Eliminate Murder Insurance Essay

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

On average, there is a shooting throughout the country where the victim was left defenseless each day. even with strict gun control laws set in by the federal government, many Americans still have faith in our second amendment. Gun control is proven ineffective, According to Richard Epstein of the New york University of Law, “We can confidently predict that crime will go up unless and until there is a vast expansion of the public police force.” (Epstein 1). While gun control law are in place there are still too many guns for the federal government to keep track of within the country, Richard Epstein states that “upwards of 200 million firearms of all descriptions are available for general use in the United States.” (Epstein 2). With recent

Only this month, 59 were killed and over 500 people were injured during a country music concert in Vegas in what is now known as the deadliest mass shooting in American history. Last year, 49 were killed and 58 were injured in a gay nightclub in Florida. In 2012, a mass shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School took 27 lives, 20 of them being first graders. The list of these unthinkable and stomach-churning acts is quickly turning endless, forcing us to rethink why we truly have the right to bear arms. Many defend the second amendment by claiming we need this right for self defense, which is the most wretched part.When we look at what we have lost compared to what we have earned in this fight to keep the right to bear arms, this privilege does not seem worth the sacrifice of so many lives. In today’s world, we do not defense through guns but from them. Our policymakers keep trying to reach a compromise by putting in place certain regulations. “Some states require would-be gun owners to fulfill a firearms safety course in order to obtain their license.” “Such training courses, however, even when not required, are very advisable for the would-be gun owner, as they ensure that he or she has all the necessary information on liability issues, on safety, and even on care and maintenance of the gun” ( How to Get a Gun License 1). This lack of attention illustrates that despite the multiple tragedies that have taken place in our nation, some states do not even require a simple safety course that ensures the safety of our people. Furthermore, it is required that one must pass a background check. The questions asked on the test are the following:

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.

Laws regulating the use of guns in America have been a hot topic for years. Media coverage of mass shootings, acts of terrorism in and outside of the United States, and stories of families being murdered in the night has resulted in a desensitized, or perhaps, overly sensitized nation. People are scared and have centered their idea of safety on one of two main approaches: creating stricter gun laws so less crime occurs, or taking away gun restrictions so everyone can protect themselves against crime. Policies stemming from these vantage points begin by the agenda set by pertinent support and opposition groups, reflecting these approaches.

​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

Another article looks at the Tucson shooting where six individuals were killed as an example (Kaveny, 2016). While the author agrees that the constitution protects the rights of gun owners, she makes the argument that semiautomatic weapons were not what the founding fathers had in mind though and that these type of weapons should not be allowed to be owned by the public (Kaveny, 2016). The author also believes that it would be beneficial to have to obtain a license to own firearms and to purchase insurance for possible damages along with further funding for mental health patients to help keep these mass shootings from happening again (Kaveny, 2016).

The debate over stricter gun laws has been ongoing in the United States for quite some time now. Individuals who oppose stricter gun control laws argue that the second amendment to the constitution of the United States constitute part of the bill of rights that protect the right of American citizens to bear arms, and any attempt to set up laws for gun control will be a direct violation of this (Hofstadter 10). They argue that the primary purpose of the amendment was to ensure that American Citizens had the capability to protect themselves against criminal activities and defend the country against external aggression. From a personal perspective, the recent surge in instances of gun violence in the United States of America indicates that stricter gun control laws are necessary for the safety of the American citizenry. Thus, this paper is going to focus on highlighting the benefits of more stringent gun control laws and why members of the public should support it.

In America, the average amount of people shot per year is 100,000; over ten thousand defenseless people are murdered. The Second Amendment’s proclamation 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” has been an extensive topic of debate. Moreover, the amendment has been one of many debates over the several years throughout America. The discussion of gun control is often debated as to whether or not it is morally right to legally bypass the Second Amendment to avoid unlawful uses of arms. The Second Amendment allows citizens to carry firearms specifically for protection, gun control hinders that right and places civilians’ lives in danger. In short, the U.S. government’s intrusive restrictions on gun laws prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves with firearms.

