Any weapon can be deadly, but people want guns banned. Another example is that if there were a good guy with a gun the outcome would be different. 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.
I took that one to court and the judge threw it out. Same cop gave me a ticket for not having tail lights - after someone smashed into the back of my car and broke them. Judge threw that one out too.” Many people believe cops are constantly on a power trip and are trying to execute their authority regardless of the situation. It is not false to say that motorcycle cops undoubtedly have a very negative reputation, but why? Psychologically speaking, according to the theory of Negativity Bias, something very negative will generally have more of an impact on a person 's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but positive.
Law enforcement agents are should behave to a standard that is greater than the average civilian. Police brutality comes from an abuse of power granted to the police. Police brutality is often drawn on by overreaction in certain situations drawn on by panic. Police using excessive force in the United States is a crucial dilemma and must be stopped. The regulation of the carrying of firearms reducing the movement of guns would obviously make police officers less nervous, regardless of the color of their skin and that of their interlocutor.
Even the justice system believes, as if they shouldn’t be convicted. “The legal system doesn’t like second guessing police officers because they know the job is hard and violent and they have to keep bad guys off the streets ” ( Stinson para. 3). For a regular person convicted of a crime they are more harshly faced then police who gets a free pass. Instead of taking responsibility of the situation, they claim they did not do anything even when there is clear evidence.
Texting or calling while driving can subtract from the attention you are giving to your surrounding, and poses a serious hazard to the citizens around you. While there are ways to avoid texting and driving, there will always be some individuals who will choose to text and drive, so the only way to ensure that people do not text and drive is to put laws in place that punish folks who decide to put others in harm’s way. Cell phones and smartphones are a huge advantage in today’s society. They allow us to communicate with friends, family, coworkers, etc… This technology is normally beneficial, but there are times when you need to put your phone aside and pay attention to what is physically happening around you. One of these times is when you
So that 24% could cause deaths, crashes and injuries. All those updates and advances in aren’t in everyone’s budget and not everyone can get them or has them so suing your phone isn’t worth taking all those risks. As you now know distracted driving is a very big risk to take. Distracted driving is dangerous and leads to many deaths and all those laws are there to protect you but people just don’t follow them also all those types of distraction are equally as dangerous as just texting while driving. This topic is very controversial because not everyone agrees but all those risks you take while driving can be avoided and not using your phone while driving can save lives.
Everyone has seen the consequences of breaking the law, whether it is in real life or on television, people are aware of what happens after illegal acts are committed. People like to believe that they do not have the potential to deviate from the law, but the truth is everyone possesses that potential. Travis Hirschi categorized that potential as he developed his social control theory. Instead of asking why people committed crimes, he asked why they do not commit them. He took previous ideas conjured by philosophers of the past and put forth a new theory that would change the world of criminology today.
The sheer ruthlessness of the punishments discourage any sort of crime as they will scare the citizens into never breaking the law in fear of the consequences. The document “Crime and Punishment in the Elizabethan Era” also points out that the law was flexible and could be applied differently based on the situation. When a person was convicted of treason, they were not always executed immediately. Some were inhumanely tortured for more information to see if they were working with others, despite the obvious lack of morality in doing this, it worked. However, on the other hand, the Elizabethan Law did have at least some moral sense to it as people some were spared from torture, and even execution in certain circumstances.
This is different than lawbreaking because lawbreakers try to escape punishment and they can be violent. Civil disobedience is nonviolent and they don’t escape custody or sometimes death. Civil disobedience is a good method of getting rid of unconstitutional laws because it attracts attention and it is nonviolent. One reason that civil disobedience is a justifiable way to change unconstitutional laws is because it attracts attention in the public face. A popular sit-in was the Greensboro sit-in.
After a moment of thinking, he then decides to stop his car. In the case of obedience, if that someone he sees is a police officer, then he will have no choice besides to stop his car. To demonstrate how this can affect the society, blind obedience will be an example. A person of authority can command a group of persons to do bad deeds only for the sake of his or her own benefit. Sometimes or even almost most of the time, people follow the authorities without ever evaluating the actions and plus with the words of promises that are given by the authority, promises that they will benefit from their actions though it can hurt or the deed itself are really morally wrong.
He would rather keep breaking the law by hiding books so that way he could be different. This book is great description and example of how things are set up and going now a days. Our society focuses too much on making things fair and equal and not allowing people to be them own selves. Burning books takes away people 's right, their happiness, and knowledge. Ray Bradbury does a really good job of relating things from that day in time to now.
Should the right to bears arms be more restricted? The governments primary role is to protect the right 's of law abiding citizens, so when did restricting those rights become so popular? The school and mass shooting 's that have plagued our country over the recent years have been the result of mentally disturbed criminals. The fundamental problem with gun bans or further restricting gun rights is that it only works on citizens that are already predisposed to obey the law in the first place. Criminals, which by definition have no regard for the law, will not be phased by the governments restrictions with such laws.
It is hard to tell but the biggest problem in society to day is the use of “self defense” and violence by police officers. According to the Catechism, “armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations.” This is true but sometimes, police officers use violence because of racism or just because. Another part that challenges people to question the morality of our society is the “just war” doctrine. The outlined circumstances of just war are reasonable. What happens when we just go to war for a non-just reason.
I think a criminal is a criminal whether they have a gun or not. They would both break the law so why wouldn’t they break the law to carry a gun. So I also wonder most of the time criminals don’t seem to fight other criminals but instead the law abiding citizens. Is that because they know the normal citizen is not packing and that the other
He wants the people to notice and realize injustice the law is. However, there is nothing wrong with fighting against something that feels unjust, but fighting sometimes may lead to destruction within the public. The law shouldn’t be based off of just the people’s opinions but also what the government think is best. It’s acceptable to do what is right but many are afraid to stand up to the the government due to the fact that they have more power. Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face.