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. In conclusion, assault weapons should not be banned. Previous bans have not been successful,
This is very unusual, as guns in America are used to protect people, but these guns are more commonly used to kill other people. This happens in real life because the Las Vegas shooting killed almost half of ten thousand people were injured or killed. 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.
Running head: GUN VIOLENCE GUN VIOLENCE What Changes Should Be Made Cassius A. Kurns Jr Mr. Redmond Leo High School A way that we can decrease gun violence is have a stricter sale on firearms. Loopholes now exist in the background check system that make it possible for people with criminal records or mental health issues to procure guns. For instance, a gun purchased over the Internet or from a private individual at a gun show is not subject to a background check because neither instance involves licensed gun sellers. Anybody of age can go to a gun show or online to purchase any firearm. If background checks, and polygraph test, then we can decrease gun violence.
In 2014 there was a 23% incline from women that concealed handguns made them feel safe. Now the reason because of that incline with women is that women are a bigger target for rapists, muggers, and thieves. Now robbery and assault victims who draw a handgun in defence 55.5% of the time the criminal will flee. So if you think about it if someone draws a handgun while you're trying to rob someone your instincts with tell you to back off and run because it could be loaded, the safety could be off and you could get
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.” (“Gun 440”). What the article is saying is that if you take away the handgun of a citizen who has done no harm, and when there is a need for the protection of your family and they have no gun then they have nothing else to do but hide and hope the criminal does not find them before the police come.
Not only does the state of Florida not restrict who can buy a gun, but it is illegal for them to keep a database of all the people who own guns, according to USA today. This needs to change. There is nothing protecting the citizens of Florida from tragedies like the shooting at Majority Stoneman Douglas High School from occurring again. People need to realize that this is not an either gun or mental health issue. It is the fact that gun control laws do not stop the mentally ill from obtaining a dangerous firearm.
I think that that is wrong because it is not an assault weapon until it is used to assault something. The gun cannot be blamed for that. The bans California has include banning high capacity magazines, banning pistol grips that the thumb can be wrapped around on rifles, and handguns must be certified for sale(). California has very strict laws, but there are a lot of people who live there and many big cities. I believe their laws are a little extreme, but good for their situation.
However, some people believe you shouldn’t be able to own a gun. Thanks to our Second Amendment, we, as citizens of the United States, have the right to defend ourselves. However, it’s difficult to predict what might happen if you didn’t own a gun in that scenario. The intruder could possibly have a firearm, there is nothing stopping them since they’re already disobeying the law by breaking and entering. Chances are that there will be a negative outcome, whether it’s death or simply the loss of property.
Even if assault weapons are banned, who is to say that other weapons can’t be used to commit crimes. Handguns, revolvers, and knives are just some weapons that can be used to commit crimes. From 1994 to 2004, Congress banned the manufacture, sale, and transfer of large amounts of assault weapons. However, a study conducted by the Department of Justice in 2004 found that there was no evidence that the ban on assault weapons had any effect on crime or gun violence, and that if it were to be renewed, it would have only a small effect. Even though there are many mass shootings in the US, assault weapons are actually not even connected to a significant amount of crime in the US.
That’s ludicrous.’ Licensed dealers at gun shows are required to conduct background checks, but private sellers are not.”(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
Than maybe this massacre would have not occurred. Today anyone can walk to a gun shop and easily buy a weapon with good or bad intentions. These people who decided to commit this cruel act had bad intentions. But what about those people who can just buy it off the street. Maybe this is why guns should be banned altogether.
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.
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.
In the article, no evidence was given that the officers did not follow protocol, as they did not enter the resident’s home without permission or a warrant. Police are allowed to enter a home under the circumstances of someone resisting arrest. (www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and-police/being-arrested-and-police-custody/being-searched/) In this case, the article does not go into much about the public disturbance that John Felix committed, but usually disturbing the peace does not warrant arrest. Depending on how severe John was being a public nuisance, he could have been arrested to serve jail time. In that case, the officers would have been able to enter his home and arrest him.
There is a need for harsh gun control laws. Having a gun in your home makes it more dangerous, not safer, to live in. “A woman’s chances of being killed is increased 5 times if there is a gun present during a domestic issue.” (navajocodetalkers.org). The Second Amendment was addressing militias, not individual gun owners. Having more gun control will lessen the amount of gun-related deaths.