them to get guns, “those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow” (Wilson). People think that outlawing guns will lead to an ideally safe society. This idea of a gun-free utopia is absolutely false, as criminals will still gain access to them. Although it is true that the majority of guns used in crimes are stolen ones (Blow), there is no way to stop this from happening. Guns will always be part of society, whether people like it or not, and it is better to have an armed protected society than a defenseless unprotected one.
Kenji Morizono Professor Martin Argumentative Essay 11/15/15 Gun Laws: Should they be stricter? The world should not spend anymore time following the fallacy that many people have. where they, instead of providing deterrents for people who want to commit a crime with a firearm. They put restrictions, on citizens who want a gun and leave them vulnerable to criminals who can, and most likely will, procure firearms from other sources. Whether they do this because of the despair of losing a loved one in a shooting.
People should not go to jail for killing to protect themselves. The law protects the innocent from being wrongfully persecuted and is an extra layer of protection. Fear of death is the worst possible fear of all. “Fear in American society today is at levels unknown in history” says Mr. Grossman (Germani Clara). People buy guns for their reasons.
Many people promoting gun laws are not educated on some of the statistics and ways that guns save and protect innocent people. Gun laws should not be in place because guns are essential for people’s safety, guns prevent mass shootings and terrorism, and banning guns goes against the second amendment. Many people that are pro-gun control want laws because of the fear of robbery or home invasion when in reality if a burglar knows that there is a gun in the house they are targeting, chances are they will not try to rob or invade the home. In Switzerland where crime and homicide rates are some of the lowest in the world, there is a gun in nearly every house in the country. Switzerland’s citizens are
In the year 2014 much debate began on gun laws and whether they should be authorized. This political fight became a disputable issue among Americans. A source at the Smithsonian said, “More Americans thought it was important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than to control gun ownership.” Most Americans believe that their gun ownership is unrelated to someone else 's gun use in crimes. Many people want strict gun control but that won 't help because mass shooters don 't follow the law; strict gun laws won 't reduce violence and the removal of guns would leave people defenseless, especially in a time where terrorism is rampant. Making gun control more strict won 't really make it harder for mass shooters.
Guns, in many people 's minds, are a very dangerous weapon and a threat, so that 's why gun laws are enforced. In 2017 gun laws in the U.S. are very hotly debated, with nongun owners saying more gun laws should be enforced gun owners saying there should not be more laws enforced, some even argue to rename gun restrictions. Gun owners say that people who are making these laws do not know what they are talking about because they have never owned a gun so they wouldn 't know that most gun owners do not use guns for violence but maybe for hunting and target practicing. But then again this could be argued by non-gun owners that the other percentage of owners that have guns do use their guns for violence. So because of this more gun laws should
Many are against concealed carry because it would lead to an arms race. 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.
Criminals do not usually acquire their guns through the proper channels as law-abiding citizens would. Those who would need stricter gun laws would not even be affected by the change. For instance, there are plenty of illegal drugs that are used by people every day. Just because something is outlawed does not mean that no one will take part in it. The theory that if gun laws were more strict this would cut down on crime.
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.
It should be more difficult for mentally insane people and felons to get guns, but the right shouldn’t be taken away from the sane people who interpret this right as to protect them from dangers. Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment— ratified in 1791. “Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned (Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?). Gun control was very heavy back then to where most people couldn’t get them even if they wanted to. I think it is extreme to not let someone own a gun for racial or political reasons.
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. When the second amendment was implemented by our founding fathers, they had very little to no knowledge of the brain, therefore they were unaware that medical stability played a key role in a person’s ability to use a gun responsibly. Additionally, the guns the founding fathers had possessed were not anywhere near the lethal capacity of today’s guns. Back then the guns were not as powerful and took longer to