Gun Control : Is It The Answer?

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

respective lands, thus perhaps adopting some of their legislation will provide what is needed in

“Interview the survivors of mass shootings and you hear these phrases a lot: Gunfire, they explain, rarely sounds like what it is… Many who have lived through the terror recall thinking it was a joke. A drill. Anything except the awful truth: that they might have only a few seconds to live” (“Stop the Violence” -Brody 220). Some people say guns make us feel safer, but in reality, they cause more harm than good. Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues concluded that, “Sadly, buying a gun does not make you safer. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that bringing a gun into your home increases the chances you will be killed” (“Feeling safe” -Vyse 27). Gun violence poses a very big threat to the U.S. “The U.S. has many more guns--and gun deaths--than any other developed country. In 2014, there were more than 33,000 such deaths in this country” (“Fight Over” 12). Guns are extremely dangerous and many deaths occur due to them, including murder, suicide, and accidental deaths, so stricter gun laws and technology should be used to decrease the number of gun deaths in the U.S.

It seems like every time we hear about a violent crime involving firearms the focus is turned to gun control. This has turned the issue of gun control into a major debate in our nation. When it comes to taking a side on the issue many people decide completely on an emotional level instead of looking at the issue rationally. People think that solving violent crimes involving guns is as easy as taking away the guns. How do you go about taking guns away if that is the solution, or what will the effects be of taking guns away from people who don’t use them for crime? The lack of information on this issue leads to an unequal view on gun control and can completely distort the ability of that individual to be able to take a rational stand on the

Gun regulation has been a controversial topic since they were first established as a weapon. People for and against gun regulation provide strong arguments for their side. Gun regulation has fluctuated over time due to changes in office. Being a democracy prevents us from having consistency. As a nation we continue to change regulations on guns because of the different views our democracy allows us to have. The main aspects pose the most problems in gun control are violence, illegal sale of guns, and mental health checks.

Gun control is certainly an issue that most Americans have been exposed to. In 1989, 11,832 Americans died weapons. Members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) believe it is their constitutional right to own guns, stating that guns are not the root cause of crime in the United States. Gun control activists and members of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) argue that guns are responsible for the majority of violent crimes that take place. They want to instill many kinds of prohibitions and waiting periods in firearms, so it is almost impossible to obtain a firearm. In fact, in 1993 the Brady Law, which requires a waiting period in the purchase of firearms, was approved. Their arguments range from protecting children say that guns

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. This amendment, a part of the constitution known as the Bill of Rights, describes the protection of the right people to possess whatever arms they wish. The limits of this bill are fiercely debated among pro-gun and anti-gun supporters, as well as debates within each faction. Those who choose violence to advance their political, philosophical or theological ideals do not concern themselves with a vote tally.

In the United States, gun control laws are one of the most controversial debates currently. Regularly, there are arguments and outbreaks caused by this topic. Some people believe that gun laws should not be as strict as they are, while others believe that gun laws need to be more strict. A popular argument against more strict gun laws is that guns don’t kill people, people kill people (prospect.org). As this argument is valid, I strongly disagree with it. It is true that a gun can’t kill a person on it’s own, but the person doing the harm got their hands on a gun, slipping through the law. The fact that multiple people in a negative mental state gets their hands on a gun is unacceptable. People are getting injured constantly due to a firearm getting into the wrong hands. Gun laws need to prevent the possibility of guns getting into the wrong hands, rules need to be increased and gun control needs to become more secure.

In his article “Trust the people: the case against Gun Control.” David B. Kopel(1988) says that we should control guns by applying laws and policies that affect on the owner to reduce the crimes and violence because it is like forbidding alcohol to lowest the number of driving accidents due to drinking. The reasons that the author is talking about is banning guns to reduce crimes and enforcing gun bans.

To me, none of the other amendments in the bill of rights hold any weight without the second amendment. Truthfully there is nothing to enforce anything in the constitution without the second amendment; There is no free speech if the government holds complete control over the populace. The government has no reason to limit itself if nothing else limits what it can do, and elimination of rights and privacy are guaranteed if the government was to be given more power than the people. The system of checks and balances is irrelevant if the people are disarmed. With no reason for the government to allow citizens their freedoms, liberties and rights would quickly disappear. This can be seen in any country that has implemented gun control, some notable

America believes there is a problem with gun control, a problem that we do know the correct course of action. With laws, NRA, and groups standing on both sides of gun control, we will never see the truth. Is a good guy with a gun the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, or can we stop them with words? Would having teachers armed with a gun stop a student, or anyone from coming on school campus and open fire? Should Americans change the law on gun control? So many questions on gun control, but no one right answer.

Guns have been apart of the human race for centuries now. They provide a means of survival and furthermore, protection. Though, some may disagree with that and I think otherwise. If we could live in a world without guns or weapons of mass destruction, I think everything would be a tad bit more at ease. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that way and it probably won’t be that way for a while. However, that doesn’t dismiss the fact that the crime rate is higher in states that have strict gun laws, that guns prevents mass-genocide, and that guns provide a means of protection and survival.

Imaging this, in a Hollywood movie, a policeman is holding a pistol to against criminals. A gunfight is about to happen, offenders also hold firearms with them, who are sometimes even more well-equipped than the policemen. In real life, most criminals rob banks, kidnapping and commit a crime with arms. Policemen use guns for protecting, but criminals, who are surely comes from the public, use them to show their power. Back to many years ago, due to the ambiguity of amendment, the law, in the US, gives the right for American citizens to own guns. There is no doubt that a pistol helps an officer against those crimes, while whether citizens should be allowed to have the right to carry guns not, is worth to be discussed.

It seems that every time someone comes home from a long day of work, sits down to watch the news and they have another story about gun related attack or home invasion. For some makes people believe that they're glad they own a gun in their house, incase someone chooses to attempt to rob their home. But the debate still rages on when it comes to gun control, one side arguing that we should arm all American citizen, while the other side arguing back that we need to remove all the guns in the country. Let's take a look at a article written by Alex Seitz-Wald, a correspondent for the National Journal where he debates that arming more civilians with guns would not reduce the crime rate. In order to do that, the reader needs to be about able to point out the author’s angle of vision by taking a look of the author’s background, identify the author’s claim, reasons, and warranty, and to analyze the author’s strengths and weaknesses in the way the author uses his article’s rhetoric. Before finding the evidence in the article I would theorize that this author has liberal beliefs.