Argumentative Essay On Gun Free Zone

Before I can appropriately discuss the opinion given by the US Supreme Court Justices; I feel that at first I must explain the background of what happened and the question that was brought before the justices of the US Supreme Court and the facts of the case. During this paper I will try to give some background information as well as the various opinions related to this issue. I will attempt to analyze and discuss the overall final outcome as issued by the courts in 1995.

A school's staff are our children's first and foremost defense against violent attacks. Posting "Gun Free Zone" signs has proven time and time again, that it will not stop a criminal from leaving a trail of victims. Leaving our staff untrained and unarmed ultimatley leaves all those in the school vulnerable, defenseless, and in the position to potentially be harmed, or worse, killed. Arming our teachers, prinicipals, and staff will give our children and all else in the school a chance to fight for their lives, if ever threatned.

I believe everyone should have the right to be able to keep a gun on them if they choose. If the government puts laws on guns, it's likely that less people will have a chance at protecting themselves. Also these gun laws will not prevent people from having illegal guns. Many criminals use illegal weapons so the guns can't be traced back to them. Few people

Gun free zones are a direct by-product of gun control laws. They are exactly what it sounds like, a place where guns are not allowed. Some places that fall into the category of gun free are schools, airports, post offices, court rooms, some movie theatres, and some churches. To the average American, this may not sound like such a bad idea, but when people really think about it, a “gun free zone” should really be termed a “defense-free zone”. It is a “designated area where law-abiding citizens have agreed- however reluctantly- to be defenseless” (Mike Huckabee 21).

In recent years there have been many places putting up signs saying “no guns” or “gun free zone.” These have been put up because of the belief that they make a place safer for everyone. The problem with this is that if a criminal aspires to commit a violent crime, these places make an easier target. With this being said the main idea and purpose of a gun free zone is supposed to be for safety, but in reality it makes a place more susceptible to danger from criminals.

Every citizen should be able to protect themselves, their families, and their property. If it takes a gun to do this, then by all means, we should be able to have them in our possession. If guns were taken away from the honest people, the dishonest people would find ways to get them, and without a means of protection how could we protect what is ours. What I am trying to say is if having a gun in your possession may keep someone from trying to harm us, what we have, and own, then guns do not need to be taken from us. Maybe more restrictions should be placed on purchasing guns; for example, fines put on people having guns in their possession that are not registered to them, and also fine the person the gun is registered too. Law enforcement agencies should be notified if a gun is no longer in the possession of the person it was

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." This quote by Benjamin Franklin brings up an important argument in America today. Gun-free zones are seen as a way to make the American population safer by preventing gun violence and mass shootings. Gun-control advocates want to enact these gun-free zones in many areas throughout the country. In a time where mass shootings and violent crimes seem to occur all the time, gun-free zones sound like a viable solution. The thought is, if no guns are allowed in certain areas, violence and murder could be prevented. Guns are seen as the problem, and if guns are banned in certain areas, then these areas would theoretically be safer. However, these gun-free zones violate rights of American citizens and actually do the opposite of what they were intended to do. Some of these zones are already implemented in certain cities and areas, but crime has not improved as much as people thought it would. Gun-free zones are unconstitutional and should be

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."

What cause crime? Is is an individual’s access to firearms or is it their willingness to act illegally given the opportunity? In this argumentative essay I will be discussing one of the most debated topics in the United States today, gun control. There are two extremely opposite views on this topic: the belief that guns enable crime, and the belief that guns deter crime. These polar opposites leave room for a very good discussion of what facts and truths may lie behind this topic. Throughout this essay I will be analyzing both sides of this issue.The significance of a topic such as gun control is very prevalent in today’s society. Some see it sad that we must argue over one of our supposedly deemed unalienable rights such as bearing a firearm.

No matter who you are, you have an opinion of gun control. In a poll done by the New York Post they state “Americans back stricter gun laws sixty six-thirty one percent.”(Moore, 2018). One whos is pro gun control might point out that there is more guns in circulation in America then there is living here including illegal guns. In America gun owners have no specific laws saying that they need a special permit to be selling firearms privately. What this means, is that all a person needs is a way to find a private seller and then they can buy a gun with no background check required. Another argument leading off of the last one is mental illness. Since scannings for mental illness are so rare and people don't need permits to buy or sell privately owned guns, this makes it easier for people with mental health issues to own a guns. Some of the pro gun-control advocates think making gun owners register their firearms to the state would make it a lot harder for these guns to be transferred to a person with issues. Another idea is running statewide mental illness tests. These test would be just like having to go get your license renewed except with the test it would be every two years except for the people who have reported problems. Another idea that some people have is banning all guns. There are several reasons why this wouldn’t work. A couple of

If you have ever been in a life threatening situation with no way to defend yourself, being denied access to a firearm makes the situation worse.  Many law abiding citizens that feel threatened are not able to obtain a firearm for protection.  Innocent people are dying while criminals are getting away with gun related crimes.  There can be many regulations and laws against guns, but if a person wants a gun they will find a way to get one.  The thought of criminals having guns in their possession is a scary thought, but would you want to be the one who is unarmed?  Research shows there is no direct correlation between gun control and lower crime rates; therefore, denying law abiding citizens access to weapons for protection is unfair

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.

Across the United States there have been many shootings and attacks. The most recent being in San Bernardino California where 14 innocent lives were taken. Most of these shootings are in schools, state buildings, movie theatres etc. Every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. There are ways to end these people going on killing sprees once and for all. Many law abiding citizens are experienced and comfortable with a firearm. Imagine these people being able to take their concealed weapons into places that are now “no gun zones”. This would act as a deterrent against the people who go on killing sprees. At the least, law abiding citizens

Gun control in the United States is a very controversial topic in today’s political society, leaving the nation divided into two sides with two strongly opinionated beliefs. This all started with the increase in the amount of mass shootings and an overall increase in gun violence. The two sides consist of the liberal point of view and the conservative point of view. The liberals believe that the availability of firearms to the people in the country is a major issue, and that the U.S. government is at fault for the mass shootings due to the lenient regulations on guns. In retaliation, the conservatives argue that having a gun is a God given right, that the Second Amendment of The Constitution. Although the availability of guns is seen to be

"The long, difficult history of gun control." Washington Post. 23 Dec. 2012: A8. eLibrary. Web.