Does Obama Really Want to Take Our Guns?

Gun control in America is one of the most fiercely debated topics in today’s political sphere. Nearly everyone has an opinion and there is a mind-boggling amount of information typically discussed regarding the matter. Media hot takes and campaign talking points aside, far too many lives have been lost to gun violence. A total of 12,902 in 2016, to be exact. The fact that more lives have been lost to gun violence in the United States this year than the 5,000 lost in the almost 10-year war effort overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan is appalling. Is sensible and reasonable gun control progress attainable in our near future? That remains to be seen, however it is my intention to respectfully dissect an argument presented by none other than an essay

Gun control is a very controversial topic that has has a huge impact on the United States of America. One side believes that if guns were taken away as a whole, the country would see significantly less gun related crimes and death, while the other opposing side thinks that taking away guns is not only against the Second Amendment but would lead to an increase in crime and death because the government would take guns away from people who are legally registered to own and conceal guns. The ongoing debate will continue until the foreseeable future but their are plenty of reasons why more gun laws should be made. Taking away guns is not the answer, learning how to deal with gun violence is the key.

Imagine going to school where instead of worrying about a grade you got on a test, you have to worry about your school being the next victim of a mass shooting. The Second Amendment 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” (United States Constitution), and yet instead of some people using their guns for self defense, they use it for mass shootings. Some argue that we already have gun control laws that don’t work, but others say if we had better gun laws than it would work. The debate on gun control started in November 22, 1963, when evidence in the assassination of president John F. Kennedy increased public awareness

Statistical analysis about states in the U.S. proves the correlation between strict gun control policies and deaths related to firearms to the least extent. According to an article published by Richard Florida on CityLab, a research shows that states with stricter gun control have fewer gun-related fatalities. The study in the article was conducted by researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard School of Public Health. Researchers measured “legislative strength” of gun control policies in each state using data from Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Specifically, the elements that the researchers include when accounting for “legislative strength” are:

The right to bear and keep arms comes from the Second Amendment adopted in 1791. There has been many shootings in U.S. history. One of the most frequent being the Las Vegas shooting killing 59 people and injuring 241. The deadliest shooting in modern U.S. Before that was the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, only 10 years ago. The second deadliest modern shooting was only a year ago being the Orlando nightclub. Which scares me for what could happen in the future. People who are mentally ill are able to get guns when they should not. The CDC states that guns are responsible for 33,000 deaths a year in the U.S. with ⅔’s being suicides. For a bigger perspective how shootings are a problem here, it is shown that the U.S. is responsible for 31% of public mass shootings. Our homicide rate is ⅙ of Canada’s. These statistics should raise our concern on what type of people own gun and push for stricter regulations.

Gun ownership is embedded in the fabric of America. The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world with 88 guns per 100 people. This is a staggering amount of firearms in the U.S. which our forefathers would 've never imagined when writing the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment 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.” Not everyone interprets this right the same way. Regulating and restricting the use of these firearms brings up opposing sentiments from those in favor of gun control and those who oppose

Gun control has been a long debate to determine if it’s better to have stricter access to firearms. America is one of the few countries that has gun rights embedded in their constitution. But what makes the US exceptional is that it has the right to keep and bear arms, other countries do not provide the right to have access to them, but rather, the government is allowed to regulate its use. The right to bear arms has also been the cause of growing violence and crime, at least according to anti-gun lobbyists. Citizens should be aware the dangers and harm that guns present to society. Controlling the sale of firearms can greatly decrease the number of violent crimes.

Eighty-nine people depart from this earth due to gun violence in the US every day. From school children, to victims of domestic violence, to people going about their daily lives, this status quo is unacceptable. On Tuesday January 5th, 2016 President Obama announced that he would send proposals on reducing gun violence in America to Congress. His spokesman, Jay Carney, mentioned that this is “a complex problem that will require a complex solution.” The ability to own a gun is considered by some a birthright of Americans. However, with crime rates involving handguns rising each day it has become quite clear. Handgun laws must become stricter in order to reduce homicide and crime. The question is, “which solution in most effective in decreasing gun violence?” Gun control is a major conflict that is constantly reoccurring and the US is seemingly divided over it.

Gun control is one of the most controversial issues talked about in today’s society. Some people believe that if we take guns away from civilians then there will be less violence in the county. Others think that it is our right to bear arms. President Obama is trying to pass laws to enforce stricter gun laws, because he believes that one of the biggest problems in American is that too many people are able to have guns.

Without a doubt on of the most morally debated topics currently within our society is the topic of gun control. Mass shooting has been running rampant within our communities and gun violence in the United States is at an all time high. At page value there should not be a debate on the topic. The easy solution is to legally restrict the ownership of guns from all citizens. However, the way our constitution was developed the people of the United States have the right to bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right. Many believe that the removal of guns from private citizens would leave them vulnerable to those who do not follow laws. The right to bear arms is simply about protection and should not be tampered with. Since

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.

During the presidential campaign in 2007 president Barrack Obama in his speech said that ‘we know what to do, we’ve got to enforce laws that are in the book’ in his speeches, he alluded to the fact that we are not doing enough to enforce the already existing laws and this is exactly what in all these many words I have been trying to put forward. Implementation is in many ways a political function. In, effort to reduce gun violence without stricter gun control, our federal government needs to take the responsibility in enforcing the current laws. The justice departments need to be proactive with prosecutions especially with cases of falsification of background information for example in 2009 FBI reported 77,000 falsifications but only 77 or 1% were prosecuted. Congress also needs to approve enough funding for national instant criminal background check system (NCIS) and also states should be encouraged to provide more information regarding background information. The issue of straw man purchases should be well investigated and properly penalized. Organizations like the NRA and the community, who value gun ownership, needs to put the pressure on the federal government. In doing this, citizens have the right to file petitions to the state legislature, or place a ballet to be voted upon by voters, or just voting for those who have the power to make changes. In taking these actions, we can see that Congress will provide more funding, like grants for our current background check

Guns have been around for a very long time. People love being able to have the freedom to do what they want, especially when they can possess something that make them feel superior. The introduction of the Second Amendment opens up the controversial, yet well anticipated opportunity for United State citizens to be able to own guns. Americans enjoy the benefit of being able to own guns for decades over people in other countries. People can buy guns and carry them around in public. They own guns for many reasons such as to hunt, to protect themselves, and simply to satisfy their desire of owning a gun, but in recent years, the issue of people carry guns has become a problem. There are so many people get killed by guns in different parts of

“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 right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American

When President Obama announced his new plan for preventing gun violence in January 2016, it included no fewer than twenty-three “executive actions,” in addition to a series of legislative proposals. The message was clear, in the face of congressional tension on gun control and much more. Obama will push changes through the executive branch that he believes to be for the good of the country. “Congress too must act, and Congress must act soon,” Obama said, while making it clear that the White House will not wait for the GOP controlled House.