Should Assault Weapons Be Banned In America Essay

There are many views about gun control especially about assault weapons. People are both for it and against it. The people who are for the ban believes the weapons can only be used for violence. They don’t want to recognize that people against the ban have several different reasons to own their guns. These reasons can vary; some people just want protection; others want to use their guns for sport. This pleasurable pastime will also provide a variety of food to supplement family grocery supplies and to help people save on food costs. Instead of making more gun control laws the ones we have should be enforced.

The issue of banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines has been debated for years, but has never been discussed with such urgency as it is now. The issue is the banning of assault weapons in our society. Are we the kind of country that allows and encourages its citizens to own weapons of mass destruction? The moral issue we face is banning ownership of these weapons to ordinary citizens while protecting their rights under the second amendment of our Constitution. Considering the bloodshed and death that assault weapons cause in the hands of citizens and criminals, it seems to me that assault weapons do not have a place in our homes and society.

Over the years the topic of gun control has turned out to be very polemic causing large debates, especially in the United States. A vast majority of people who are against gun control insist that is their right to own a gun mainly for self defense, while others who are for it, point out that it is not necessary to have access to certain guns like the military-style weapons therefore a ban should take place.

Guns are used for protection, power, and sporting purposes. Guns are beneficial to society when used by trained professionals, such as the police and military. When in untrained hands, however, guns can cause death to friends, neighbors, family members and children. Due to their small size, weight and concealability, handguns pose some of the greatest risks to the public, ranging from accidental death in the home to mass shootings in public places. Consequently, private ownership of handguns should be banned by the US government due to their irresponsible use in murders and accidental deaths, the increased dangers to others caused by their concealability, and the availability of alternative, non-lethal self-defense weapons.

Most people would think that having a assault weapon will help protect their family. It will but it will cause even more problems because the person that killed the person breaking into you home that person will get in trouble because if he did not do anything first then it would not be self defense so that person will go to jail for murder.

The current legislation in America is pushing for an “Assault Weapon” ban, in the hopes of diminishing and stop, mass shootings and gun crime, although the ban of “Assault Weapons” will have absolutely no effect on gun crimes and mass shootings. We as Americans are in a crossroad, dived in this issue we face today, everyone has different views and opinions on how should we approach these assault weapons, that we are constantly being informed on the daily news, commonly used by portrayers of evil. The majority of Americans, that are not informed with the way current gun laws, and restrictions are normally the ones that agree with an assault weapon bar or stricter gun control laws.

There is currently an ongoing debate in the U.S whether or not the government should ban assault weapons. An assault weapon is a semi-automatic weapon that has a larger magazine that is capable of holding more bullets, and fires a bullet every time the trigger is pulled. There are also assault weapons categorized as machine guns that fire bullets as long as the trigger is held down in a constant state. What differentiates assault weapons from other guns is that assault weapons are deadlier for they have semi-automatic capability, larger ammunition and military like features. It makes the weapons more appealing to people who want to kill large amounts of people. The likelihood or ability to obtain an assault weapon in the United States are

There is almost nothing that absolutely requires one to own an assault weapon as opposed to a less destructive firearm, such as a handgun, as assault weapons tend to be bulky, quite noticeable, and not necessarily accurate. Lastly, opponents of gun control laws argue that an assault weapon ban would spawn an aggressive blackmarket for [assault] weapons, allowing the guns to fall into the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, as there would be no background checks or regulations whatsoever. Though this is a plausible effect, with an assault weapons ban there would be less guns readily available to circulate this said “blackmarket”.

