Persuasive Essay On Gun Control

According to Nicholas Kristof’s article “our blind spot about guns” gun control is a lot like cars regulation such that if we can regulate cars we can regulate guns. It took a lot of time and effort but thanks to regulations cars are safer than they were many years ago, and the same is very possible with guns. We need to keep our country safe. The first steps to gun control are improving on background checks and also requiring trigger locks on all guns.

October 1, 2017 marked the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. With almost 500 injured and 58 killed, not only did Las Vegas feel the tragedy of a personal loss, but the incident had rippling effects that shook all of America (Flaherty). With the fresh wounds of the recent Las Vegas shooting, politician's initial reaction is to implement more strict gun restrictions and "lay down the law" to prevent a similar event from happening again. Due to the drastic laws being carried out, the topic of gun control is a current issue in society. Is the solution to implement more firm restrictions on gun ownership or can the government allow the people to be their own advocates? While the opposing views of pro-gun restrictions argue that is up to the discretion of the government, they are often narrow-minded resolutions with no hope to finding a real solution. This particular shooter obtained his guns legally and passed all background checks, going unnoticed until his plan unfolded. Establishing more strict firearm restrictions would not have stopped the Las Vegas shooting from occurring. The number of gun restrictions can not increase, the government needs to either fix the existing laws or do away with gun restrictions entirely. Gun restrictions are not the solution because guns are not doing the killing--people are, the laws only attack the law-abiding citizens, and the gun restrictions add another infringed upon right that the government controls. While voting against additional gun rules will not completely eliminate the controversy behind this topic, voting against these laws will be a milestone to regaining the rights we have already been promised.

On October 1st 2017, Steven Paddock shot and killed 58 people at a country music festival in Las Vegas, Nevada. Over the course of 12 minutes, Paddock committed the worst mass shooting in modern American history. We must honor the victims and respect their memory, but we have to ask ourselves what we will do to prevent this in the future. The first and completely valid response to that question is enacting stricter gun control, but there is much more than that. We can increase funding for mental health treatment, we can take stricter security measures at hotels and concerts, however there is something major that needs to be changed that hardly ever gets talked about. It’s something that we are used to, that we have seen all throughout our

“A series of terror attacks that killed more than 120 people, ISIS claimed responsibility for the horrific Paris attacks,” (Castillo and et. al.). Even though more guns will give more chances of murders, will more gun control laws stop people by getting them, will we be safer without legal guns, and why should we give up our right to bear arms.

We see and hear about it on the news how someone shot and killed someone and we all think why do people do that or what gives them the idea to just go out and take another living human life away. Then the issue is would it be better to make Gun-control even more strict so that the deaths caused by gunshots could lower? So when people do bad, other people look for a solution on what to do and the idea that keeps getting tossed up is to make Gun-control more strict so it doesn't happen as often. But this shouldn’t be the case since there will always be gun violence. The issue isn't the gun, the issue is who wields it and uses for harm instead of protection. Then will this person who has a gun will he/she be mentally stable enough to use it

From 1988 to 2001, the usage of anti-depressant drugs in the general public increased by four-hundred percent (Swanson). The mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary took place in December of 2012, and during 2014, firearms were used in 88 percent of teen homicides, and 41 percent of teen suicides (“Suicidal Teens”). On February 28th, 2017, the Trump administration repealed a firearms regulation that prevented mentally disabled persons from owning guns. At the same time, teenage mental illness is on the rise, specifically in cases of depression and anxiety. A report from the Surgeon General shows that over 90 percent of adolescents that committed either suicide or homicide have or had a mental disability. Mental disabilities such as depression and anxiety put teenagers at a high risk for homicides and suicides. Teenagers who are stressed due to school, lack of parenting, puberty, bullying, and other factors can develop depression, anxiety or another mental illness. Allowing these teens easy access to firearms proves time and time again to be very dangerous. In some cases, the families of these teens have never been assessed to see if they can responsibly store firearms. The only background check performed is on the owner of the firearm, meaning that a person may own the weapon even if another family member living with them legally cannot. Loose gun control laws allow families with physiologically ill children to have access to firearms, without first checking to see if the disabled children in the home are responsible enough to be around said firearms. Repealing gun control laws instated by the Obama administration will cause an increase in adolescent firearm-related homicides, suicides, and tragedies similar to the one at Sandy Hook Elementary.

The first legislative attempt of gun control was in 1934; it started the fight between the National Rifle Association, who believed it was unfair to the law abiding citizens to limit their rights, and lawmakers wanting to limit the amount of crimes. The debate has grown and changed immensely t over the years, but the issue is still there (Magoon). This year in Colorado, Senator Vicki Marble, Representative Stephen Humphrey, and Representative Lori Saine have been the Prime Sponsors for the repeal of the ban of possession and sales of large capacity magazines (Repeal Ammunition Magazine Prohibition). This is known as Senate Bill 17-007; it states that part 3 of article 12 of title 18 of The Colorado Revised Statutes should be repealed and adds a safety clause stating that it needs to be implemented for the “public peace, health, and safety” (Concerning the Repeal of Certain Provisions Concerning Ammunition Magazines). Large Capacity Magazines (LCMs) are generally defined as holding ten rounds or higher, but in the case for Colorado it is defined as holding 15 rounds or higher (Large Capacity Magazines). SB17-007 was introduced January 11, passed through the Senate but was indefinitely postponed by the House as of March 22 (“Repeal Ammunition Magazine Prohibition - SB 17-007”). Senate Bill 17-007 will repeal the ban on large firearm magazines; it should be passed because the prohibition has not shown any decrease of deaths in mass shootings and infringes on America’s second amendment right.

