Public Outcry For Reform And Government Intervention

In the current year, many things have changed in the political world with some of them being welcomed by all and others not as much. While this paper is not specifically about the people holding political offices, I feel as though it is important to view their influence in these issues. The policy that I am going to discuss in this paper is gun control as I feel it is a hotly debated issue in the country today, especially after the incidents we have had throughout the recent years.

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

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.

Countless opinions have been broadcasted on national news media regarding what society ought to do about gun control. This controversial topic sparks many heated debates with people of either position reluctant to compromise. Gun supporters claim that the proposed gun laws infringe on their constitutional right to bear arms. Conversely, others believe that restricted gun access would cause gun violence to decrease. Regardless of what side one stands on, with the increase in gun violence, it is safe to say that something must be done.

Guns under the control of the government are able to show who is buying the guns and is able to tax the guns. Gun control is the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians. I chose to do the moral issue of gun control because I am for limited gun control. In this paper, I will argue whether gun control is necessary for the United States or does the government have the right to ban guns from the citizens.

The debate over stricter gun laws has been ongoing in the United States for quite some time now. Individuals who oppose stricter gun control laws argue that the second amendment to the constitution of the United States constitute part of the bill of rights that protect the right of American citizens to bear arms, and any attempt to set up laws for gun control will be a direct violation of this (Hofstadter 10). They argue that the primary purpose of the amendment was to ensure that American Citizens had the capability to protect themselves against criminal activities and defend the country against external aggression. From a personal perspective, the recent surge in instances of gun violence in the United States of America indicates that stricter gun control laws are necessary for the safety of the American citizenry. Thus, this paper is going to focus on highlighting the benefits of more stringent gun control laws and why members of the public should support it.

The debate over gun control has been raging through the American political systems for years. On one side, there is the National Rifle Association (NRA) and 2nd Amendment-citing citizens who use their firearms for hunting and self-defense. On the other, there is Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) and followers of the Brady Campaign who want to ban guns on the basis that they are dangerous. Both sides have strong arguments, anchored in historical precedent and statistical analysis. Anti-gun control lobbyists’ arguments include the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment, the definition of “militia” as any adult male, self-defense, the relative uselessness of permits and regulations, and court cases in favor of firearm possession. Pro-gun control activists

This paper discusses and is centered around the on-going debate over gun control, I directly address how each major political party views this subject and what I believe the United States Government should do to be able to best combat this tremendous issue. I use research from multiple sources that contrast each side of the argument and give an overall insight into the world of modernized gun control.

The continuing Mass Shootings in the United States has caused the gun control debate to intensify. While anti-gun control advocates say the Second Amendment guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, the pro-gun control group reads the Second Amendment as a collective right to bear arms; meaning organized militia are the only ones with that right. This essay will analyse the effectiveness of several different articles which present arguments for and against gun control.

The Government’s hotly debated views on gun violence in the United States. There is the division within our top braches of the Government. We have the Executive branch headed by our Democratic President Barack Obama. President’s gun control policy is calling for more controls such as mental health screenings and a ban on certain types of weapons. The Republican lead Legislation branch thinks it is paramount that individuals should be able to protect themselves and their families. The Republicans think that we should have fewer gun control regulations and that it should be up to each State to create legislation. Some feel interest groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) have too much power and believe that whatever changes will be more than what the Government tries to convince us what they appear. Both Political parties agree that something must be done in order to stop the gun violence is at an all-time high in the United States. Since January, there have been at least 354 mass shootings cases in about 220 cities in 47 states, this involves shootings that leave four or more dead or wounded (LaFraniere, 2015). While the mass shootings that we hear about are horrendous, our Government is responsibility to protect us without completely fringing on our rights because the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms and to protect ourselves and those that we love.

Gun control is broken down and analyzed. The topic is generally discussed, talking about the concept of gun control laws and differences in these laws by state. The argument in favor of the topic is assessed from multiple different angles, and facts and sources are used to explain the general opinion of those that support gun control. Next, the other side is considered, with persuasive evidence and logic to prove the viewpoint that gun control is negative and harmful to the country. Aspects of the debate, such as conceal-carry permits and gun-free zones are discussed, and examples of crime stopped by citizens that possess a firearm are used to reinforce the main idea. Lastly, the article ends by considering other actions that could be

Gun control has a history dating back to 1791, when the Second Amendment of the Constitution was ratified. However, more recently, the debate over gun control has escalated into a much more public issue to which many citizens can relate. After all, stories about incidents involving guns appear frequently today in newspapers and on television or the radio. One could say that the debate started with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned ownership of guns by certain groups of people and regulated the sale of guns. Since then, two main groups have gradually appeared: people who oppose strict federal

Gun violence, especially that as caused by handguns, is a major problem in America. It affects millions of people annually, and the effects it has are irreversible. However, this reality does not constitute for a complete ban on the private ownership of handguns. A ban on the private ownership of handguns should not be enacted on the grounds that the United States government ought to preserve democratic legitimacy and constitutionalism, and a ban is not feasible or just in America’s political climate.

The power elite is able to exert power over society. The power elite’s control over politics demonstrates how inequality is functional. This validates the class-domination theory of power, which is distributed based on economic power. By controlling economic resources, the power elites political influence in government shapes law and those involved in government to the power elites benefit. In today’s American society these laws have impacted both the corporate community and the elite. Furthermore, the author’s portrayal of the elite displayed how the elite have control concerning choices in government policies, elections, and laws.

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.