Argumentative Essay On Gun Control

Sandy Hook Elementary. Aurora, Colorado. San Bernardino, California. Las Vegas, Nevada. Orlando, Florida. (Words with Negative Connotation) These are just some of the biggest mass shootings that have swept America in the past few years. Hundreds of lives are lost each year to gun related violence in the United States alone. Gun control has been a topic in our country since our founding fathers adopted the second amendment to the US constitution. Although recently controversy has sparked to an all-new extent in America due to the recent spike in mass shootings and gun related homicides. So many families and loves ones are affected each year in the United States because of gun related violence and other mass killing events, because of these events gun control laws need to be revamped and strengthened in American in order to protect the citizens.

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.

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."

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 second amendment of The Constitution of the Unites States rules 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.” In recent years this has become a highlighted and popular discussion topic throughout people and media. Typical with American media the subject of gun control is visited with broad stroked of red and the use of fear tactics while completely ignoring the complicated and underling positives and negatives of public access to firearms and the benefits and risks associated with this freedom. Most people do not carry a weapon at all and may question others who do because of the moderately low risk of being a victim of a crime. Those how carry however like to think “Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.”

When tragic, major events happen in the United States, you can always expect an argument or something to unfold about how to prevent something similar from happening again. On October 1st, a man named Stephan Paddock, shot and killed 59 people including himself, while injuring an additional 546. This shooting is now considered the deadliest attack in United States history, so of course you can expect an ongoing political conversation on how to prevent attacks like this. During the attack, Paddock used what is called a “bump stock,” on many of his guns, making his guns’ rapid fire, like an automatic gun, which is what made it so easy for him to open fire and attack so many. After the tragic event, a gun control organization looked into the

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.

One mass shooting after another, Congress has yet to address gun control. Ross Douthat, a New York Times reporter, wrote his opinion about why gun control is losing, Why Gun Control Loses, and Las Vegas Might Change That. The media and organizations for gun control only focus on the mass shootings, not about the everyday shootings that happen across the country. On top of that, the public forgets the tragedy, and the people that suffered until another mass shootings happen. On the other side of coin, Robert J. Spitzer, another New York Times Reporter, addresses the same issue but, instead of Ross Douthat, he provides what the public typically does against these shootings in his article, America Used to Be Good at Gun Control What Happened? The public has the misconception that it wasn't the gun that made the shooter pull the trigger, but the evil inside him did. However, most mass shooters don’t have a lengthy criminal record; it may be little to none. This is the reality of the nation when comes to a topic that should've been debated long before Las Vegas, Pulse, and Texas. The reason why gun control is still an issue, even after all these tragedies (and ones that aren't mentioned on the news), is simple: it has become a norm to hear calamites on the news, and until the United States reaches its limit, gun control won't be addressed. So, why is gun control continues to be an issue? What can we, as Americans, do to remedy gun control issues?

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.

In recent years, gun control has been one of the most debated topics in the United States. No matter who you ask, everyone always has an opinion on firearm ownership. After every publicized mass shooting, two groups of people form: group #1 wants to ban guns from private ownership in some shape or form, and group #2 fights against them fiercely to protect the constitutional right to bear arms. More specifically, the 2nd amendment to the U.S 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.” (US Const. amend. II).

Firearms have been in American history since the birth of America, however, as time progresses, the purpose of a gun have changed along with the opinions of the people. With many crimes and murders committed with a firearm, some feel the need to implement stricter gun control laws. However, others feel that this is a violation of the second amendment’s “right to bear arms.” With major organizations forming such as the NRA to protect the rights of the second amendment, the topic of having stricter gun control laws have become a very controversial issue in the United States in recent years.

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.

In this paper regarding gun control I will be using multiple sources to help support my argument. I will be the rhetor, with the help of other reputable sources and authors. The purpose of this paper is to show why gun control is something that is very much needed in America. There needs to be gun control, however, it does not mean people need to lose their right to own a gun. The audience of this article is republican politicians in the United States Government that are in charge of creating gun control regulations. This is the main audience because these are the people who can make changes to laws and policies to create safer gun distribution. In this paper I will show how gun control, without taking away the right to own a gun, can be achieved. This will be done by using facts, statistics, and by comparing American gun polices to gun policies of other countries.

During the early history of the United States, gun regulations were a state centered issued. In 1827, Georgia was one of the first state to try to implement gun regulations by passing a bill that attempted to ban handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out (Utter, 2000). As gun technology progressed during World War One and the Thompson submachine gun was developed a change for stricter gun regulations was inevitable. The History News Network reported that, “at least 27 states enacted measures to restrict or outlaw the sale and possession of fully automatic weapons prior to 1934 (Spiltzer, 2015)”. The country understood the need to regulate fully automatic weapons but the issue would be further expounded due to the fact that

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.