Missouri House Bill 1468 Pros And Cons

With new years day, 2017, Missouri Senate Bill 656 went into effect. A highly contentious change to previous laws, it was vetoed by Jay Nixon, who was in turn overridden by Republican--and one Democrat--state senators. The primary function of the bill, though certainly not the full extent, is to allow all Missouri residents the right to carry firearms concealed in public without a liscense or training. While pro-gun and pro-gun-control advocates both have their laundry lists of arguments and rebuttals, most of what the public hears about gun rights is mere rhetoric, design to sound appealing. For a true understanding of changes in gun laws, the 2nd Amendment must be understood. Senate Bill 656 is a step forward in regards to the 2nd Amendment

As a constituent and a mother, I urge you to support the expansion of gun control. I am primarily concerned about the victims of gun crimes because I am a mother and an aunt. The incident that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14,2014 makes me wonder that if they go to school,

To begin, Missouri is one of the worst states for gun control laws. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave Missouri an F for gun violence, and out of all the states“Missouri ranked 39th out of 50 – having enacted few gun violence prevention laws.” (“Missouri State Law Summary.”) The thing is, that Missouri HAS disallowed the permit to purchase, the registration, and the licensing to owners of all guns. The problem is, is that even though you are not allowed to carry a rifle or shotgun around, you can carry a handgun around, which is what has

As the president of the NRA we understand the purpose of the National Rifles Association is to advocate for gun rights. Firearms are not the immediate cause of mass shotings. The root of the problem, however is if the common person did not have access to firearms the amount of people deceased would decrease.The paln we proposed includes strengthening gun laws such as limiting access to certain firearms. Also having a stronger background screening and application for every gun owner, even if the new owner has a gun is an implication that would benefit the cause of eliminating mass shootings, mainly in the United States.

he first main idea, that has been argued much more then needed, is that teachers will be trained to not shoot kids that are acting up. The teachers would be attending a gun safety class. Many (as in people against this argument) say that the teachers wouldn’t attend this class, but a recent survey, conducted by the NRA, shows us that 40 million teachers would like to be armed and would take the Gun Safety Test. The course, that which is mandatory, would likely e sponsored by the NRA. The course that the teachers would be attending, is a 40-60 hours a week course (in the summer time), and the course doesn’t stop until the teacher can pass the exam. The exam is simply being able to hold a gun, reaction time, and being able to know when and when not to shoot. Just recently, 04/10/2017, a school shooting killed two teachers, and injured two students, both kids being injured severely. If those teachers in San Bernardio where armed, they could have saved their lives and those children’s futures. Also in 2013 teacher aids, the principal, the school psychologist, teachers, and 20 children ranging from 6-7 were killed in Sandy Hook, making a death total of 26 people, plus one. That plus one should not be accounted for, that plus one was the

There are many reasons why people say that this law should not be passed. One reason is because how can more guns make us safer? Anything can happen, a teacher could go crazy, or a student could get their hands on the teachers gun, or anything like that could happen (Sorkin). And if something like this were to happen it will be said that it would not have been possible if the teacher wasn't allowed to have a gun. Some say that teachers could have their guns hidden, or at least another one hidden for if the main one is stolen. But then it will be said that that is a problem too because then what is the teacher going to do

Passed in California in 1994, this dangerous bill aimed to , among other things, deny public education to undocumented immigrants and anyone else that was suspected to be undocumented. Naturally, major opposition to the bill sparked many giant protests and displays of resistance. The powerful vocalizations made by the many who opposed it, along with a few lawsuits, successfully prevented Proposition 187 from ever going into effect.

