Growing Up In Jamaica

The public has programmed many to perceive those with mental illnesses as more dangerous. According to the New Yorker, a study done in 2013 showcased that forty-six percent of respondents believe that people suffering from a mental illness pose a greater danger to society than those without. Furthermore, two recent Gallup polls, from 2011 and 2013, demonstrated that more people believe that mass shootings transpire because of a failure in the mental health system, not due to the easy access of guns. In the cases of Sandy Hook, Marysville-Pilchuck, Virginia Tech, and more, teachers, students, parents, and most importantly, the public, automatically assumed only insanity could cause the performance of those acts. Of course, mental illness can play an immense factor in a person’s likelihood to commit violent acts, but pinpointing it as the paramount reason for them should not happen. After lengthy analyses of data that discusses the correlation of gun violence and mental disorders, Jeffrey Swanson, a medical sociologist and professor of psychiatry at Duke University concluded that mental illness became a risk factor for gun violence in four percent of cases. Although the presented facts disclose the almost non-existent connection between mental illness and gun violence, many continue believing the opposite.

Even if a mentally ill person is banned from buying a gun, there is still another means for them to obtain one. The Times Editorial Board (2016) backed themselves by typing, “The gunman who shot and killed five people in Santa Monica three years ago was banned from owning a gun, so he bought the parts and made his own.” (p. 2). Marcotte (2015) brought up the fact that, “There are as many guns as people in this country, and fully a third of people are armed. Even when shootings happen in gun-happy places, where armed people are sure to be nearby, this vigilante scenario simply doesn't work.” (p. 2). Although there are so many guns in America, mass shootings still happen and are not easily preventable because not everyone arms themselves. Marcotte (2015) also later reports, “A lot of Americans who struggle with mental health are undiagnosed, though, and putting them on a government list that restricts their rights is not a great inducement to get a diagnosis.” (p.

United States is a country that has problems with gun control, and this issue has many debates between whether or not people should be allowed to carry a gun on them. This free county not only for speech and religion, but also allows people to have the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment of the United States was written by our Founding Fathers,“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” (Government). The main purpose of the Second Amendment when our Founding Fathers wrote this amendment was to help the American citizens to defend themselves from the government at that time, and other countries from invading their properties. However,

Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being

The second 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.” (Cornell Law) For over fifty years, the amendment has been interpreted to the courts that people individually do not have the right to own gun, but rather that this right is to be regulated by legislatives on the federal,

Gun control has been a continued issue amongst politicians and civilians in the United States. The U.S. has a homicide rate twenty-five times the average of any other developed country in the world. Specifically, mass shootings have been in the limelight as of late due to the deadliest Las Vegas, Nevada shooting, along with Orlando, Florida, and Newtown, Connecticut being in the recent past. Aim has been set on the mentally ill for these mass shooting, and our gun control laws because of this. America agrees gun laws need to be strengthened, but how to do so is the problem ahead. The target should not be on the mentally ill due to their miniscule effect on gun violence.

The second amendment of the United States 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” (Constitution). This has started a huge debate on whether or not this should be true. On one hand people believe that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" make an individual right in constitution. Under this theory the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. Gun control is considered unconstitutional by many American citizens, as it should be. Gun control is laws or

The 2nd Amendment clearly states that everyone has the right to own guns and that right should not be infringed upon. Some people believe that we should take the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution because of the recent shootings within schools across the country. We believe that it is important for people to be able to own guns and protect themselves from criminals. Even if guns were banned from being used by civilians, criminals would still be able to get them and use them in a harmful way. We believe that while guns have been used in harmful ways towards other human beings, they are necessary for the protection of citizens. A way to regulate guns would be to decide what guns specifically could be used (such as smaller handguns), who could

The right to bear arms is interpreted different among two groups: gun advocates and gun control advocates. Gun advocates believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees their right to gun ownership, and any legislative body who tries to prohibit such would be in direct violation of this amendment. On the other hand, gun control interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that legislative bodies should be able to prohibit citizens from owning or purchasing firearms and the right to bear arms applied only when the use of militias was relevant. “Time and again, the pro- and anti-gun factions of American society have appealed to the Supreme Court, the last judge of the law, for a resolution of their differences.” (). Also, the Supreme Court, along with local governments, have interpreted the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has stated citizens did not have the inherent right to bear arms, a total ban on a type of firearms was unconstitutional, and the regulation of individual firearms and restriction of firearm privileges on criminals, handicapped, and mentally disabled were subjected to the State. “The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, … and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,”().

Through the years there has been an ongoing discussion on the Second Amendment and how it should be clarified. The issues that are being discussed is whether the government have has the right to manage guns. There are possibly two sides to this Second Amendment debate, where one is the collective side, which that the right was given only for collective ambitions. The collective side is in more favor since it has stricter gun control laws, that being said the government feels that having stricter laws on guns would lower the number of crimes that are committed with guns which would help save thousands of lives. Meanwhile gun control laws may subtract the criminals’ access to purchase or obtain firearms, in addition, the same law would limit

In recent years, the topic of gun control has become an increasing heated debate. Some think that the second amendment does not grant people with the right to bear certain guns. Others argue that under the second amendment, the right to bear arms involves all guns and that their right should not be infringed on by the federal government. Issues surrounding the interpretation of the Second Amendment has been involved in many Supreme Court cases throughout the years of the United States of America.

Gun control is one of the most talked about topics in modern day America. 43 of 50 states have the right to bear arms. Most states have to background check you in order for you to purchase or sell guns. Some other states prevent carrying guns and some other ban assault rifle weapons. People who support the gun laws say that the second amendment was meant for militias and that gun restrictions have always existed. People who oppose that say that guns are needed for self-defense from people who invade houses or are actual threats. Although both of those are correct, there will always be two sides for control laws.

Over the past few decades, many researches have strived to test and explain the correlation between violence and crime and mental illness. Moore and Hiday (2006) assert that up 22% of inmates has a mental illness, sometimes containing more mental illness patients than many psychiatric units. Due to these statistics it is evident how important it is to understand the causes of the correlations between crime and violence and mental disorders. This proposal wishes to explain and understand the possible correlation and the reasons for such correlation between mental health illnesses and violence and crime. Further research to test

Living a life in America, we all get to have all the rights that included in the Constitution. One of those was the Second Amendment which is the rights to bear arm, the purpose was to protect ourselves from danger but nowadays a lot of people have take advantage of it and use it in the wrong way. I believe our government need to have a strict limit on guns possession.

Everyone has a different opinion about the issue and what should be done to solve the problem, no matter what is done the main question is would restricting the ownership of firearms be a violation of our 2nd Amendment? Our rights are in place to protect our freedoms, but when is it permissible to infringe upon those rights for the protection of the common good? The standard which is in place simply states, that your rights are in place until exercising your rights violates other rights or places others in danger. Meaning that I have the freedom of speech but that does not allow me to yell fire in a movie theater because it would endanger the common good. So now that we understand that one person’s freedoms stop where another’s starts, the question is does owning a gun infringe upon other’s rights?