An Argument In Favor Of Gun Control In The United States

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.

According to the Coalition for Gun Control, last year a total of 291 people were killed by handguns in Australia, Sweden, Great Britain, Japan, and Switzerland. In the United States more than 24,000 people will be killed by the end of this year. So what is the big difference between the U.S. and these other countries? In these other countries it nearly impossible to buy any kind of gun. In these countries there are no gun shows. In these countries you can’t buy a gun at a pawnshop or your local Wal-Mart. These countries have strict gun laws and are all about gun control. In this paper I will discus the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment, why guns are such a problem in the U.S., and why guns are more likely to kill a friend

Gun control laws should regulate production, distribution, ownership and use of firearms by civilians. Gun control laws are not intended to dispossess law abiding citizens of licensed firearms but to intervene on reckless use of firearms that cause harm to the public. Gun control should also make it difficult for criminals to access firearms. Armed civilians have in many instances deterred acts of crime from being instigated by scaring away criminals. Nonetheless, gun laws can only be described as immensely lax. This essay seeks to argue for the enactment of strict gun control laws by highlighting the dangers posed by guns in the hands of members of the public.

Over two hundred years have passed since the founding fathers of the United States of America, had created the constitution, the very document that is viewed, by many, as the milestone for what has later become the most powerful country in the world, as well as, the beacon for democracy. Having derived its values from the simple, yet intrinsic principles of liberty, the constitution has played the role of a safeguard to always ensure the freedoms of the people of America will remain intact.

Although the Second Amendment stops the federal government from entirely banning guns in America, limited restrictions are permitted on the possession and distribution of firearms. The ease of obtaining a firearm in America fosters a dangerous environment and crime. Hence, the Second Amendment should be reinterpreted so that sterner gun laws can be implemented because current background checks are flawed, gun accessibility has been abused by foreign and domestic criminals, and some

An un-armed population will have a difficult time protecting itself from criminals that clearly do not care about laws and would most likely be more successful in committing a crime if their intended victims are incapable of defending themselves. While there are numerous reasons, including social, economic and mental health, as to why criminals commit crimes, having access to guns is not one of them. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution states, "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” (U.S. Const. amend. II). Protecting the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is vital because limiting or outright denying law-abiding citizens the ability to possess firearms, which are nothing more than a tool, will cause more problems, such as higher crime rates, than it would solve.

The argument over gun control is an ongoing debate with the first big written regulation dating back to when the 2nd amendment was first written in 1791. The second amendment states that “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” (Legal Information Institute). Since then it has been fought over time and time again about what this statement truly means and what it entitles for people. The definition of gun control is “government regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns” (Merriam Webster), so by definition the meaning of gun control already violates a person’s 2nd amendment right to bear arms. However, it was ruled by the supreme court that “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” (Denniston, Lyle), meaning that there are certain things the government can do that would technically not infringe upon a persons right to bear arms because the interpretation of the 2nd amendment could has many possible meaning since our forefathers who wrote it are long since dead and can’t tell us what they really meant.

The correlation with handgun ownership and the amount of suicides every year is a highly debated subject. A majority of suicides in America were decided on impulse (less than five minutes of thought) rather than non-impulsive. With this in mind, the quickest way for a person to commit suicide is with a gun. Gun control advocates believe that having guns present in a household increases the risk of suicide. “There are at least a dozen U.S. case-control studies in the peer-reviewed literature, all of which have found that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of suicide. The increase in risk is large, typically 2 to 10 times that in homes without guns, depending on the sample population (e.g., adolescents vs. older adults) and

The Sandy Hook incident that took place in Newtown, Connecticut has caused a lot of people to rethink about the second amendment and even go on to alter it. A lot of people think that the availability of weapons for people is the reason for these shootings. It now appears that the cause that re started this entire episode which was the Sandy Hook incident will not be fixed by what the democrats are proposing as a solution will not be solved. It appears that the weapons Adam Lanza obtained from his shooting were actually his mother. Lanza's mother purchased the gun in accord with the Connecticut laws. It appears that the restrictive legislation that has been suggested for this state would still not reduce his access to them. Gun control basically refers to the various means of probation or restrictions on keeping weapons with a person. These restrictions look over not only the possession of firearms, but on the transport and use of them.

James Mallon once said that “Gun control is like the annoying family member you hate to see. No matter how much you disdain seeing them or talking to them, eventually a climatic event, family reunion, or holiday forces you to have interaction with them.” Gun control may be that elephant in the room given all the recent tragic events involving firearm use, but ignoring that elephant is no solution. Stricter gun laws, as well as other forms of gun control may be the final viable resort to ending the onslaught that are mass shootings.

Crime and guns. The two seem to go hand in hand with one another. But are the two really associated? Do guns necessarily lead to crime? And if so do laws placing restrictions on firearm ownership and use stop the crime or protect the citizens? These are the questions many citizens and lawmakers are asking themselves when setting about to create gun control laws. The debate over gun control, however, is nothing new. In 1924, Presidential Candidate, Robert La Follete said, “our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions.” Clearly this debate still goes on today and is the very reason for the formation of gun control laws.

After the continuing domestic and international acts of gun violence, either as hate crimes, revenge, or terrorist acts, the ongoing battle of gun control in our country continues to be heated and emotional. Because of fear or to use for election campaigns, citizens and politicians are aggressively voicing their opinions either for or against this debate with both rational and irrational claims.

Gun Control is a hot debate topic, where people have been divided into two different viewpoints. The majority of states has supported their colleges to carry guns in case of a mass shootout. While the majority of liberal and democratic oppose carrying guns onto school property. Some states such as Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Mississippi has already passed the law to allowed students to carry concealed weapons on campuses to protect themselves from unwanted mass shooters. It sounds good when a politician says all college students should carry concealed weapons, but will it have any effect or will it be a big mistake. The majority of people present their arguments that Gun shouldn’t be allowed in Campuses. A campus is a place where students gain knowledge it’s not a battlefield of guns or place where students fear with their classmates. This day 's people are being irrational about mass shootouts, media also has a huge responsibility on this issue, media has the power to put fears on audience lives. There are many solutions in order to fix this problem. Deploying more security could be a solution, it will also create more jobs. Simply handing guns to teachers and students won’t solve the problem of mass shot outs, not everyone is a hero among college students as well, and there might be some students or faculty member who are same likeminded as shooters. The another solution which could be effective is deploying more police officers onto

Actually, guns should be controlled because of mass shooting. Some people might forgets what happened in some cities in the United States related to weapons. A recent event is the tragedy when a man killed nine people during a prayer meeting in the African American church in Charleston. He committed the deadliest attack on a place of worship in the United States in 24 years (Horwitz, du Lac, Bever and Costa, 2015). Furthermore, in Connecticut, there was a sad tragedy when a guy shot 20 children and other people at Sandy Hook Elementary school. Before he committed this horrible atrocity, he killed his mother who had firearms in her home. That illustrate having a guns at home is harmful even just for hunting (Stoller, 2013).

The amount of gun control laws will not stop criminals from obtaining guns or committing crimes . If criminals are able to obtain drugs illegally, then they are most likely able to obtain guns illegally. Whether it's legally purchased or illegally purchased or even borrowed from a family member a criminal will go to whatever lengths to get a gun. Guns will be stolen which will lead to more crimes. A stolen gun being used in a homicide will make it harder to find out who committed the crime because the gun belongs to someone else and not the actual culprit. Guns being taken away does not affect the amount of crimes committed because there are many various other weapons that could be used instead of a gun. People who oppose guns say that high-capacity