A Weapon for Self Defense

Many tragedies have occurred recently that have spurred the debate on whether or not we need tighter gun controls. On one side of the debate are the gun control supporters, who claim that the easy access to guns is the primary cause for high rates of crime plaguing the United States. On the other side are people who argue that gun laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns, since they will continue to get them illegally. Guns are used for protection when in the hands of people who obey the law. It is crucial to not hinder law-abiding citizen’s ability to possess firearms with stricter gun laws, since gun laws do not lower crime, and guns can keep people safe.

In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of

The article “Gun Control Laws: Should the United States adopt stronger gun control laws?” focuses on the debate on passing stricter gun control laws. For example, supporters believe that gun control laws will decrease mass shootings and gun violence. Additionally, adopting these laws does not violate the Second Amendment, and as a result it does not limit the government from the use of fire arms when it is necessary. However, opponents argue that the gun control laws will not stop gun violence. The problem is the people holding the gun and not the gun itself. Furthermore, opponents gathered that stronger gun control laws do violate the Second Amendment. The author illustrates the debate on whether the United States should or should not adopt stronger gun control laws.

Countless opinions have been broadcasted on national news media regarding what society ought to do about gun control. This controversial topic sparks many heated debates with people of either position reluctant to compromise. Gun supporters claim that the proposed gun laws infringe on their constitutional right to bear arms. Conversely, others believe that restricted gun access would cause gun violence to decrease. Regardless of what side one stands on, with the increase in gun violence, it is safe to say that something must be done.

America needs to institute, and initiate gun control laws throughout the entire nation. But not everybody who inhabits the United States believes in regulating arms. Those who are against establishing gun laws argue that gun control directly infringes upon their “right to bear arms” granted to them by the 2nd Amendment. Anti gun control supporters, such as the National Rifle Association, often claim that the act of regulating guns is a sufficient reason why such an Amendment was introduced in the constitution; to protect themselves from any and all forms of violation of civil liberties and freedom. Supporters of anti gun laws are unwilling to welcome any interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that do not match up “word for word,” as was written in the Bill of Rights.

People who appreciate activities like shooting competitions and hunting, use firearms responsibly. This use contrasts with other uses, which often result in consequences that can be both intended and unintended. With past and present mass shootings, and acts of bloodshed perpetrated with the usage of weapons; has triggered a focus on gun control that once again has been brought into the spotlight. The purpose of the ongoing gun argument addresses the crimes that are committed with guns. This issue of gun control separated people into two groups: those who believe that carrying guns might prevent some crimes and fatalities, and those who don’t. There are individuals who believe absolutely the reverse: that more crime and deaths

The debate over stricter gun laws has been ongoing in the United States for quite some time now. Individuals who oppose stricter gun control laws argue that the second amendment to the constitution of the United States constitute part of the bill of rights that protect the right of American citizens to bear arms, and any attempt to set up laws for gun control will be a direct violation of this (Hofstadter 10). They argue that the primary purpose of the amendment was to ensure that American Citizens had the capability to protect themselves against criminal activities and defend the country against external aggression. From a personal perspective, the recent surge in instances of gun violence in the United States of America indicates that stricter gun control laws are necessary for the safety of the American citizenry. Thus, this paper is going to focus on highlighting the benefits of more stringent gun control laws and why members of the public should support it.

