Essay on Should New York State repeal the SAFE act?

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 Constitution addresses our basic civil, individual, God-given rights and liberties and our government both local and central, should and must protect those rights. However, our brilliant Founding Fathers created these laws in the early development of our Country realizing our laws needed to evolve as our Country evolved. They went as far as calling our Constitution a “living and breathing document” meaning the laws must change with the current times and state of our nation. So as guns and firearms evolved to become more dangerous and accurate, I believe even our most basic, fundamental laws should have followed suite and evolved. Not only do I reason that this law is grossly misinterpreted, but I also believe this law should have been amended or at least evolved for more clear language to account for the evolution of the

If there was some type of ban on assault weapons, many lives could be saved. Assault weapons are becoming very attractive to criminals because of their capacity, “an assault weapon is generally considered to be a semiautomatic weapon with a detachable ammunition magazine and some type of advanced feature typically used in military-grade weapons.”(Assault Weapons) For example, most military-style weapons have high capacity of ammunition, meaning they can kill a lot of people in a very short time. Implementing

This is the main reason why the government should not take away our guns, we have the right to have guns to prevent us from getting hurt by people with weapons. The government made this a law back in 1791, so almost 230 years ago this law was here in our great country of the United States of America. This is our right and it should be here to stay.

Significance: This topic is extremely significant because gun rights are under attack from many politicians in America, who are attempting to take protection out of the hands of the law-abiding citizens of this great country. Current laws in much of the country control what kind of gun people can and cannot own, as well as when and where they can carry them (if at all). In addition, more restrictive gun laws have not reduced mass shootings and have allowed for a larger number of gun-related deaths to occur.

(Lott 12) in the United States there are 80,000 to 82,000 defensive uses of guns during assaults, robberies and household burglaries. Out of the 1,000,000 times guns are used for defensive reasons in the world 400,000 of theses cases have saved lives or prevented lives from being taken. (Lott 2) The use of guns by law-abiding citizens may create a positive externality for others. Therefore, when a person is going to commit a unlawful act on someone they might be reluctant because they have no way of telling if they are carrying a weapon or not. Our country is very restrictive when granting the public to own or carry guns. Therefore, our government came up with the "Shall Issue" law, which prevents anyone to own, or posses guns that have a record of criminal injustices or a record of mental illness.

Gun law reform remains a sensitive grey area for the United States. This is one of many reasons why gun law reform has been proposed but never makes much headway. It is difficult to protect citizens while also protecting such an important piece of history and heritage. For now, it appears there is no resolution in the near

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 availability of guns is responsible for the rise in violence among juveniles (Page par. 1). People who are in the presence of easy accessible weapons does not always tend have violent behaviors. Areas with a high crime rate tend to have more violent behaviors associated with assault weapons rather areas with low crime rates. So for the most part, time spent should be focused on areas with high crime rate such as New York, Los Angeles, and New Orleans. These areas are more prone to have problematic situations in regards to assault weapons due to the drug traffickers and gangs. According to the 1990 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, four states found that thirty five percent male and eleven percent of female students reported carrying a gun (Page par.3). That is of the people who complied and told the truth, there are a lot more people that are carrying weapons that should not be. In order for the streets of America to be safer, there needs to be laws and restrictions on this dangerous weapon.

This bill is a severe attack on our second amendment rights. It is over the top and does not focus on the real problems at hand. These problems at hand are mental health issues/care and school security. This ban would stop absolutely nothing from happening in the future. What we have here is uneducated, ignorant members of congress trying to make laws that would go against what is guaranteed to us under the second amendment. There have been many attempts to reinstate the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban before and in this case they cite tragedies as a need for this recent attempt. Using the lives of children who were murdered in the most heinous way to gain political leverage is disgusting. The “Assault Weapon Ban of 2013” is a bill that is unconstitutional, ineffective, and unfairly targets law abiding gun owners. All in the name of protecting the people of America.

As indicated by (cnn.com), “sixty nine percent of the brutal wrongdoings are murders”. Mass shootings by unhinged young fellows should introduce a unique case, one that is detached from firearm control recommendations these outrages motivate. Mass killings are arranged carefully and as a rule the individual arranging get their weapons lawfully, so verifications would be of no utilization to stop these criminal. Protesting for gun control would make a positive impact on changes through the community and to be more specific restrictment of assault rifles. Then again contentions for more prohibitive weapon control laws from societal requirements for sensible firearm control laws, with high rates of gun-related deaths or incidents does not abide by the second amendment. Majority lives would have been spared if there was a restriction on assault rifles, and that being said citizens would still have protection with a simple handgun or shotgun.

just ignore bans. The only two things passing a law of this nature would accomplish

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).

The NRA argues that “assault weapons,” or those kind of semi-automatic guns designated in the ban, “have never been used in more than a small percentage of firearm-related crimes.” Some people might say, “Guns are not safe” which in some cases they aren’t. It just depends on who has the gun at the time. We should have a little bit of control on guns just because many criminals purchase guns legally and use them to commit crimes. Background checks should be mandatory when buying any gun from

The United States of America is a nation of massacres by military-type assault weapons. Aware of the deadliness of these weapons and due to public safety concerns clearly outweighing the benefits of personal ownership of military-type assault weapons, the United States passed the 1994 Federal Ban on military-type assault weapons. This ban was notably effective during the 10 years it was in effect. However, the Ban automatically expired in 2004. Since that time, the number of U. S. mass murders has markedly increased. Attempts to reinstate the Ban, most recently the stricter 2013 Ban, have all failed. Nevertheless, the less restrictive 1994 Ban did pass the Senate and House of Representatives at one point and was successful. Therefore, the 1994 Federal Ban on military-type assault weapons should be reinstated.