[There should only be three gun per house hold ]: [Subtitle] First I think Molly Ivins is wrong when she say get rid of guns. What she don’t realize there will still be violence in the united states of America gun are not the problem the people that own the gun is the problem. Secondly some people buy gun to fell safe just think about a woman that has three kids and she live on her on what should she go out and buy the protect her family and make sure that they are safe. Third people love gun because guns make people think twice about breaking into there house are bothering the person who own a gun When she say get a knife, Get a Dog, But get rid of guns. Fourth at the same time she should do more research because dog kill people and knife kill people to so I don’t get where she is try to go with that. I just think gun are not the biggest issues violence is the biggest issues because if you take gun always people will still find something to replace the gun. The Second Amendment to the Constitution, which concerns the right to bear arms. I believe in the second amendment, but I think they should add information to the second amendment to aloud no more than three guns per household. That should be enough for one household to keep there family safe and out of harm 's way. Most Americans may argue against the three gun per household some will say that they need more gun in there house.Many American love the second amendment because it gives them the right to buy as many
The controversy surrounding the need for more gun control in the United States is a hot topic. Do we need more gun control? What about the 2nd Amendment? What about crime, protection, the mentally ill? There is a great amount of gun violence in this country and every time something happens, the argument starts up again. Maybe it is time to do more. Adam Gopnik wrote about this subject in his essay “Shootings”. His view is that there needs to be better gun control laws.
Gun control has been a big topic for the past decade in the united states. These debates will rise and fall time in and time out after something horrific happens in the state. Anti-Gun supporters do not realize that it is extremely difficult to regulate something in the states that is a big portion of our economy.Would stricter gun laws change anything? So far statistically It has been proven otherwise one must consider how a citizen would defend themselves when they are faced with terror. How will they defend themselves if there are restrictions on guns? It seems that some states that have stricter gun laws are where the most shootings and also where more terrorists attack take place. It seems that gun control is only pushed when shootings gradually get worse and worse. But why are these anti gun groups not speaking up when police brutality happens or when a racial hate crime occurs? Anti-Gun groups do not look at the bigger picture and try to understand that it is more than guns. Gun control almost plays Zero role in murders
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.
The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number across the globe. The current public gun control debate in the United States seems to be placed on standby until it is sparked up by a major mass shooting. There were at least 126 mass shootings between January 2000 and July 2014.(pro). Opponents of more gun laws accuse supporters of using a horrific event to further a lost cause, saying that more laws would not have prevented the shootings. Advocates of more gun control often want more laws to try to prevent the mass shootings and call for smart gun laws and background checks . Pew Research Center did
The United States is known for many things. We’re number one in Moon landings, number one in diversity, and number one in guns per 100 people. As a left-wing Democrat, I find this very concerning and dangerous, but many others feel differently about the topic of gun control, and more specifically, background checks. Most opposition to extensive background checks are Republicans, and this can be seen portrayed in traditional Republican values like safety, security, and family. Through the opposition of explicit restrictions to our Second Amendment right, gun control opposition enacts values like patriotism and nationalism with strong traditional American beliefs.
Ever since the 2nd Amendment was ratified, gun control has been a flaming topic of debate in America. The politics surrounding this debate could affect the lives of millions of Americas who already own firearms. Americans are looking for information regarding what a conceal carry permit is and how to obtain a conceal- carry permit so that they may formulate their own opinions on the issue. Investigating further, citizens are confused with the numerous conceal-carry permit classes, instructional courses, and the background checks of carriers. Who is allowed to apply? Where shall they be allowed to carry? Using data gathered from a multitude of sources, the average citizen might form a new frame of reference concerning this topic with
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.”
One main issue in the Americas is the problem of gun control and if guns should be allowed. Many Americans will argue that since it is allowed in the Second Amendment there should be no argument that the people should be allowed to own guns. Others will say there should be gun control because many crimes committed are with guns. On the other hand it could be seen as criminals still finding some way of getting guns albeit through smuggling or some other way of obtaining guns which would lead to more issues because Americans wouldn 't be able to defend themselves. The issue of gun control has been a very controversial topic and has been going on for many years.
