Gun Control is a good thing in many different ways for many people. However, when you have a law abiding citizen who can not purchase a gun because the restrictions are too high then there is a problem. Gun Control was made to keep a person who has something on their record like drunk driving multiple times, armed robbery, or illegal citizen from buying a gun because the government wants to keep everyone safe and does not want to harm anybody. As stated in my research found in a world encyclopedia, “Many people own guns for the protection of their home.”
In the same article, it states, “In this instance, however, we don 't have to ponder how different the outcome would have been had a "good guy with a gun" been present, since there was one: a police officer working extra duty. Despite being armed and exchanging gunfire with the shooter, the officer was unable to prevent him from gaining entrance to the club.” Sometimes a good guy can’t always save the day. Society today think that just because guns kill a majority of people, if the government bans them, everything in society will be perfect and there won’t be murders or a police officer can always eliminate the danger. These accusations are not true and it’s all based on the place and time.
It’s safe in all types of reasons. If you really think you really need to keep yourself defended at all times, then you should take the test or some form of test to get privileges to use the gun when needed to. Which will lets us know that you are responsible and have the right to have guns without handing it. Because mostly people who have a weapon usually hides from the police so they don’t get caught. Which in other words, are job is to make police jobs much easier instead of causing them a lot more drama and a lot more work for them trying catch someone that don’t need weapons.
The main evidence here that proves my point, is “A background check did not stop this killer, but tighter background checks can keep war weapons out of the hands of those who are known to be mentally unstable.” This helps me prove my point because the killer would not have obtained a gun if stricter background checks occured. Without a gun, the killer become weak, and unable to kill people. This would make us much safer if killers don’t have access to guns. Opponents of my argument may say that many people, including unstable people can go to gun shows, illegal dealers, and out of the country to obtain guns to shoot people.
There are two clear sides to this battle and that is people who are for gun control and people who are against gun control. People that are for gun control might argue that it will make the U.S a safer place and the crime rate will decrease. In a study that took place, it showed that the crimes committed with firearms has been steady decreasing since 1998 (Stell 2004). Basically the statistic is saying that crimes with firearms are becoming less likely to happen. Some people may argue that without guns society will be a safer place.
Assault weapons only many effect mass shootings, and even then not all mass shootings involve assault weapons in the first place. If anything a ban on assault weapons would just lead to a ban on handguns. Trying to get assault weapons banned will just lead to the broader focus which is a ban on handguns, which are more crimes are committed with anyway. Also, you can never really put a stop to psychopaths in the US, people can always find a way to get ahold of dangerous assault weapons. Also, the likeliness of get killed with a knife, strangled, or beaten to death is much higher than getting shot with an assault weapon.
”(Text 3, Lines 10-13). This shows that people unfit of buying guns can easily get them in many different ways but if the government comes up with a way to regulate gun control many innocent lives would be saved and eventually the decrease in mass shootings will decrease to
Because of dangerous people in the united states pose a threat and they may have a weapon like a gun or a knife. So with the guns the police officers have they may scare the suspect into surrendering or shoot them if they fight, either killing or injuring justice will be serve. Most people want to get rid of police holding guns because they are scared of police officers turning bad or using brutal force. “Most of the 422 police shootings examined by an internal police review board from 1993 to early 1998 were ruled to be justified, and only two cases resulted in criminal charges against police officers.” (Gerdes).
I think that attacks such as the Las Vegas Shooting are so common these days because gun control isn 't strict enough to prevent them from happening. At this point, even mentally unstable individuals such as Stephen Paddock are allowed to get guns. Even though background checks are performed to see if the person is part of criminal activity or anything like that, they still shouldn 't have the authority to purchase them because you never know whether or not they 'll take advantage of their weapons. Stephan Paddock, for example, passed the background checks but later converted his gun into a machine gun and shot many innocent people at the country festival. If gun control was more strict, shootings like this wouldn 't happen in the first
It is the document that says you passed the background check and you have taken a course to show your competence with a firearm. This stops/prevents random people from owning a gun and also only lets people with knowledge and experience with guns own them. With all of these precautions in place it shows how most people trying to take away guns are afraid because they don’t know much about them besides the stories of murders committed with them. Guns are only as evil as the people who use
The thought of a society without a militia is sickening with terrorists being able to attack any helpless citizen. Sure, the alternative weapons are useful, yet they don 't have any range upon the enemy and some people can not acquire the physical force or tactical skill needed to fortify. Gun control makes it so only the fittest of the fittest survive, which means even more deaths when terrorists attack. To add, gun laws do not prove any use. Even though gun laws prevent deaths, they infringe so many rights in the immutable Bill of Rights, which is one of the foundations of the great United States.
People also “...support the rights of hunters, sport shooters, and recreational gunmen.” (openreader.org).Criminals are already breaking the law, so adding more won 't deter them. “Criminals will get hold of guns – indeed, by definition, if guns are outlawed, one becomes a criminal just by acquiring one – and leave non-criminals more vulnerable than ever.” (bigthink.com). Gun control laws do not help deter, and only slightly inconvenience them.
As a Gun owner, I wanted to formally write out the reasons why our country does not need more strict gun control laws. I put many ideas together and i feel that it would be best for our country to not have any more laws because not only do they take away the citizens rights to own guns, they also prevent citizens from protecting themselves and they won't stop criminals from getting guns. Laws that restrict gun ownership do nothing to stop someone from getting a gun if they have already decided to shoot someone. According to John Lott from the article “Gun Control Misfires In Europe” in the Wall Street Journal, “The problem with gun control laws is that they take away the guns from law abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them.”