Argumentative Essay On Gun Control

‘“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.”’ (“Gun Control”) Due to firearms, more than 30,000 people die in America every year. Mass shootings happen frequently and people die because of the lack of laws and their security. The United States needs better gun control laws because automatic assault rifles are easy to buy, the mentally ill can purchase guns, and many die from guns each year.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "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." Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling also stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."

Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms. Approximately 270 firearms are owned by Americans scales to about 90 guns for every 100 people. Annually, the misuse of these firearms cost thousands of lives. Stricter gun control is a step into putting a halt to mass shootings. Not only should gun control keep being enacted, but the process to obtaining a gun should be stricter because it would be an immense effort to keep gun violence down and effectively save more lives.

Additionally, various credible sources have attained proven statistics that deter any misconceptions pro-gun control activists put forth, such as their most common scapegoat saying: “it was the gun” (Schmidt). This statement is distorted by the rage and helplessness experienced by every American after an act of terrorism is executed; real issues such as the “breakdown of the American family, out of wedlock births, and fatherless children” are the true complications that have led to an increase in violence and crime (Schmidt). One of the most candid statistics supporting the anti-gun control viewpoint is that "as the numbers of ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large’ magazines have soared to all-time highs, violent crime has been cut in half,” which provides a direct correlation between the number of guns owned and the amount of gun violence (“A Ban on Assault Weapons Would Not Reduce Crime”). Furthermore, police reports and felon surveys across the country have found that "assault weapons are used in only 1%-2% of violent crimes,” depicting how insignificant the problem is compared to others, including robbery, suicide, sexual assault, abduction, and physical assault (“A Ban on Assault Weapons Would Not Reduce Crime”). After comprehending the information collected from these two facts, the transparency of the false blame on guns is blatant; unfortunately, due to the easy targeting of guns prompted by fear, the endless circle of polemics continues. Not only do assault weapons make up a miniscule part of violent crimes, but "most guns that are traced have not been used to commit violent crimes, and most guns used to commit violent crimes are never traced," making firearms extraordinarily difficult to manage in the first place (“A Ban on Assault Weapons Would Not Reduce Crime”). There is no purpose in exerting gratuitous laws restricting good samaritans’ right to bear arms. These gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns from underground black markets, nor will they prevent offenders from breaking the laws in the first place. Essentially, an increase in gun control laws would give law abiding citizens a disadvantage, and at the same time provide lawbreakers with an augmented number of opportunities to

Our second amendment clearly 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,” (amendment). But, what does that mean today? How does one start to form a way to relegated gun control when it clearly states in the Bill of Rights we have the right to bear arms? Does, the idea of every citizen of America have the right to bear arms without any control? The point of gun control is to protect the next generation of American citizens from ever having to worry about their safety. When the Bill of Rights was written down, the Founding Fathers were trying to create a better society where there was no King and people had greater freedom. For my research project I am going to focus on what people know about gun control and their point of views on how to better regulate gun control.

The current gun control policies in the United States were implemented to ban gun possession by high-risk groups. They are to restrict the sales, transfers and purchase of guns to criminals, minors and the mentally ill. The laws restrict carrying guns in public areas, enforcing laws such as weapon permits and special licensing. The laws require licensed gun owners to register the weapons before they can be legally owned or possessed. There are restrictions and bans on certain guns on certain hand guns and automatic weaponry. Finally, the gun laws both state and local require a license by the federal government to sell guns.

The issue of gun control is a fiercely debated topic in the world today, but it’s particularly prevalent in the United States. Due to the upsurge of mass shootings and gun violence, many people are questioning whether or not restrictions on gun purchases should be stricter. Despite concerns many people have, the government does have a system in place to help regulate just who can get their hands on a gun. Like every system, it could be improved. Regardless of your stance on the issue, it’s hard to argue against developing a better system for screening applicants.