The debate over gun control has been raging through the American political systems for years. On one side, there is the National Rifle Association (NRA) and 2nd Amendment-citing citizens who use their firearms for hunting and self-defense. On the other, there is Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) and followers of the Brady Campaign who want to ban guns on the basis that they are dangerous. Both sides have strong arguments, anchored in historical precedent and statistical analysis. Anti-gun control lobbyists’ arguments include the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment, the definition of “militia” as any adult male, self-defense, the relative uselessness of permits and regulations, and court cases in favor of firearm possession. Pro-gun control activists

According to New York Congressman Major Owens: "We cannot expect to rein-in the costs of our health care system if emergency rooms are overflowing with victims of gun violence." While the 500 plus members of the Clinton health care task force considered everything from defining who is a part-time worker to estimating the number of jobs lost because of reform, little attention was paid to violence. That may soon change. Dr. David Satcher, Clinton's newly appointed director who is a part-time worker to estimating the number of jobs lost because of reform, little attention was paid to violence. (Thompson, 1993) Indeed, there are extremely high, as well as escalating costs relating to victims of gunfire. Many of these are attributed to domestic violence, and far too many are related to accidents. Members of the family cause many of these accidents, particularly children, who fool around with the 'house-gun,' and as result murder someone else, themselves, or commit serious injuries. A strong argument can and is made for further controls on the prevailing sales of guns.

The United States is home to approximately 5% of the world’s population and 31% of all mass shootings. Through these mass shootings and various other methods of gun violence, tens of thousands of people die every year. These gun-related deaths primarily originate from murder and children accidentally shooting themselves. Although those in favor of gun control tend to believe that guns should be terminated completely, the second amendment prevents lawmakers from being able to do so. Therefore, in order to combat these causes, alternative gun control solutions must be made for each one. Gun-related murders can be decreased through the use of universal background checks. Additionally, accidental shootings can be minimized through the

There is a growing crowd that believes having a law that allows individuals to carry a concealed handgun will reduce crime because the criminal is less likely to attack someone if he has to think twice whether that person is carrying a concealed handgun or not. The thought is that concealed carry laws makes you safer in your everyday life because there is less of a chance of being victimized. Although the statistics don’t bear this fact, the loudest voice sometimes gets the most attention and press coverage. New Hampshire’s state motto is “Live Free or Die.” Although the phrase came from a toast written by General John Stark, New Hampshire’s most famous soldier of the American Revolutionary War, the motto appears on the states license plates and is commonly known among the locals to mean that everyone in the state carry’s a concealed handgun, and they would rather die than to give them up. The locals believe this is why their crime rate is so low. However, being such a small state, with less urban areas and good economy, concealed carry becomes more debatable. My goal in this paper is to show that concealed carry laws don’t reduce crime or make America safer. I will also talk about laws that have been enacted all over the United States to allow gun enthusiast to carry, but the evidence doesn’t support a decrease in crime rates. To achieve this goal, I have researched several sources online, which I have documented and have cited the sources at the end of my paper.

“Yes, people pull the trigger - but guns are the instrument of death. Gun control is necessary, and delay means more death and horror.” This was written by the former New York Governor, Eliot Spitzer, just after the 2012 shooting in Oak Creek Wisconsin. Because I agree with Spitzer, I would like to affirm the resolution which states Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. For simplicity in the debate today, I would like to offer the following definitions: The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary offers that a handgun is “a small gun that you can hold and fire with one hand.” I view the phrase ‘private ownership’ as ownership by people who are not officially associated with the state. The affirmative will support the value of utilitarianism, which as defined as “the belief that the right course of action is the one that will produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.” In order to achieve my value premise, the affirmative offers the criterion of cost benefit analysis, a philosophical perspective asking us to weigh the worth of some action through the advantages and disadvantages it incurs.

With the ever-increasing amount of people on the road these days, more and more accidents occur. If you wind up involved in an accident, having an in-car camera installed will protect you from wrongful blame when you're not at fault. However, that's not the only reason for putting a dashboard camera in your car. There are several other advantages of having mini dash cams installed in our vehicles. Below I have listed a few of those advantages.