The Decision Of Arm Citizens With Firearms

On Wednesday June 18, 2015 nine shot dead at a historical black church in Charleston, South Dakota and only a month later on July 16, 2015 in Chattanooga, Tennessee with five dead leaving citizens devastated. The past year contains more than 350 mass shootings, averaging 1.02 shootings per day and continuous growing number of deaths, multiple mass shootings around the world leaving dozens of victims in its path. There is no exact definition of mass shootings, but most sources believe it is when four or more people are shot in one location. Citizens in America are easily able to obtain a gun and the growing issue is whether this should change and stronger laws in place. Although citizens believe gun control laws take away second amendment and right to protect themselves, mass shootings are increasing yearly and action needs to happen to prevent the next attack.

In about every nation, gun control has always been an issue of controversy. Gun control laws are quite different from country to country, each possessing different requirements, specifications, and ordinances, so on and so on. What will be examined are the specified gun control laws in three international countries, ranging from Canada, Australia, and Japan, as well as a comparison and contrast of the the similarities and unique differences toward American gun control laws and those in other countries, and finally, the effects of having loose gun control laws. Unlike America, these countries possess stricter laws regarding gun control.

The recent terrorist situations in America could have turned out differently if the victims had been armed. There have been too many terrorist situations lately in America. Many people who are not in favor of gun rights want to make it more difficult or even impossible for citizens to purchase weapons. When stricter gun control is enforced, then citizens may not be able to protect themselves. We need to find a way to prevent gun related tragedies, but that does not involve taking guns away from citizens (Hockley). We need more guns in the hands of citizens, then they will be able to protect themselves during violent crimes (Goldberg). The call for increased gun rights in America is vital for the safety

The matter of gun control has become an increasingly controversial issue. Whenever, a nationalized tragedy ensues that involves gun violence, the question on what to accomplish regarding America’s gun control takes center stage. While exploring this topic, this essay will attempt to discuss the circumstances that prohibit a person from possessing firearms, also regulations to prevent these persons from possessing firearms. Upon reflecting on the personal side of the gun control debate, stricter gun control begins to infringe upon our rights, as citizens and they should concentrate on enforcing the current laws in the books, instead of making additional laws.

Introduced to the New World in approximately 1607, firearms and America resemble siamese twins; you can’t have one without the other. Over time, guns have become a crucial part of American society, and to many, the ability to carry a firearm defines their liberties as a citizen. For example, without the ability to carry weapons freely, winning the American Revolution may not have been possible. But, on the contrary, many of the school shootings that occur in today's society could be prevented should the individuals that commit them be restricted to purchase a firearm. For negative reasons like that, the government has been forced to step in and try to regulate the average citizen’s right to carry a concealed weapon through the picking apart of the 2nd amendment and the addition of the Brady Bill in 1993. Because of this, many feel that by limiting their ability to carry weapons, the government is infringing upon their constitutional rights and civil liberties as an

The issue of gun is always controversial. Firearm can be used as defending or an assaulting weapon. In United States, firearm increase the rate of homicide, suicide and gun violence, which can harm and murder people. Moreover, taking away people’s gun will not work effectively because the murder and criminal will find another ways to get guns. Also, the black market will appear for the people who cannot get guns from regulated markets. In addition, if regulated guns are banned, murderers may use other tools as weapon including pencil, knife, and a car. The government should not take away the gun from gun owners, while increasing the difficulty of the background check to screen gun buyers is the most effective way. In fact, most people do not want to give up a weapon that can defend their family and property in the long history of legalized gun of United States. Gun control or heavily regulated gun laws is not suitable for residents because people need firearm to protect their family, self-defense, and against the murderers who may often seek buying illegal guns from black market. Firearm can be used as protection in our life.

