Arguments Against Guns

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.

The problem with statements like the above is that people are forgetting about the black market. If a person is planning on buying a handgun for criminal purposes, he is not likely to buy it through a dealer. If he buys a gun through a dealer, the gun has to be registered in that person’s name. If the gun is used in any crime or murder where a shot is fired and the gun is left behind, the police could very easily trace the gun to that person.

Jill Silos-Rooney’s current professional associations include Bethel Woods Center for the Arts., MassBay Community College, and Oxford University Press. She begins her article, “The Top 3 Liberal Arguments for Gun Control”, with an anecdote about a nine-year-old girl who accidentally killed her gun instructor with an Uzi and proceeds to list off two counterarguments and rebuttals and three assertions for gun control in her Thought Co. article, covering what she believes the best arguments for said gun control are. Her strongest pieces of evidence that support her central claim that “America Needs More Gun Control” (page 1) are “Australia, which has a similar frontier history to that of the United

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.

For many years there have been arguments over gun control, and if there needs to be more regulations or even ban them. I do not think that banning firearms or adding more regulations would help; if anything it would make things worse.

The issue over the interpretation of the Second Amendment still prevails as one of the most controversial issues in the United States. 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.” The question at hand is the proper definition of a “well-regulated militia” and should there be restrictions on the obtainment of lethal weapons. Ever since the year of 1960, gun violence has increased, costing an average of 30,000 deaths in the United States (Gun Violence is a Serious Problem). This astronomical amount of unnecessary deaths will continue to rise if nothing is done to stop the serious epidemic that continues to plague our

The topic of gun control in the United States is not debated enough. Every time a headline reads about an incident that happened where guns were involved, powerful politicians and everyday citizens alike turn the other way and choose to be ignorant instead of being upset about these awful current events. Clearly, with so many occurrences and deaths that are caused by gunfire, the United States needs reformation about its current gun control policies, essentially, the United States needs more gun control. It need gun control because several United States citizens take the Second Amendment too literally, and the amount of gun-related crimes, such as mass shootings, suicides, and homicides is too high.

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.

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.

Imagine a typical day in a small suburban town in southwestern Virginia. It’s around 9:00 am, and you are in your French class. Then, all of a sudden, you hear banging noises coming from outside your classroom. This is the true story of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University shooting in April 2007 as told by Colin Goddard. Goddard was shot four times by the gunman: three bullets to the hip and one bullet to the shoulder. He still carries three bullets with him today and has a titanium rod in his body. The shooter had a history of mental illnesses and should not have qualified to purchase firearms. However, due to ineffective and inefficient gun control laws, the shooter was still able to purchase weapons. The United States

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.

First, I believe that how guns are used is up to the person holding it. Guns can't do anything by themselves, it is the person who has the gun that decides where it shoots. Gun control will not stop or help to prevent violence; an aggressive person does not need a gun to be violent, there are many other ways for one person to hurt another person. Taking guns away from all people will not make the violent ones less violent. It may even make them more violent than they already are. Violent people will always find a way to be violent. Taking guns away from everyone does nothing to prevent people from the possibility of being hurt, robbed, and killed by others. I believe that gun control will not last as we have already had something similar to

“The gun ownership rates in those more rural parts of the country are about 111 percent higher than the gun ownership rates in the urban areas that have the highest murder rates.” How can something intend to create order in society actually create chaos? Society is the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. Laws are provided for our own good to use as guidelines when making critical decisions and to prove justice accordingly. Unlike most legislature, these laws are made stringently to prevent or protect any signs of precariousness not protected by law enforcement. Gun laws are very important to the extent that they save, and prevent the cadaverous body. However, the overproduction of laws too soon can cause

The debate on gun control is fueled by peoples conflicting thoughts, opinions and, ideas. Between those who support gun rights, and those who argue against them, and in favor of harsher gun control laws. It has shown and proven to be one of the most argued and debated issues in our society today. Understanding the exact meaning of our 2nd amendments right plays a major role in the arguments of either side. Being that each side reads, or understands its meaning differently. I will be presenting a few arguments for both side of the debate.

Guns - for the average citizen, or just military and law enforcement, the controversy about citizens owning guns is becoming a more heated debate. Some people believe that the average citizen should not be able to own and carry firearms. However, citizens should be allowed to carry firearms because farmers and ranchers need to be able to protect their herds and livestock from coyotes and other predators. People in the city or suburbs, or even the countryside need to protect themselves from crime. The hunters of northern Montana need to hunt the deer they depend on for food over the winter. The law that has been put in place where we live is known as the NY SAFE Act. Under this new law, citizens must register their firearms and have them permanently