The debate over gun control has been raging through the American political systems for years. On one side, there is the National Rifle Association (NRA) and 2nd Amendment-citing citizens who use their firearms for hunting and self-defense. On the other, there is Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) and followers of the Brady Campaign who want to ban guns on the basis that they are dangerous. Both sides have strong arguments, anchored in historical precedent and statistical analysis. Anti-gun control lobbyists’ arguments include the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment, the definition of “militia” as any adult male, self-defense, the relative uselessness of permits and regulations, and court cases in favor of firearm possession. Pro-gun control activists

When the state of Virginia enacted its one-gun-a-month law, specifically targeted at reducing the amount of gun trafficking, there was a significant drop in the number of out of state crime guns traced back to Virginia dealers. In twelve states where child access prevention laws were put in place and in effect for over a year, unintentional firearm deaths fell by 23 percent among children under the age of 15. Following Maryland’s adoption of a ban on “gun junk” firearm homicides dropped by 8.6 percent, a total of 40 lives saved. Finally, after the passage of the Brady Law in 1994, which required background checks to be issued prior to purchasing a firearm, aggravated assaults with a weapon dropped by 35 percent and a total of five hundred thousand people with a criminal record were legally prevented from obtaining a gun (Gun Control, 2013). According to gun control proponents, these few examples are more than enough evidence to show that sensible gun laws can and do work and that if more laws like them were put in place the results would be astonishing. In addition to sensible gun laws being put in place, gun control proponents strongly believe that closing loopholes is a key component that can reduce crime and make society safer. Gun control proponents like to point out that although some gun regulations are

" The American people are sick and fed up with what assault weapons have done. The American people have come to realize what these weapons are doing on our streets. They are saying, enough, is enough, is enough." (Gibbs, 1993) Many Americans believe that gun control should be improved and the regulations made more stringent. However, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has a most formidable lobby, and lobbing campaign, which up until this time, has presented past Presidents from initiation gun control laws.

The thought of guns and the ability to commit mass murder is a chilling one. According to the The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, “an average of more than 100,000 people are shot every year in the United States” (Just the Facts: Gun Violence in America). Gun violence in America has reached epidemic proportions, surpassing rates of gun-related violence in other developed, high-income nations by 25 percent (Preidt). There is an urgent need for tighter gun laws in America. (5) In order to put an end to the growing trend of gun violence, the United States needs stricter legislation regarding the purchase and ownership of firearms. Although most gun advocates believe that stricter gun laws would not prevent mass shootings, stricter gun

With an increase in the number of mass shootings that have occurred in the United States in the last few years the issue of gun control laws has become a prevalent topic of debate throughout American society. This debate stems from two opposing arguments over gun control. Some feel gun control laws are fair and not the contributing factor to these mass shootings, whereas, others feel that there is an urgent need for strict laws in order to end the problem of mass shootings. There are numerous pros and cons to the enforcement of stricter gun control laws but we must note a few things: stricter gun control laws would interfere with the second amendment, it is not the gun that kills it is the individual, and it is ultimately not laws that are

Guns are one of the most controversial and debated-upon topics in America today. In the Constitution, Americans are given “the right to bear arms,” and many Americans are proud of and believe strongly in that right. Though, that right has been constantly misused. Homicides by gun are at a higher rate in the United States than any other country in the world, mass shootings are at an all time high (many of which have occurred in the past two years alone), and terrorism has been at an all-time high. So, naturally, it is a topic that needs to be discussed. In the articles Change Your Gun Laws, America (1), author Fareed Zakaria provides the readers with some harrowing statistics on guns and insight over how the U.S. laws on guns need to be managed.

As the president of the NRA we understand the purpose of the National Rifles Association is to advocate for gun rights. Firearms are not the immediate cause of mass shotings. The root of the problem, however is if the common person did not have access to firearms the amount of people deceased would decrease.The paln we proposed includes strengthening gun laws such as limiting access to certain firearms. Also having a stronger background screening and application for every gun owner, even if the new owner has a gun is an implication that would benefit the cause of eliminating mass shootings, mainly in the United States.

In modern America today, the issue on gun violence and gun control is becoming a major issue in today's society. Many Americans agree owning a gun is their automatic right due to the second Amendment. There are also politicians who are in favor of background checks when purchasing a gun from commercial industries and internet sales. The topic on banning assault weapons has many politicians arguing amongst themselves as well. We should continue to fight for gun control and reduce violence without Americans losing their right to the second amendment.