Humans naturally assume the right to be able to protect and defend their own person. This is a country built upon protecting the well-being of its people, and, more so protecting its people’s freedom, specifically the freedom to keep and bear arms. We are free to defend ourselves against others acting outside their lawful boundaries. Crime is obviously a problem in society, and we have laws in place to discourage behaviors that people agree on as wrong or that are considered to be bad for a peaceful society, but laws cannot change people. There will always be people out there who break those laws and pose threats to other citizens. Unfortunately, these incidents happen all too often and can end

Gun control has been a controversial issue in America for over a half-century. This issue has two sides. On one side, there are people who oppose gun control and believe that it is their right under the second amendment to own one or more assault weapons. Republicans such as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Governor Rick Perry of Texas and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are against gun control. On the other side of the issue, there are people who favor gun control and believe that background checks should be given in order to keep these weapons out of the hands of people who are mentally ill. Democratic politicians such as House Majority Leader and Senator Harry Reid of

Gun control has been a hot topic in the media lately. The government seems to think that it would be a wonderful idea to take away our right to bear arms. May I remind you this is our right according to the second amendment? The second amendment reads, "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." Just to be clear on the meaning of the word infringe, it reads, “To actively break the terms of a law, agreement, etc.” With that in mind, why would any American think that it’s ok for our government to take away our right to bear arms? Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but is this not what Hitler did to the Jewish people, before launching his murderous campaign against them? Sure there would be some benefits to having gun control, I am not completely biased on the subject. But Newton said it best in his third law of motion which states, “for every action, there is an equal, and opposite reaction.”

In the United States today there are many different policy issues that are associated with individual’s different hobbies and interests, and lots of these policy issues have some legal components to them. For me a policy issue that comes to mind would be Gun Control, because I am a gun owner who is a supporter of the second amendment. With shootings and other gun related trouble happening all over our country those who create and maintain our gun laws have a big responsibility to take care of. The policy issue of gun control has both people who support the right to bear arms, while there are others who think all guns should be done away with, and this dispute should be something people care about in a legal context.

The gun laws in California are for the most part the strictest in the United States. In order to purchase a gun legally, one must obtain a firearm safety certificate by passing a written test. There is a 10-day waiting period as well as several limitations on who may own a firearm. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are two democratic candidates who recently had a presidential debate in Flint Michigan for the 2016 election. The purpose of this essay is to compare both candidates’ standpoint on the subject of gun control and determine which candidate has the best policy.

Hello I will be discussing current gun laws. Basically, I will be disputing the statement that we in American should have stricter gun laws in all cities in efforts to keep down gun related crimes and murders. Compared to states that have strict gun laws, states that have lax or no gun laws do not have less crime rates. In fact, out of the 50 states that allow citizens to have a concealed weapons license only about 10 have crime rates that need their laws to be revamped. That is only 5%. So here are some statistics and points that will get you to see things from a proven standpoint.

Imagine waking up in the middle of the night, and hearing sounds coming from downstairs. You know you should be alone, but there is someone else inside your house. What do you do? Would you call the police? The truth is, they would not be able to help you. You are all alone, and you have to be able to defend yourself. People need guns to defend themselves and those around them.

The controversial issue of gun control is one of the most debatable topics among politicians and civilians alike. This is because of the complexity of gun control and the long history that is related to the subject. Gun control is typically an effort, by the government, to create legislation that regulates the sale and use of firearms within the country. There are various arguments that surround this topic which include gun-related violence, accidents, self-defense, murders, suicide, constitutional rights, and so on. James Q. Wilson, a professor who has taught at Pepperdine University, Harvard University, and the University of California, Los Angeles, and a published author of several books, take a negative stance on the subject of gun control. Wilson contributed to the gun control debate in the last few years with his written op-ed article. According to Wilson, there is no possible method to eradicate the hundreds and millions of guns that exist within the country, restrictive gun laws will not significantly affect the United States’ murder rate, and that guns play an important role in self-defense in everyday lives. Contrary to what Wilson believes, strict gun control is necessary and should be enforced to ensure public safety because gun laws have the power to produce a positive outcome in the long run, reduce gun-related violence, and reduce the numerous risks that gun ownership open.

Living in the United States, Americans have the right to protect themselves. When people are in danger, they rely on the police saving them. If someone is in your house threatening you with a gun, they are more than likely going to be dead before the police can even arrive. We cannot depend on police or anyone else to save us in these dangerous situations. “So far in 2015, there have been 20,844 incidents involving guns and out of those 5,326 people have died” (Gun Violence Archive, 2015). We have to know how to protect ourselves, and a gun is the best line of defense. Some criminals will even run when they see a victim with a gun because the criminal will know they can defend themselves. Not only do we need to protect ourselves from enemies, but we also should be able to protect ourselves from our own government.