Argument Against Gun Control

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.

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

The argument on firearm regulation has been a heated discussion for many years. On one side of the debate, we have people in favor placing restrictions on guns, while, on the opposite end of the spectrum, we have people fighting the regulation of guns. People in favor gun restrictions believe gun control can reduce crime ,while, the people against gun control believe having the right to bear arms is an effective crime deterrent. I believe that every law abiding citizen should be able to carry a gun and defend themselves against people who intend to harm them.Gun control laws are simply

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.

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.

Gun control has and will always be a highly debated topic in the United States. There have been several violent tragedies in the past like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School, San Bernardino, California and Aurora and Columbine, Colorado involving guns; making this topic an even more highly argued topic. A large segment of American citizens feel these incidents were a direct result of not having stricter gun laws in our country. Many are calling for our government to implement stricter gun laws to ensure that events like these never happen again. Both sides of the aisle are well represented on this topic. One side wants more restrictions on attaining and the use of guns. On the other side, many feel that stricter gun control laws are

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.

The average response time of a 911 call is 10 minutes. The response time of a .357 magnum is 1400 feet per second. The second amendment of the United States Constitution states, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.” That right is now more than ever in jeopardy and we must continue to fight for it. Gun Control does not solve our nations problem of violence.

Gun Control Gun Control has been a highly controversial issue in the United States for the past several decades. From assassinations to mass shootings, every time guns and violence come together the issue resurfaces. Should the nation act on stricter gun laws and legislation? Would new gun laws help or hinder the gun crime rate in the United States? The nation stands divided on the issue; both sides taking a firm stance as to what they believe should be done legislatively with guns. Gun control advocates state that the number ofand different types of guns in the hands of the American public is simply too great. There are an estimated two hundred and forty million guns in circulation across our nation made up of three hundred million citizens. Gun control advocates reason that more guns lead to more gun crime. They site the extremely tight gun laws in countries such as the United Kingdom and Japan and compare the gun number to gun violence ratio. The ratio in those countries is nearly one hundred times lower than that of the United States with .04 gun related deaths per one hundred thousand people compared to the United State’s 3.42 gun related deaths per one hundred thousand people. Furthermore, out of the fourteen deadliest mass shootings in the world, half of them have been committed in the United States. Even though there was a decline in gun related crimes during the 90’s, they have been on the rise since 2005. Currently, the United States ranks twelfth out of one

It was a beautiful Sunday morning of March 6, 1915 in Brunswick Georgia, where kids were outside playing and residents were strolling along the busy streets of local businesses, but the inevitable happened when a 59 year old named Monroe Phillips went into a building with an automatic shotgun and opened fire killing six people and wounding 32. 84 years later and Seniors Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold of Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado opened fire at about 11:OO a.m on April 20, 1999 on a planned attack and killed 12 students and wounded more than 20 others. Soon after the pair committed suicide in the school’s library at 12:00 p.m. A decade didn't even pass by when Adam Lanza killed his mother in her own home on December 14, 2012,

Firearms are involved in the deaths of more than 30,000 people in the U.S this year. The “Issue Overview…” by bloomberg, has a perspective of a writer on the gun issue, and “Famous Speech” by Emma Gonzalez, has an inside look on the issue of guns because she was a victim of school shooting. The article “Famous Speech…” wants to get the word out that the government should take care of the gun control issue. Then, the article “Issue Overview…”, wants to discuss the problems with gun control. There goal for both is to tell one how horrible guns can be in general. The goal for “Famous Speech...”, is to spread the word about the gun issue from a student from the Florida shooting. Then, the goal for “Issue Overview…”, is to tell one what the situation

When our fore fathers first came to this land, they were oppressed by their rulers. These wise men decided to stage a revolt against their government and start a new one, with a set of rules, laws and rights. They did not stage this massive revolt by negotiation, but with bloodshed on both sides. When the revolt was over, they then decided to make a bill stating the basic rights that every man in the country could have. One of those being the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect their families, gather food, and preserve their rights from all threats.

Gun control is a serious topic that pops up in the news time and time again. One argument that is constantly made is, “If we were to ban semi-automatic rifles, we would then begin banning shotguns, then pistols, then knives.” This argument is deductive because it forms a claim that A leads to B, B leads to C, and so on. The premises of this argument is that if semi-automatic we banned. This is bad because it spawns a situation that is purely hypothetical. It makes the claim that something will occur if something that hasn’t happened already is in place. It’s a what if situation where it isn’t and can’t be proven until is occurs. Giving the opposition no way to argue against because they can’t prove that it won’t happen, but at the same time

Security remains critical and critical to peaceful coexisting amongst the people of a specific community. Security agencies ensure that everything runs typically as peace can engage in various activities in the different walks of life without fear or intimidation of any kind. The government upholds and remains responsible for the security of its people. This lead to the establishment of relevant law enforcement agencies such as security forces for example police unit. However, some of the governments are unable to provide the security needs to all the citizens hence some of the citizens acquire gun licensing to safeguard their interests. As gun control debate remains very controversial given the different perceptions, the paper seeks addresses the argument in support and against the gun control in the United States.

In desperate times of America’s down time involving killing and murdering of our own people with our own guns, all sides of political parties have measures and proposals involving the doing of whether or not more gun control is needed or necessary. Recently film director Michael Moore has proposed to repeal the ‘ancient’ 2nd amendment. However, his proposal has missing gaps and incomplete matters that are need to be discussed. As people of Arizona, we need to take a stand against this proposal due to violation of our 2nd amendment and defend our rights. Although with all the recent shootings, we must not take the first proposal that is thrown in our way. In these times of need, we need a proposal that will guide us into a better direction on gun control where we will not question if whether or not subjects or certain problems will apply to the amendment. For example, Michael Moore explained “must get a waiver from his current wife” although issues may appear as what about women, do they not need a waiver to own a gun? Are women incapable of doing harm? So although, most mass shooting have been by men, however women are not completely innocent as Moore made them out to be, Horowitz explained “ Men and women who own guns are similar when it comes to how they see gun ownership” thus there is not much of a difference between the two and so Moore’s argument that men with guns are more dangerous is false as both genders are likely to commit crime (Horowitz). So