The controversy over assault rifles is one of the most problematic issues related to the contributions of gangs, drug traffickers, and most criminal activity. More often than not, criminals have access to the weapons of their choice more easily than it should be. Getting them from licensed dealers, black markets, and family members’ homes, the availability of these militia weapons has become to effortless to obtain. The rise of criminal activity is part of the reason more than one-third of high school students have easy access to a weapon or gun. “Four out of five guns brought to school are actually brought from their own homes” (Page par 2). This is one of the biggest problems when faced with where criminals get their

In present day America everyone seems to have different understandings and translations of our constitutional right to bear arms. The Second Amendment right reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" . The Second Amendment, which includes the statement “The right to bear arms”, was originally written for the self protection of United States citizens from an overpowering government, such as the government we had just recently broke apart from, aka the British. Nowadays, the meaning of this phrase has been skewed by those against self defense and guns as; gun rights are for only hunting. Yes, this phrase in the Second Amendment can mean for hunting but the intention is for protection. Some individuals even think that it was just a temporary part of the amendment to keep our early nation safe. This however is also untrue; it was to prevent us from being controlled by another government that has become too powerful. On top of this, the end of this amendment reads as follows “shall not be infringed.” The definition of in infringe is to break the terms. This could be an agreement or law. The government taking any weapon from an innocent American is directly violating the laws they are here to uphold. The law-abiding citizens of the United States have a right to bear arms, whether for hunting or for

He starts off his argument by somewhat mocking the “Left” side of the issue and their unsupported opinions. However he effectively strengthens his stance throughout the article, by bringing up an argument the Left presents and then refutes it with both facts and inferences. When he introduces the Left argument that the Founding Fathers would not have expected such an advancement in firearms through history, he responds “Our founding fathers were not stupid men; the advancement of weapons is something that has happened since the dawn of time” (Bain). He sticks to use of historical evidence as evidence for his claim and every time comes up with how it is more relevant than it is now. This is a simple tactic to refute the constant claim that the 2nd Amendment is outdated and not relevant. The author references Thomas Jefferson to strengthen his argument in the quote, “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherit in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that is their right and duty to be at all times armed” (Bain). To spark something in the reader he constantly repeats that the American people have their own basic rights and no one should be able to take that away from you. Towards

Violent crime is a growing problem in our country. Politicians are always looking for new laws to impose on their people in order to combat the problem. Unfortunately, some of these laws are written by individuals who do not possess a thorough knowledge of the topic they are attempting to regulate. One example of these laws is the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was in place from 1994-2004. This law made it illegal to produce or purchase a firearm that had certain cosmetic features which had no effect of the lethality of the firearm when used as a weapon. The politicians had essentially banned firearms that they deemed looked scary. Now there is a push for a renewed Federal Assault

In this passage, Thomas P. states that many people argue that guns are the cause of the nearly 22% increase in the homicide rate between 2015 and 2016. While guns are a problem, giving restrictions may not be the solution. Most criminals would still be able to obtain these weapons illegally, leaving people that abide by the law without them for self protection. Actually, in the passage he says most gun crimes are performed with weapons that are already illegally possessed. Taking away a person’s right to own their own firearms also violates the second amendment, which states the right of the people to bear arms. That amendment was put in place so that civilians could overthrow an unjust government if ever put in that situation.

First, opponents of the ban of assault weapons claim that the second amendment protects their right to possess assault weapons. According to the second amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (Strasser). American tradition that lasted for many years would be infringed upon as more gun control laws would violate the right to bear arms. The second amendment also protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense (District of Columbia V. Heller). Furthermore, it was intended to protect the right of gun ownership of all men so they can be prepared to form a military to retain peace and defend their country at any time. Adam Winkler said, ”A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register their gun ownership of public records” (Winkler).

She also believes this phrase to imply that gun ownership is dependent on a lot of training and discipline. During the American Revolution the militia was not part of the military but rather a collection of rebels many of them with only the most basic of training. This amendment was included second, something I believe symbolizes its importance to our founding fathers, to make sure we are able to protect and defend our country in the case of a militarized police state or in case our military fails to stop an enemy invasion. By banning guns we would only be taking away this important constitutional right from law abiding citizens. She also makes the point that guns should be regulated the way cars are regulated. (Ivins 324) On this point I do agree, but also add that for the most part guns are regulated much like cars. In most states you must be 21 to own a handgun and 18 to own a rifle or shotgun, much like the age restrictions on driving. Felons, for example cannot own a gun and most states require a thorough background check before a purchase and require gun owners to be licensed and their guns registered. A compromise I would make with the author would be to have these