Japan, June 8, 2001, 10:15 in the morning at Ikeda Elementary School. Thirty-Seven year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. “It lasted just 10 terrifying minutes, during which the intruder killed eight children, injured 15 other pupils and two teachers and further eroded Japan's confidence that it is immune to the violence that it associates with the U.S.” (Tim Larimer) This proves that people wouldn’t need a firearm to create chaos. Japan is one of the strictest countries about firearms. No one is allowed to own a rifle or assault rifle. The Japanese community is allowed only to own shotguns and air rifles, but the process to own one of these is a very long and hard process to finish. What this has to do with America is to give an example that you wouldn't need a firearm to create chaos bringing up the controversy about gun control. Because so many U.S.

As Americans are proud to be reside in the “land of the free,” our nation is noted to have pride of being able to own and carry a firearm. The right for Americans to bear arms is protected under the second amendment of the United States Constitution. However, this privilege has been taken advantaged of in the recent years. Unfortunately, more than 31,000 Americans die from gunshot wounds(1). Americans wake up to devastating news in relation to gun violence on their tv screen more frequently than before. Even when the United States is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, there is still so many casualties in relation to gun violence(2). These unfortunate deaths raise the question of whether Americans should be restricted from owning firearms. In the United States, the right to own a gun should not be banned and abolished, but be looked into carefully to decrease the mortality rate by guns.

A common controversial topic that is discussed universally is the issue of shootings and gun use. Citizens views on the topic range from the wishes to completely ban guns, to the total allowance and ownership of such items. In comparison, some drugs may be illegal, although people still possess them. Would the same be for guns? Should more be done to implement the control over guns? Or should more freedom be given to gun owners? One can visualize the positives and negatives regarding gun control by learning more about the following: the suspected terrorists list, the black market, increase in gun crime, rarely using guns for self-defense and how extensive background checks would prohibit unqualified people from obtaining firearms.

From School shootings to Movie theaters and concerts, we the people of the United States have noticed tremendous amounts Massacres going on in our country. All of this violence raises many big questions and plenty of controversy in our country: Do we need a ban or some sort of control on guns? Many people like to argue that this violates their rights and the second amendment of the U.S. constitution telling us that the people have the right to bear arms. Many people like to argue that guns don’t kill people, but that people kill people. In the past year there has been 372 mass shootings in 2015 in the U.S. Approximately 33,636 deaths due to firearms each year. Many other countries do not have a big issue on homicides due to

Gun control has been a highly controversial issue for the past several decades. Gun control is a very broad term, and can have many different interpretations. Some individuals believe gun control will ban the use and possession of firearms all together. Others may believe it just bans certain parts of a gun such as high capacity magazines, silencers, and flash suppressors. Both interpretations above are forms gun control. However, the true definition of gun control is “regulation of selling, owning, and using guns” (merriam-webster.com). Placing more restrictions on purchasing, owning, and using firearms is an ineffective way to end gun violence. Gun control will be ineffective because it will violate the second amendment, federal and state laws have already proven to be ineffective, and increased restrictions will not prevent mass shootings. Before getting into how gun control is ineffective, some commonly misused firearm terminology should be presented.

With being at the heels of the Vegas mass shooting, the deadliest mass shooting in United States history, anti-gun advocates are out in full force. Being a gun owner myself, I am worried that my guns for hunting and self-defense are in jeopardy. The implementation of the controversial gun control concept has been casually taken part in a numerous amount of political debates throughout the course of time. If this act is potentially taken to action in the United States, it will stir up a large dispute as it will take away the whole concept of the Second Amendment allowing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. With attempts to achieve the vision of a gun-free America by appealing the emotions of a hurting nation, society seems to be

A few months ago, on October 1, a gunman opened fire on the crowd of concert goers at a Harvest music festival. The gunman, 64 year old Stephen Paddock started shooting at a crowd of roughly 22,000 people from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. He was able to kill 58 people and injure almost 500 in only 10 to 15 minutes, resulting in the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history.

The Second Amendment asserts that you have the right to bear arms, but to what extent? Numerous loopholes now exist that allow for individuals with mental health issues or criminal records to purchase guns. For example, a gun purchased over the internet or from a private vendor at a gun show is exempt from background checks because neither instance does not necessarily require licensed gun sellers. Increasing amounts of gun violence affect citizens of the United States daily and this number will continue to expand until precautions are imposed. Society is culturally embracing violence and becoming willfully blind to the dangers surrounding this civilization. Yes, we have the right to protect our country, and ourselves but from what? It