Ever since I declared my political science major at The Ohio State University, Gun Politics has been a course I have aspired to take. While many enroll in such a course looking for an escape from the “collegiate liberal echo chamber” or as an outlet for their conservative agendas, I saw the class as an “entrance to the dark side.” My views on guns prior to the class were, I would call, polarized yet uninformed. In most of my discussions, I would cite the Australian 1996 National Firearms Agreement as precedent for how American politicians should approach the gun issue and gun control. Not fully understanding the definitions of semi-automatic and automatic but knowing that they sounded evil in the media, I embraced the idea of tightly …show more content…
In re-evaluating my positions on guns and gun control, I think it is imperative that I first start with where my opinion is rooted. Oftentimes, I feel as though my opinion on guns is most polarized in times of crisis, be it after the Aurora Massacre, Newtown Shooting, or Chardon Shooting which hit close to home. I feel compelled to act and defend those who could not defend themselves. This thought rings especially true when the media accentuates the victims with “the poor innocent children” narrative contrasted by “the nasty cold-blooded assassin.” While I sympathize with all who have undergone tragedy, especially the families of such horrible massacres, the gun lobby and its supporters raise a valid argument when they argue that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Undoubtedly, gun opponents could counter by noting that a culture devoid of guns would remove the weapon from killers’ hands – and this point is highlighted with the example of the stabbing in China that occurred on the same day as the Newtown tragedy, where the victims were only injured, not killed. However, the point to be taken from this debate is that in order to have a fair debate, emotion and feelings must be removed. Only in our most objective states can we attribute the reason that such a serious issue deserves. Historically, I believe that this is a problem we have faced, as the
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
In her essay, “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”, Molly Ivins discusses the highly debated topic of gun control. She argues that guns are an unnecessary evil to all of humanity and that permitting them to inexperienced and unregulated citizens only spoils the national security of the United States of America. Ivins quotes the Second Amendment as saying that guns were primarily intended to be used by a “well-regulated militia”. Thus, she believes that anyone who wants to own a gun should be subject to extensive training: “That is the least, the very least, that should be required of those who are permitted to have a gun” (385). Ivins goes on to say that guns are extremely dangerous and they should be banned, or at the very least strictly regulated (384-386). While Ivins reasonably discusses the issue of gun control in her op-ed, she does not adequately support her claims with substantial evidence or research about the negative impacts that guns have had on our society. She also seems unwilling to be open-minded about the opinions of the opposing side, calling them “gun-nuts” with a power hang-up (386). In conclusion, Ivins’ essay is not effective in urging readers who are pro-gun to change their views and she does not help reinforce the beliefs of people who oppose firearms.
The gun control epidemic has swept across America like wildfire. Opposing views on gun control have been argued tirelessly to no avail. As guns become more readily available, a great number of protests come forth. This seemingly never-ending cycle is at the forefront of most North American's conscience.Whether these protests are on the local news stations, newspapers, or on the abundance of social media outlets you cannot escape the gun control conversation and propaganda. Many people believe citizens should not have access to guns and others believe in their rights to bear arms. Both points of view boil down to who these people believe needs protection.
Few topics can generate more of a divided opinion than gun control. In reviewing the following case study, “Case 8.4: Have Gun, Will Travel…to Work”, several important questions will be discussed involving moral and legal rights of both the employee and the employer. This case involves the dilemma of a company’s rights to protect its employee’s verses an individual’s right to bear arms. In 2002 several employees were terminated for violating company policy by keeping guns in their vehicles while at work. Although at the time there was no state or federal law prohibiting the company from dismissing an employee for having a gun in their vehicle, this action by Weyerhaeuser, a Seattle-based timber-producing company set in motion a legal
The gun debate is getting very heated as of recent months and it seems that the United States in almost at a split on how to handle these manners. So I chose this topic to illustrate the importance of how the situation of firearm issues could potentially increase to an even bigger issue. Also, I chose this topic because whatever side you stand on in the gun debate, it’s generally understood that firearms, as of right now, are a problem. It’s important to realize the nation’s ongoing struggle with the usage of firearms because it’s only going to affect the future if we do not act now so therefore, it’s important to educate those who may not understand or assess the situation because everyone’s opinion could have a huge difference. Many of my
Gun control has been a longstanding debate in many countries around the world. For centuries men were actually encouraged to arm themselves to protect their families and homes. Many countries have enacted gun control laws in order to contain violent crimes, with the Canadian government taking the first step in the late 1800s. In order to protect its citizens, Canada’s legislature implemented a series of laws, throughout several decades, restricting firearms and requiring gun registration. Although opponents say that their rights and freedoms are violated by such legislation, the ultimate goal is the safety of the Canadian people. Lawmakers were challenged with the task of preventing violence with firearms without infringing on the rights
In 1787, when the U.S. Constitution was written, did our founding fathers plan for the negative association of guns with violence amongst their own citizens? Did they foresee the advancement of their one-shot muskets becoming automatic assault rifles? The news today is riddled with debates of gun control due to many accounts of our nation’s troubled citizens, to the unaware youth, being able to easily obtain lethal firearms. From the tragedy of Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech to the death of a four year-old by his own mother’s gun, brings to attention to the question of how these lethal firearms should be handled. Opinions vary from both extremes of the spectrum but as the controversial topic continues, many gun enthusiasts believe that
Gun control has been a major problem recently, in fact, in 1939 the Supreme Court ruled a case called “United States v. Miller.” This case states that the Second Amendment only protects guns suitable for a well-regulated militia. The Supreme Court has not had any other Second Amendment cases since 1939. However, the most recent ruling since 1939 was the Brady Bill, in 1994, which is a United States Federal law that requires a background check and five-day waiting period to determine whether the buyer of the handgun has committed a crime or no, but does not address the Second Amendment rights. Although, the Brady Bill period came to an end in November 1998. In 2008, the Supreme Court then ruled a case called, “District of Columbia v. Heller” confirming that the United States Constitution protects an individual 's right to keep and bear arms, but all handguns are required to be locked or disassembled when in homes. Two years later, Supreme Court ruled McDonald v. Chicago that states that local and state governments cannot prohibit handguns. Currently, gun dealers are required to use the national system to do a background check on all gun buyers, with an exception of antique guns. The system is setup to let the dealer know instantly if there is any reason the same cannot go through, which allows buyers to no longer having to wait to complete a purchase of a gun. However, over the past six years, there seems to be a drastic increase in conflicts dealing with gun control.