This law will change the learning environment tremendously when you add this type of risk in the classroom. The classroom is a place to develop your skills, debate your topics and stand for your decisions. This allotment of guns in the classroom will impede students and faculty from driving and developing these necessary skills with this new inherent risk. Although Texas

Imagine yourself going to school, and suddenly not feeling safe anymore. Imagine having to hide behind locked doors, with only your books to protect you. This is something that, according to a Washington Post analysis, 187,000 students in the U.S. have had to experience since 1999. Mass shootings and gun violence have become a recurring event in today's society. In 2010, there were approximately eighty-five gun deaths every day, according to the Center for Disease Control. The U.S. citizens own more guns and have a higher gun homicide rate than any other country in the world. Enough is enough, reasonable gun control laws should be enforced and put into place before this situation gets even more out of hand.

This paper I have wrote was to persuade you to think the same way I do about this law. When you finish reading my paper you can see why this law shouldn’t have been passed. This law has negative effects on any person not just me and you but everyone. I have provided you with some great reasons, and some examples that can help support my reasonings, and allow you to have a better understanding while reading my paper. I think more consideration should’ve occurred while discussing this law. Hopefully I have persuaded you to disagree with me on this law, and to take a stand. To close my paper I would just like to leave you with something to think about. Think about how the world is, and how much the world would be if we didn’t have the right to carry guns in the open,but helped our children in ensuring a better and bright future for

Many of the current laws seem to be designed to take guns of out the hands of responsible gun owners, but do nothing to address the non law-abiding citizens. Both sides of the gun control argument need to work together to protect second amendment rights while protecting citizens of the country from needless gun violence. Teddy Roosevelt famously on the importance of gun control that “The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world” (Roosevelt 5). The United States have seen a trend of gun violence reductions

Some people believe that extremely tight gun control laws will eliminate crime, but gun control laws only prevent the 'good guys' from obtaining firearms. Criminals will always have ways of getting weapons, whether it be from the black market, cross borders, or illegal street sales. New gun control laws will not stop them. Since the shootings of Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook, the frequency of mass shootings has increased greatly. Gun control is not effective as it has not been shown to actually reduce the number of gun-related crimes. Instead of considering a ban of private firearm possession, and violating individual ownership rights, it may be more practical to consider the option of partially restricting firearm

This bill was written to ensure that the Americans 2nd amendment right is protected in it original intents, but is not entirely unlimited. The possession of a deadly assault weapon is a behavior that the U.S congress should restrict as it is a direct threat to the nation's safety and wellbeing. Although,the right to bare arms is a constitutional right, the possession of unnecessarily violent weapons is an unnecessary measure that goes beyond the need to protect a citizen's home, family and property or sporting purposes. The removal of major assault weapons widdles down the number of people dead in major shooting events, and is a necessary regulation on gun sales to take steps towards a less violent nation.

This strategy is costly and unfair. Who is to determine how much a person is to be paid for their guns? A method such as this one will not only have an astonishing cost, but it also discriminates. Those who are in favor of outlawing all handguns assume that everyone misuses or has the aptitude to misuse the gun. For gun collectors, this proposition takes away their hobby. Merchants and people in jobs with high risks of being robbed would also be discriminated against by not allowing the use of handguns as means of protection, which could make them vulnerable. For example, if a gas station cashier is being robbed and the robber plans on killing the cashier, the chances of the police making it to the scene in time to save the cashier's life is very slim. On the other hand, if the cashier had a handgun, then he or she could defend him or herself. For reasons such as this, merchants and people in high risk jobs may defy a law completely outlawing handguns because a handgun could save their life.

The legality of having guns and possessing firearms in the United States of America is well engraved within the Second Amendment of the nation’s constitution. However, the issue of gun regulation has remained a central topic in America’s public. Some people advocate for a total ban on gun possession, while others are totally against this idea. The shooting incident in Las Vegas weeks ago has raised controversial debates in the United States of America. In fact, the White House is concerned on the stand that President Trump will take on the issue of stricter gun laws. One of the cities that has gained the attention of both the legislators on this topic is Chicago. For its reputation for its low rate of gang arrests, lax punishments for gun law violations, and comparatively weak laws in accordance with surrounding states, it is justifiable to say that Chicago’s daily shootings are a clear indicator that strict state gun laws don’t work.