Gun violence seems to be all we hear about these days. The amount and force of weapons available today is much more than we ever foresaw. With the mass shootings and increasing street violence, one could come to the conclusion that gun laws should be stricter, or guns should be outlawed completely. However, would harsher gun laws really work, or would criminals find more ways to get around them? The National Rifle Association has a slogan stating that “Guns don’t kill, people do.” (Gun Control: opposing viewpoints, 1998) If a person owns a gun, they have sole responsibility for their weapon.
No legislation in this country has called on a ban on all guns, instead it has tried to prevent certain people with a troubled past from obtaining guns. We need gun-control in this country for reasons that should be obvious. How many innocent people must die before we realize that we have a problem with guns in this country? Tragedies such as that in Newtown, Orlando, Aurora, etc. should make it clear that we need gun control reform.
The gun control crisis in America Since the second amendment states that citizens have the right to bear arms guns should be more accessible to citizens, restrictions relaxed in the process of buying the firearm, and there should be no more new gun laws drafted. The second amendment protects our rights to carry and possess a firearm. The current laws with in our country have put more restrictions on Guns and have made them harder to obtain. These new laws violate our constitutional rights as US citizens and are taking guns away from the people who want to use them correctly and without confrontation. It has also made it more difficult to defend yourself against another person with a gun.
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.
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.
If anything, in the current political climate we are in today, there would be much more social pressure for one not to own a gun than there would be to continue owning one. The stigma around guns still exists today that one only wants a gun to show off and go hunting and promote one's “toxic masculinity” as the article so gracefully puts. Nonetheless, the rhetorical questions the rhetor uses would be effective to someone on the more liberal side of the aisle to continue and promote their specific ideology about who uses guns and
If we would get rid of guns, that would trigger a whole new battle of crime to worry about. We would have to worry about the rape crime going up if Americans weren’t allowed to have guns. Today the world is not safe against anything, why take away the source of keeping this world semi safe. Our 2nd amendment wasn’t used for just the military. “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.” I get were the critics think that the word militia means military, but that’s simply not true.
I did not think so. Why not allow teachers to carry guns if they 're able to? 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 specialized handlers training for those teachers that do carry, background checking on the individual applying for the concealed carry license, and the schools are limiting the number of teachers with guns. Some people need to realize that the effect of teachers’ carrying handguns could have a positive influence on the environment and
The people that oppose guns do not understand the facts. Gun control laws are very strict. There are only certain guns that are legal. The places that are generally under attack are gun free zones. The criminals and psychos know where they can do the most harm.
Choosing to remove our weapons will only make our America a more hostile environment to live. Taking away that freedom would infuriate a large number of our population, and keeping those individuals peaceful would be a chore in itself. Johnson, Fawn. "Why Gun Control Can’t Eliminate Gun Violence." 18 Sept. 2013.
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.
Guns should not be allowed to be purchased if they are meant to kill. A New York Times editorial shed light on this crazy discovery, “It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency” (End). The worst part about guns and the violence they bring, is they are happening in everyday lives. Guns problems are happening in schools, workplaces, and even in homes. Because of the easy accessibility of guns, people are able to bring them into, what should be, “safe” places, and use them in a violent manner.
He argues that America is in need of more laws in order to ensure gun safety is honest and correct. For example, a lot of innocent people have died by consequence of unregulated gun possession, and more enforcement should lower events like these. However, his analogy to terrorism in this argument is not really stable. Firstly, because he compares mass shootings to terrorism, it makes it seem as if they are not far apart. However, terrorism is when people not from the U.S. try to harm American residents for the sole reason that they are American.