We are fortunate to live in a country whose Founders valued the critical right to bear arms enough to protect it. They were able to defeat tyranny. In the end, that's what this right is about (Staff 1). The gun control controversy began when many started to die and get harmed due to gun violence. Gun control became a problem because people began questioning the 2nd amendment right, to a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Netzley 15). This was told to not be infringed. As a result of the issue, many feel gun regulations need to be tightened. There are two points of views concerning the debate on gun regulations being tightened. Even though some people believe stricter gun regulations will ensure the safety of

“Nobody’s saying this will be easy. The important things never are,” (Fagan 14). Gun control is among one of the most disputed issues in the United States. Different views collide with each other and split our nation into two sides; those who support gun control, and those who don't. The United States should implement stricter gun control laws, because: the rate of death has increased drastically, guns increase violence, and mass shootings are at an all-time high.

The debate around gun control in the United States has been growing, and for good reason. Recent tragedies involving gun violence highlight even more the need for changes in the current gun laws. There needs to be two key changes, and they can be even considered updates, that need to be enforced federally. It’s not time to start pulling guns away or limit the purchasing, but rather create better tools for the current system to do its job. The first change that needs to be implemented is federally mandated background checks that are consistent across all states. The other is having sufficient waiting periods in place before being allowed to purchase guns. Overall, federally mandated background checks and waiting periods across all states are the best ways to restrain gun violence and reduce gun homicides in the U.S. because they would prevent guns from being placed in the hands of criminals or mentally ill people, while also preventing gun-wanting people during momentary lapses of judgment to purchases firearms.

A gun is a magnet to devastating consequences. The consequences can vary from injuries which result in expensive medical bills, to death. Without a doubt, guns do not provide safety. Reason is because having a gun increases the risk of injury or death, provokes massacres, and medical bills involving guns are plunging the government's funds. Therefore, various authors present facts and statistics about cases with gun violence revealing the high number of casualties and the amount the government is spending in treating patients with gun related injuries in order to invalidate the idea that guns are safe.

Gun control is a vital necessity to the welfare of our nation. Many people out there are supporting the “anti- gun control cause” with the excuse of “self-defense”. I believe that not everyone will handle a gun for self-defense. The possession of a gun is a sign of power. One of the bigger ambitions that one has is to have power and the easier it is to obtain a gun; the faster a criminal will gain power over an innocent person. When one is in possession of a gun, that person has complete control of their actions and may act upon the weapon however the person may please even if they know that their action will cause harm to defense-less people. There are many deaths caused by guns out there that could have been stopped by controlling the

Some pro gun control activists would have you believe that all guns do is murder innocent people but there are countless stories of women using guns to stop rapists or homeowners detailing home invaders with guns. It goes without a doubt that the woman would have been raped, or the family would have been robbed, however with the ability to possess guns these such tragedies are preventable for all families. Gun control can’t touch illegal guns and gun control only disarms legal citizens, and gun control is an attack on the second amendment.

Public health is the science and structures intended to form communal, statewide and countrywide environments that encourage health, prevent illness and boost healthy activities across the whole inhabitants. Good health outcomes not only from appropriate healthcare but also from determinations to expertise and implement public strategies and programs to guard and advance the well-being of all people. Examples of public health struggles include teaching the community about better choices, avoiding disease epidemics and the spread of communicable diseases, safeguarding safe nutrition and water in populations, preparing for disaster, avoiding injury, and much more. Representatives have policy choices at their disposal that can encourage healthy activities and change circumstances whether social, financial, and ecological to increase the health of the entire inhabitants.

The United States has an endless supply of morals and rights that are heavily debated and controversial. Near the top of that seemingly never ending list is gun control. The United States has had a history of issues with gun control and limiting what kind of firepower should be allowed to the general public. As of recently, the government has tried to further limit guns due to a few mass shootings and constant issues with firearms. But with the limitations, came protest from people believing that limiting the possible weapons allowed to the public denies the second amendment and contrasts with the idea of freedom in the United States. With this cause and effect debate, it has lead to heavy controversy whether or not freedoms should be sacrificed