Pros And Cons Of Gun Control Laws

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. If gun laws become opposed to the law, then only criminals will have guns. Stricter gun laws will not stop a madman from killing. In fact, 34% of mass shooters were prohibited from owning weapons; although, a surveyed showed 57% of gun owners believe guns are too easy to buy and 35% of people who carry guns would make Americans feel safer. Gun control will only affect the law-biding citizens simultaneously as the demand of illegal weapons on the black-market increases. Background checks will only restrict criminals from legally buying a firearm, but that does not stop a mentally ill person; which are usually the ones to start a shooting massacre. The second amendment literally states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Protected by the second amendment, it will be hard to regulate guns because now every single individual has a right to bear arms. For example, the Texas Baptist church shooter was gun downed by an armed citizen. Had there been stricter gun laws in Texas towards not being able to have a concealed firearm in public, the shooter could have gotten away. People should have the right to exercise the second amendment; therefore, gun control will not work because criminals will always find a way to obtain guns, supply and demand on the black market will increase and there are more existing weapons than people in the U.S.

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.

In today's society there is the question ‘Should there be more gun laws?’. The advancements in military weaponry is nothing short of astounding. With these advancements though, come the ramifications of their inventions. More and more, the nation is seeing these weapons in actions. People are fearful and demand more laws, but that is not the answer to this dilemma. More gun laws would not resolve this problem for numerous reasons; more gun laws would lead to more violence, the United States alwardy have an excessive amount on gun laws, and the nation looks at the object not the person. The United States have to address these issues before a change will happen.

You’re in your house and someone breaks in. Oh no, gun control laws said you can’t have a gun! You have no protection, so you’re dead within seconds. This is why the U.S. does not need tougher gun control laws. We need guns for protection, we should have the right to conceal one at all times, and the second amendment says we can have a firearm.

What gun control laws are going to help stop mass shootings? Even if the government banned the sale of assault rifles and guns in general,people with bad intentions are going to purchase them illegally. In the three recent mass shooting that caused many deaths, the shooters got their guns illegally with no trace of the sale on these weapons. Sandy Hook,Columbine,and San Bernardino were all mass shootings where the shooters got their guns illegally, stole the gun from family members or other people, and caused a lot of danger and harm to people. There would be no regulations to stop them because even if there were stricter gun laws, they still would be able to purchase their guns illegally.Stricter gun laws will not prevent crime,people will still get illegal firearms,and no sales to the public will reduce revenue.

The United States needs stricter federal handgun control laws because stricter gun control laws would reduce the number of handgun deaths and injuries, more gun control laws would lead to fewer suicides, banning high-capacity magazines would prevent mass shootings and murders, stricter gun control laws have worked in other countries by leading to lower homicide and suicide rates than the United States, and guns are rarely used in self-defense and they do not decrease crime rates.

Should gun control laws be changed? Well, first, gun control is entirely based off the notion that people are committing gun related crimes because they have access to them and these debates are whether or not the nation should ban guns entirely. This whole rebel of gun control change is said to help reduce violent crimes (Swickard). This is a well-known debate in today’s world. Many are involved in protests all around the world, while their schools are getting shot up and are asking for changes to make gun control laws stricter. However, the fact is, guns are not the problem in this world, it is the individual. If you put a gun in a criminal’s hand, they could do whatever they wish. Gun control laws should not be changed because current laws

The United States has 270 million guns, the most in the world; consequently, this raises the question of gun control and the Second Amendment.( Should More Gun Control Be Enacted ). The Second Amendment preserves the right to individual gun ownership, banning the ownership of assault weapons would be unconstitutional. Most criminals who obtain guns do so illegally, thus putting a censorship on gun ownership would not prevent them from getting firearms. Gun control does not deter crime, the criminals that commit these crimes have no respect for the law. Citizens have the right to assault weapons because the Second Amendment safeguards individual gun ownership, banning the ownership of guns would not stop criminals from getting them illegally,

Gun control has been debated quite a bit over the last couple of years due to recent domestic terrorist attacks. These attacks have caused political views on gun control to waver, regardless of our Second Amendment rights. Sociologist would see gun control as a way to divide our country by our belief. For example, a conservative would stand firm with their belief in the Second Amendment, where as a liberal would demolish those rights in an instant, if given the opportunity. The issue with gun control is that the government makes it more difficult for citizens to buy guns for protection, when criminals would just steal a legal gun and kill someone if necessary. So the main purpose of gun control is not to take all the guns away.

un control is a very controversial topic especially in today's society; whether gun control is good or bad is a very talked about subject especially when it comes to the United States. This is a very touchy subject because guns are a part of a lot of people's daily lives. People that are anti gun control believe that no one should be able to put any restrictions on guns. They believe that people should be able to buy a firearm just like a pair of boots or a tool. They also believe that if someone were able to take away the firearms from the law abiding citizens that just leaves firearms in the hands of people that do not abide by the law and leaves them defenseless. In 1791 our founding fathers gathered and ratified the Second amendment. The

Gun control laws should be strictly enforced because individuals can take advantage of the relaxed enforcement and harm others.

Gun control is a very controversial topic for Americans. Many feel that due to the recent tragedies, Congress should enforce stronger gun control law while others believe that banning assault weapons will not help reduce crimes. In the article titled, “Treasure the Second Amendment, but Ban Assault Rifles”, Miller argues that assault weapons should be banned, but the second amendment right to bare arms should be valued. While in the article titled, “A Ban on Assault Weapons Would Not Reduce Crime”, Merino argues that banning assault weapons would not lower the crime rate because most criminals will just find a loophole.

A DAY HAPPENS like any other day. Then some guy asks you for all of your card information. You refuse. He then pulls a Vector (a sub-machine gun, still fully automatic) and points it right at you. Luckily, the police pull up and take him away for illegal assault. Automatic guns and rifles are banned for civilian use, mostly because of how dangerous they are. This is the gun control law.

What makes people think laws are going to stop all the madness? Mass shootings happen everywhere but nobody can stop them. Passing gun control laws are not going to stop the shootings. People break the law all the time and must of them never get caught. Within all the mass shootings that have gone on and with all the gun laws that are already out, adding more would not be a good idea because the people would not get the reaction that they want. People would just complain more about the laws and the outcome would steady be the same.

Innocent people are killed by guns every day. Gun laws go way back and have helped but havent helped enough. A lot of the mass shootings have to do with large assault rifles resulting in high capacity magazines which do a lot more harm. It's repulsive to what its capable of. There needs to be extensive background checks on all citizens to make sure they are not going to harm another human being. The death rate by guns needs to go down and if not it will just keep going up. Everyone is living in fear these days and It's because of guns.