Gun Control
Introduction
In the whole of the United States of America, severe debate on gun control has assumed two distinct and unique routes: the legal as well as criminological routes. Criminologists have posed questions regarding whether the several gun controls rules will minimize crime and other improper use of gun, or whether limiting gun control legislation will deny harmless victims of an effective way of self-defense. Legal researchers on gun control have researched on whether the freedom to firearms assurance within the federal structure as well as majority of state constitutional structures present legitimate obstructions to limits or firearm confiscation. The paper examines the issue of gun control in a unique way; to look deeper into the ideological structures of the United States gun control discussion. The legal and criminological viewpoints seem to examine guns rationally. Meaning that they examine the harms and advantages (of course factoring in legal aspects) of individuals owning objects which can fire a bullet. It is a fact that significant value of guns (bad or good) entirely depends on their physical features. Based on this the gun in the United States of America is correctly recognized from the angle of practicality, meaning that that the most crucial characteristics of the firearm is its tangible physical features: as a gun can fire a projectile towards an assailant from a distance, making it possible for small bodied individuals to
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
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.
America needs to institute, and initiate gun control laws throughout the entire nation. But not everybody who inhabits the United States believes in regulating arms. Those who are against establishing gun laws argue that gun control directly infringes upon their “right to bear arms” granted to them by the 2nd Amendment. Anti gun control supporters, such as the National Rifle Association, often claim that the act of regulating guns is a sufficient reason why such an Amendment was introduced in the constitution; to protect themselves from any and all forms of violation of civil liberties and freedom. Supporters of anti gun laws are unwilling to welcome any interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that do not match up “word for word,” as was written in the Bill of Rights.
The issue at hand has been the focus of news, social and political debate in the recent years. Gun control refers to the attempt by government to regulate the right to keep and bear arms based on a preconceived criterion. This debate has been due to prominent cases of mass gun violence, especially against civilians and children. Gun violence affects every American citizen. About 40% of all Americans carry or own licensed guns. This gives value to the issue and its implication on society. There has been an equal uproar on both sides of the debate. The issue at hand is the addition of measures to
The article “Gun Control Laws: Should the United States adopt stronger gun control laws?” focuses on the debate on passing stricter gun control laws. For example, supporters believe that gun control laws will decrease mass shootings and gun violence. Additionally, adopting these laws does not violate the Second Amendment, and as a result it does not limit the government from the use of fire arms when it is necessary. However, opponents argue that the gun control laws will not stop gun violence. The problem is the people holding the gun and not the gun itself. Furthermore, opponents gathered that stronger gun control laws do violate the Second Amendment. The author illustrates the debate on whether the United States should or should not adopt stronger gun control laws.
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.
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
This is not to say that the issue cannot be argued from a legal standpoint. In the past few years, as class-action lawsuits have become more prevalent, some lawsuits have been brought against gun manufacturers on the grounds that they produce and distribute a dangerous product. In some cases, juries decided for the plaintiffs, and thus set precedent for more anti-gun suits. This hardly sets an actual legal precedent against the legality of guns themselves. In fact, US v. Emerson, a case resolved just last Spring, a federal appeals judge upheld under the Second Amendment the right to own/possess
This paper discusses and is centered around the on-going debate over gun control, I directly address how each major political party views this subject and what I believe the United States Government should do to be able to best combat this tremendous issue. I use research from multiple sources that contrast each side of the argument and give an overall insight into the world of modernized gun control.
The matter of gun control has become an increasingly controversial issue. Whenever, a nationalized tragedy ensues that involves gun violence, the question on what to accomplish regarding America’s gun control takes center stage. While exploring this topic, this essay will attempt to discuss the circumstances that prohibit a person from possessing firearms, also regulations to prevent these persons from possessing firearms. Upon reflecting on the personal side of the gun control debate, stricter gun control begins to infringe upon our rights, as citizens and they should concentrate on enforcing the current laws in the books, instead of making additional laws.
“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.” These are the famous words drafted by the founding fathers into the Bill of Rights. This particular amendment has since then been a major part of American culture. Through the second amendment it has given American citizens freedom to buy firearms of any sort: AR-15s, AK-47s, handguns, and the like for self-defense. However, in light of the most recent mass shootings, people have felt that it is time to change if not regulate the freedom the second amendment grants. That is to say that some believe that there needs to be a solution to reduce if not end the gun violence in America by regulating and restricting the access to weapons meant for the police and military by American civilians. Ultimately, the solution to this social problem of gun violence in America is gun control. What is gun control exactly? From an extreme conservative's perspective, gun control is a means of disarming the public and infringing the right the second amendment grants Americans. What this point of view fails to take into account is that gun control is not about infringing on any right or disarming American civilians. It is about restricting the access and sales of deadly firearms to potential felons who have the capability of using them to commit mass murder. Furthermore, what some do not realize is that the second amendment was written in
Whether you gather your information from the newspaper, radio, or a website, you have certainly been exposed to one of the most controversial, current debates. It seems that the media refuses to stop talking about this topic. In fact, as soon as the press over one event disappears another event seems to revive the debate. Some citizens say that we need more restrictive gun laws. Meanwhile, other Americans say that more guns are what is necessary. It’s impossible to know what the right answer is. However, we can investigate surrounding factors of the matter in order to gain a clearer understanding of the controversy. That being said, I will explain
The continuing Mass Shootings in the United States has caused the gun control debate to intensify. While anti-gun control advocates say the Second Amendment guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, the pro-gun control group reads the Second Amendment as a collective right to bear arms; meaning organized militia are the only ones with that right. This essay will analyse the effectiveness of several different articles which present arguments for and against gun control.
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
Gun control has a history dating back to 1791, when the Second Amendment of the Constitution was ratified. However, more recently, the debate over gun control has escalated into a much more public issue to which many citizens can relate. After all, stories about incidents involving guns appear frequently today in newspapers and on television or the radio. One could say that the debate started with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned ownership of guns by certain groups of people and regulated the sale of guns. Since then, two main groups have gradually appeared: people who oppose strict federal