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.
In Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: His Private Conversations, Adolf Hitler was recorded as stating “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty” (Hitler, Cameron, Stevens, Trevor-Roper, 2000). The matter of gun control in America has long since been a rather controversial issue, with individuals on the left and right passionately voicing their opinions for their cause. Gail Collins and Michael A. Schwartz both address the matter of gun control in their respective New York Times and San Diego Union Tribune opinion articles, but they each do so in drastically dissimilar approaches.
Americans realize that the 10 Amendments produce the Bill of Rights which were made to prohibit government powers from infracturing the basic individual liberties; therefore, the changing of one of the Amendments would offset the basic individual liberties granted by the founding fathers. Countless U.S. news stations and support groups portray the mass shootings, gun violence, other gun propaganda, or naturally the use guns, as a scapegoat to support gun control. Guns do not harm people--people hurt people (And I have no doubt that this has been aforementioned extensively) however; the implementation of gun control in the U.S. will diminish the 2nd Amendment--the right to bare arms--as well as prevent the citizens the right to protect
Gun control has been a longstanding debate in many countries around the world. For centuries men were actually encouraged to arm themselves to protect their families and homes. Many countries have enacted gun control laws in order to contain violent crimes, with the Canadian government taking the first step in the late 1800s. In order to protect its citizens, Canada’s legislature implemented a series of laws, throughout several decades, restricting firearms and requiring gun registration. Although opponents say that their rights and freedoms are violated by such legislation, the ultimate goal is the safety of the Canadian people. Lawmakers were challenged with the task of preventing violence with firearms without infringing on the rights
Interestingly pro-gun groups identify the reason for increased gun crimes as tightening laws and putting more restrictions on guns. According to Wooster College and a research that they conducted, many individuals who are pro guns believe “Gun control doesn’t protect people from violent crime, it increases it. Every region where gun control is high, there is a higher instance of gun violence and crime in general. In regions where there are less restrictive gun laws, you’ll see lower instances of crime and gun violence.” Regarding if this statement is actually true or not is not identified, however, this statement lines up with the idea that a person who is restricted will eventually find a way to get what they want, sometimes even if
More gun control means fewer deaths and crimes. Gun control in California is already very strict, but not strict enough. There are many reasons as to why gun control in California should be even stricter. First of all, there are many people out there with mental problems that already own a firearm. If the law were to become stricter, they would have more processing to rule out the mentally unstable from owning any type of firearm. Anyone taking any anti-depressants should automatically be disqualified. There is a good chance that it would most likely, reduce shootings, massacres, suicides, and all other types of incidents that have happened these past couple of years. Most of the past massive shootings are committed by people with mental instability. Secondly, the state should really enforce a very strict background check. Anybody who has a criminal or gang related background should automatically be disqualified from obtaining any type of firearm. Anybody with a violent record should also be disqualified. Lastly, California should make gun control stricter because stricter gun control would mean less crime and a safer state.
On Thursday, October 1, 2015, Christopher Harper-Mercer, a 26 year old student who was armed with six guns, killed nine people in Umpqua Community College in Oregon. According to a report released by the F.B.I., mass shootings in the United States have risen drastically since 2000. Also, studies show that countries with higher rates of gun ownership have more mass shootings, an incident involves more than four victims of gun violence, but not include gang violence. The United States has 5% of the global population, but has the most population with people who own firearms. Because some people own multiple weapons; therefore, on average, there are about 89% of the U.S resident own guns, which also have 31% of mass shootings during 1966 to 2012. Gun control is a controversial issue that the people in the United States argue about. Some people want stricter gun laws for a safer environment, while others want to own guns for recreational or self-defense purposes. To find out if restricting people’s rights to own firearms will minimize the number of the mass shootings in the United States, I conducted some research with my group mates. Based on the news articles and scholarly articles, we found that restricting people’s rights to own guns can reduce the number of mass shootings, but not by much, because people who commit mass shootings will obtain the weapons illegally.