Pros And Cons Of Gun Legislation

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 the words of Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp ¨ A politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of¨. Both the pro gun and anti gun movements raise some persuasive and plausible points about their sides. The anti gun movement has a history of an oppressive, racist and totalitarian way of trying to control people's right to bear arms which in no way prevented gun violence. The gun control movement as a whole doesn't care about protecting citizens but it instead wants to give the federal government more control over its citizens.

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.

One of the most controversial issues in our society today is the topic of private gun ownership and gun control laws. This controversy has arisen mostly due to the different ways that the second constitutional amendment is interpreted. The amendment states that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Lott, 2000). On one side of the issue, there are those that believe that the amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. On the other side are those that contend that the amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.

Background checks can’t predict when or where the next mass shooting is going to occur. “Mass shooters can’t be stopped because we never know who they are until they make themselves known” (Jundo). (6) It is argued that stricter background checks would be an ineffective solution because nobody has the ability to predict the next mass shooting. (2) Gun advocates believe that giving more people guns would make people feel safer, and more civilians would be able to stop crimes. (5) Although it is true that background checks won’t predict who the next mass shooter will be, that is just part of the reason why background checks are important. People who oppose background checks need to look at the bigger picture. Giving more people guns would promote a more violent society. (5) According to Mother Jones, the number of mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years is zero (Gilson). (5) While increasing the number of armed civilians has not shown to decrease gun violence, background checks have been proven to lower overall gun related violence. Background checks ensure that the majority of people buying firearms aren’t

The history of guns has long been embedded in our society and culture. Back in the old days, people used guns for the hunting of food. Most people in those days also would use guns as their main source of income as wells as for the protection of themselves from Indians, wild animals, and other enemies. There had less rules concerning the purchasing of guns and the handling of it. However, the times are really changing and the intents of civilians to do things are sometimes not for the better. According to the viewpoint essay “Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives” by Christine Watkins, Watkins states that there are “400,000 crimes committed every year,” and “the United States has the highest rate of firearm deaths (more than 30,000 each year) among twenty-five high-income nations.” Firearms are very dangerous, and having guns does not necessarily mean that it will protect a person from enemies. It is the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens, not the citizens themselves. There would be a reduction of gun-related deaths and incidents by having stricter gun regulations and performing more thorough background checks or gun owners.

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.

Stricter gun control laws would reduce the number of handgun deaths and injuries in the United States per year. There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 58% were suicides, 38% were homicides, 2% were unintentional deaths. 67% of all homicides were committed with guns, and 52% of all suicides were committed with guns. According to a March 10, 2016 Lancet study, implementing federal universal background checks could reduce firearm deaths by a predicted 60%, background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce deaths by a predicted 81%, and gun ID requirements could reduce deaths by a predicted 83%. All these statistics could be lowered if the United States had more gun control.

This means, current policies that in effect have not stopped crime now and banning certain guns will not stop everything. For example, the states of Chicago, Illinois, and California have tough gun laws enforced and are ranked high by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, whom tracks gun laws worldwide. However, the strict laws these certain states have, do no help reduce violence from happening. Furthermore, the state of Chicago has strict laws about purchasing a gun, but their neighboring states, Wisconsin and Indiana, do not and it is believed that these states are how people in Chicago stay supplied with guns in the state (Kurtzleben). In addition, promoting to take away guns will not stop the violence. For instance, “Every mass-shooting that has occurred has been carried out against current laws that did nothing to stop it. This is not because the laws aren’t tough enough, it is because you can’t legislate behavior” (Cleckner). This example shows, that current laws are not reducing crime due to the fact, that they can enforce a law but they cannot make a criminal listen to them. By people rebelling for new gun control laws, they should understand how the current enforced laws have not stopped

As James Bacon quoted Fred A. Roff, Jr., “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people” (Bacon). This well-known saying has been modified over the years to fit people’s needs, but it has become one of anti-gun control supporter’s arguments since its inception. Gun control in the United States has been a source of major disagreements across the country for centuries. It is such a controversial topic that it is usually a platform point for presidential candidates due to its importance to Americans. David S. Hargrave and Roland P. Perdue theorize that people have such a strong emotional reactions to the debate over gun control due to fear, there is fear of not having guns to protect themselves for anti-gun control advocates,

The argument in this article is President Trump signaled support for one piece of gun control legislation on Monday, five days after a mass shooting at a Florida high school left 17 people dead and scores injured. "The president is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system," Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, wrote in a statement Monday morning. After a mass shooting in Las Vegas last year, officials said they were studying a ban on bump stocks, an attachment that allows a rifle to fire more frequently. Over the weekend at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, Trump weighed gun control measures in conversations with friends, according to people who spoke to him. Trump has faced two of the country's

Gun Control has been a main topic lately throughout social media and news networks due to all the mass school shootings and other gun related crimes! People are calling for stricter laws on gun control. In 1981 President Reagan rejected a call for additional gun legislation, saying “there are today 20,000 gun control laws in effect being federal,state,and local in the U.S.”. So what we should be asking for instead of stricter laws on gun control is the laws that are already in place be enforced more diligently. Thus insuring less criminals and mentally ill are able to obtain firearms and commit heinous crimes. Everyday 96 people of all ages die from gunshot wounds either by murder, assault, suicide,or police intervention. With already 20,000

“It's not a gun control problem; it's a cultural control problem” said Bob Barr. For the past 19 years, gun violence in America has been on the rise. As the years go by, stricter gun laws have been enforced, but instead of alleviating the issue, gun violence continues to increase. In his article Standing up to Violence Craig Sautter incurs that “ the American public -- numbed by decades of television, radio, newspaper, and real-life images of dehumanizing violence -- has not responded to the loss of so many children and teenagers with the same sorrow, anger, or grief as was roused by Vietnam”. As the quote indicates, the American public does not react immediately to violence within their communities until massacres like the Aurora, Colorado

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

For many years, people have been pushing the American government to implement new laws that deal with gun control. Supporters of the argument claim that increased gun control will drastically reduce the crime rate in America. Nevertheless, a majority of gun control arguments are formed from strict control of data and emotional appeal. The mainstream media picks up these stories and broadcasts them to viewers without providing any context to them. While gun control activists assert that gun control is necessary, the American government should not ban guns because of the following reasons: potential vulnerability of innocent people being shot at by criminals and the inability for people to defend themselves against their own government.