Carlson 's Book Zeroes On The Limitations Of Carrying Guns

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

In the article “A peaceful Woman Explains Why She Carriers a Gun,” the author Linda M. Hasselstrom has a credible argument for carrying a gun. Hasselstrom has a solid ethical appeal and her argument had logic based on her many dangerous personal experiences. Although her article is credible, she uses many fallacies to make it seem that if women have a gun they can protect themselves from men.

The right to possess guns is a fundamental element to American identity. The right to own and operate guns under certain circumstances is in fact guaranteed as part of the United States Constitution. Over the course of American history and particularly in the 21st century, there exists a great debate over the possession of guns of private citizens. Both sides of the debate argue with fervor. There are those that argue fervently for the right to possess arms; they argue for guns with regard to home protection, property protection, personal security, and that it is a fundamental right as a citizen.

In the use, purchase, and selling of guns, there are consequences for the actions of those who bypass the law. One major issue is in the contrast of people’s state of mind. For example, in the article about the two school shootings, the author includes the following statement from a child: “‘Just because I have access to a gun, that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and kill somebody,’ said Cummings, who took a safety course before receiving a state hunting license. ‘Anyone who does that, they've got to be messed up in the head.’” (Kids). The people, children or adults, who come to have access to a gun and do not use it solely for self-defense or the sport of hunting, will use it for violence and have the reputation for not being in the right

It appears as though the repetitive and unfortunate tragedies of mass shootings have become incorporated into the everyday life of American culture. We are forced to live in a heightened degree of fear, skepticism, and hesitation concerning our public safety. This phenomenon could reasonably occur in response to the vast ineffectiveness of the country’s current gun laws. Time after time similar misfortunes arise, yet few major changes are implemented to prevent them from reoccurring in the future. We cannot let this trend continue any further. Though some claim that increased gun control is useless and infringes upon the Second Amendment, it limits civilians’ weapons grade, obstructs those deemed unfit to wield such lethal weapons, and insures a greater level of security, thus it should be executed.

People who appreciate activities like shooting competitions and hunting, use firearms responsibly. This use contrasts with other uses, which often result in consequences that can be both intended and unintended. With past and present mass shootings, and acts of bloodshed perpetrated with the usage of weapons; has triggered a focus on gun control that once again has been brought into the spotlight. The purpose of the ongoing gun argument addresses the crimes that are committed with guns. This issue of gun control separated people into two groups: those who believe that carrying guns might prevent some crimes and fatalities, and those who don’t. There are individuals who believe absolutely the reverse: that more crime and deaths

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which states 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”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

The question of banning or permitting concealed guns evokes many more questions. According to Lott (2013), when the state legislative hearings were processed about concealed-handgun laws, the most usual concerns involved the problem of armed citizens who may possibly attack each other in the affected state that could follow car accidents, or even may accidentally shoot a dutiful police officer. However, the author argues, the evidence does not show the grounds for such fears: although 31 states have already had such concealed-handgun laws for many decades, there was only one case of a concealed handgun used in a shooting after a traffic accident. Moreover, that incident involved self-defense (Lott, 2013, p. 13).

Throughout this paper I will be challenging the arguments of Jeff McMahan’s paper Why Gun ‘Control Is Not Enough where he concludes that the only effective form of gun ‘control’ would be for The United States to make it illegal to shoot a gun of any type. He begins this argument by citing the “central pillar” of the argument for those who are anti-gun control is that when more individuals own guns, there is a mindset that the entire population is safer. With this logic, it can be inferred that citizens feeling unsafe in the current environment of their country are those seeking protection, one way being through the purchase and ownership of a firearm. Safety is imperative part of ensuring peace of mind, which then impact the peace of the

According to the Coalition for Gun Control, last year a total of 291 people were killed by handguns in Australia, Sweden, Great Britain, Japan, and Switzerland. In the United States more than 24,000 people will be killed by the end of this year. So what is the big difference between the U.S. and these other countries? In these other countries it nearly impossible to buy any kind of gun. In these countries there are no gun shows. In these countries you can’t buy a gun at a pawnshop or your local Wal-Mart. These countries have strict gun laws and are all about gun control. In this paper I will discus the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment, why guns are such a problem in the U.S., and why guns are more likely to kill a friend

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.”

Guns are one of the most controversial and debated-upon topics in America today. In the Constitution, Americans are given “the right to bear arms,” and many Americans are proud of and believe strongly in that right. Though, that right has been constantly misused. Homicides by gun are at a higher rate in the United States than any other country in the world, mass shootings are at an all time high (many of which have occurred in the past two years alone), and terrorism has been at an all-time high. So, naturally, it is a topic that needs to be discussed. In the articles Change Your Gun Laws, America (1), author Fareed Zakaria provides the readers with some harrowing statistics on guns and insight over how the U.S. laws on guns need to be managed.

Charles W. Collier’s article, “Gun Control in America: An Autopsy Report”, dives into the controversial topic of gun ownership and gun control in the United States. He uses recent shootings, including the George Zimmerman case and the Connecticut elementary

In the United States of America the right to bear arms gave birth to a phenomenon called the “gun culture,” the term coined in 1970 by a historian Richard Hofstadter, which describes America’s heritage and affection for weapons(1). Not only did gun culture become an inseparable part of American democracy, but also it is considered to be synonymous with independence and freedom, the most important values for American society. Even though the crime rate and murder rate in the U.S. is higher than in any other developed country, U.S. citizens oppose every attempt made to pass gun control legislation(2). However, it may sound like a paradox, but the crime level in the most liberal states, when it comes to gun ownership, is the lowest in the

Many people, including the peaceful woman featured in Linda M. Hasselstrom’s essay A Peaceful Woman Explains Why She Carries a Gun, feel safer with the protection of carrying a gun. Despite the benefits of carrying a gun, the dangers of carrying a gun are numerous. Carrying guns can be dangerous in the presence of children, improper use by people out of fear or ambition may lead to tragedy, as well as the general increase of crime. The Newlines never fail to report stories where young children had gotten ahold of a gun with detrimental endings.