In the recent years under President Barack Obama, the United States of America has had detrimental controversies over a number of various topics. One of the key major issues that has arisen, mostly in the recent years has been on the issue of gun control. Many United States citizens have different standpoints on this topic. Most of the American citizens argue that the second amendment, the right to bear arms, protects their right as a citizen of the United States of America to own a gun. According to Dylan Matthews from vox.com rigorous experimental research is difficult to do because they are conducted after something happens. This means it is hard to determine which side is the “right” side. President Barack Obama and a rare few other people including the Law Center to Prevent gun Violence are siding with the President on the other hand are arguing the subject to be a poor idea. The less control that the government has on guns that are purchased by U.S. citizens makes the country better off.
“Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost 5,000 dollars, we wouldn’t have any innocent bystanders”. The comedian, Chris Rock, once said this funny but very intellectual quote. What Chris Rock suggests may be very unrealistic but why don’t we pay a closer attention to the message that he is trying to get across to us. The Second Amendment gives 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” (Bill of Rights). This amendment is very broad and has caused a separation of people in America on what exactly our Founding Fathers meant when they were creating the Constitution. There are Americans that believe that even though we have the right to bear arms, there should be certain restrictions /safety precautions that should be enforced with it. The opposing Americans believe that any restrictions that may be added to guns are “unconstitutional” and obstructs the amendment. Many people take a side without having a full understanding on what exactly is happening on in the United States of America when it comes to guns.
Gun control has been a heated conversation in America the last few years. Many of the recent mass shootings and tragedies has been the cause of such debate. Some people argue for tighter, stricter gun control laws while others will argue for less strict laws. Personally, I believe that there are other issues in the United States that need to be regulated and watched more carefully than gun violence. There are other causes of death with higher death tolls than gun violence that is being ignored. The spotlight needed to be shined on these other causes of deaths and not gun violence.
Since America’s birth, guns have played a large part in it’s society. Citizens of the United States have used firearms to protect the land they love, and their families. They even use them for engaging activities such as hunting and sport. Though firearms may seem to have a commonplace in society, weighing the rights and liberties of citizens against the safety and welfare of the public has always been a delicate process. In the United States, gun control is a of heated issue that has two sides. Both strongly believe in what they convey to others. Those in favor of the freedom to use and keep guns, rely on the fact that the authorization for these rights are in The Constitution. In today’s society, an environment of ever growing violence and crime, gun advocates feel more justified.
The topic of gun control is always discussed in various conversations. Lately, the topic has been brought up a lot more from all the shootings going on in the country. Since then the government has become extremely strict about selling and buying guns and everything about them. But, should the government regulate the buying and selling of guns or should they regulate the owners of the guns? Should the government make sure the owners of the guns are using them in the right way and making sure they lock their guns in a secure place where another person can 't get to them? The government is attacking gun violence in the wrong way. They should stop making new laws on the selling and buying of guns and put laws into effect to make sure gun owners are provided the correct information on how to keep everyone safe. This may lead to better laws on selling and buying of guns. Information and communication is more important than jumping the “gun” and banning gun sales and other unrealistic laws. These laws are enraging consumers and making them even more furious and they are making rash decisions.
There is an appalling, despicable lack of gun control in the United States. In my opinion the manner in which the issue of gun control is approached in this country is bordering on criminal negligence in and of itself. The insanity surrounding this controversial issue is taking the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights in the United States constitution way too far. I ask myself this question, could the Founding Fathers of this amazing country have possibly envisioned a world in which teenagers could casually walk into a classroom, pull out a loaded pistol and cold bloodily murder their teachers and fellow classmates? I think not. I would posit that these fine men, these symbols of American liberty and democracy would turn in their graves if they could see how their words, their intentions, were manipulated and grossly misinterpreted, to serve the purposes of those who pretend to be protecting the rights of their fellow American Citizens. On the contrary, it is my belief that they, the politicians, are recklessly endangering those whose rights they claim to be protecting. The Government needs to take a hard, honest look at the tragic loss of life that occurs in this country due to gun shootings, both intentional and accidental. The government needs to assume responsibility for this outrageous situation and realize that gun control in the United States needs to be Federally regulated, sooner rather than later.
Gun Control is a controversial problem in the United States. Many people have different beliefs about it. Some people think it should be illegal to have certain guns, others believe in no guns at all, and other people believe there should be no limitations. Having these feelings about guns can lead to a social problem. There are many different choices about guns and each person needs to decide what their opinion is.