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 …show more content…
When the stats are taken accordingly, even countries with a 1:3 ratio of guns to citizens (such as Canada), experience the similar gun violence deaths according to Cooke. The world could be violent free if no harmful weapons, no mentally ill, the desire to be better than others, and if bountiful more reasons were removed--do not blame violence on guns without attributing the blame to the people. Background checks are what they sound like--they check your past history for any red flags such as criminal history, credit history, and employment history. When that happens, the flagged person may not receive the desired job, or in this case--the gun. Legions of gun control supporters postulate that having a stricter background check will help solve a majority of this gun violence issue (Cooke). Little do they know, having a strict background check does not limit the issue, but only prolongs the time of crime if anything. The Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, was “a licensed armed security guard and passed the required checks to buy his gun” according to Knox. Knox, a reporter for USA Today, believes that background checks are a filter allowing ordinary people to purchase guns while screening out those prohibited from possessing guns--the point of a background check--however; “straw sales” are oftentimes used in this case to bypass the check. Straw sales are where the intended buyer
In some states, people can even buy and take guns home while waiting for background checks to be approved. The Democratic Senators want to eliminate these chances. They propose that the United States should outlaw selling guns online and at gun shows that don’t require background checks. The Democrats also propose that people should not be allowed to buy guns without a completed background check. People who have been convicted of domestic abuse should also be banned from buying guns (Kelly pg.
In the past decade alone, there have been countless mass shootings in the United States alone resulting in a large body count. Whenever a mass shooting occurs, a debate always follows about how easy it is to obtain firearms, despite background checks that have been enacted to make it difficult to purchase firearms. Background checks are “designed to determine if the prospective buyer fits any criteria that prohibit purchase or possession of firearms, including a prior felony conviction, certain domestic violence misdemeanors, unlawful use of controlled substances or, inter alia, commitment to a mental institution.” (Vernick et al. 98). Background checks are necessary for public safety, but people manage to maneuver their way around background checks when it comes to purchasing a firearm. A background check is not required when purchasing from an unlicensed dealer such as an online store or dealers at a gun show. People prohibited from purchasing guns go through unlicensed dealers because they are not required by law to perform background checks for a firearm purchase. For example, four to ten percent of online shoppers are prohibited by law from possessing firearms, yet they still are looking around in online gun stores (98). Legislation should be passed to
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 United States’ homicide rate (5.9 deaths per 100,000 people as of 2005) is higher when compared to other countries: Sweden with 1.3, Canada with 1.5, and Australia with 1.3. To go along with these rates, America has a higher gun ownership with 39% when compared to Canada with 29.1%, Australia with 19.4% and Sweden with 15.1%. Many argue that these statistics prove the effectiveness of gun control. Fewer amount of guns equals less crime.
In America there is a growing issue some say. The issue being gun control and how guns affect and/or end lives, the even bigger issue though is the issue of how people can or can not write about gun control to educate the public. Gun Control is an issue that needs to be avoided when trying to persuade readers of an opinion for two reasons, the issue of gun control is a terrible essay topic because there are too many emotions involved in gun control debates and because in general there is no good research on gun control. The only essays and articles available for research are articles filled with biased through the use of Aristotelian Appeals. Aristotelian Appeals include ethos, logos, and pathos each appeal using a different strategy to
As of December 2015, there have been at least 12,942 people killed by violence, including 64 school shootings (thetrace). When examining gun violence, you cannot just look at the violence caused by criminals, but you have to look at the violence as a whole. Orlando, Florida this year were victims of a mass shooting. A church in South Carolina last year was attacked by a lone shooter. Gun violence is not only an issued with civilians, there is also an issue or the Police disproportionally killing minorities when pursing them for traffic violations or petty
Sitting at dinner with my very outspoken Grandpa, my strong opinionated father, and my presumptuous mother, is often a time of stress for my sisters and I. When you put too many hardheaded people together there is bound to be a quarrel. “I don’t know why you think I don’t have the right to protect myself,” My Grandpa would ramble to no one in particular after hearing something in the background on the TV. Eying my sister, who clearly wanted to say respond but was kicked under the table by my mother, my mind began to wonder about the debate of gun control in our country. Being around my family who believe that there is no question to it, everyone should have the right to bear arm, I had never let my mind think of the opposing side of this until recently. I was able to come up with a few reasons why I personally believe that US citizens should maybe not have the right to bear arm, including the fear correlated with the gun itself, the state of mind of those carrying the weapon and how easy it is for a gun to fall into the wrong hands.
Plaguing the nation, for quiet sometime, has been the issue of gun control. Whether you are for gun control, or against it, almost everyone has an opinion on it. One organization, Moms Demand Action, have released a series of ads expressing their views on the issue. Released in April 2013, was a series of print ads entitled “Choose One,” in which a child is shown holding an assault weapon which is juxtaposed to another child holding an item that is banned in schools, but is not harmful. As stated above, the ads were released in April 2013, which was four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting. It is no doubt that these ads were created in response to the shooting due to the location and theme of the ad. The specific ad that will be covered is the one that features a young girl holding an assault rifle, and the other girl holding a copy of ‘Little Red Riding Hood.’ The ad is meant to illustrate the absurdity of the lax laws regarding gun regulations. Moms Demand Action achieved their goal by presenting a thought-provoking and shocking ad.
The topic of gun control is discussed frequently in the presidential debate recently. While it is a constitutional right to bear firearms for citizens to protect themselves, firearms can contribute to crimes and deaths. In my research paper, I hope to prove the effectiveness of gun control policies and thereby advocate for stricter gun control. During my research, I have found three secondary sources that present research findings about issues related to gun control. Specifically, one scholarly article deals with the public’s perception towards the effectiveness of gun policies. Another scholarly article presents a case study of New York gun control laws. The last article talks about the correlation and causation between gun control and gun crime rates. Through my analysis, I found that all three articles have a relatively strong credibility, and the two scholarly articles contain more plausible logic than the third article.
There is quite a bit of prior research done on gender differences in regard to gun control. The following articles used all help to provide support for the hypothesis that in a comparison of individuals, women are more likely to support stricter gun control laws than men. Most of the articles use polling to help prove this hypothesis, and some even help explain what might cause women to be more supportive of stricter gun control and why this is significant.
On the topic of gun control, the main objective is to aim towards regulation along with the restriction of the possession and the purchasing of firearms. The whole idea that is public policy issue, is due to the fact the right that US citizens have within the second amendment. According to Cornell University Law School in their legal information institute the second amendment is defined as, “"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." (Legal Information Institute) The tension between both the second amendment and the gun control laws, have put America into a stand still whether or not if there should be regulations. The main purpose of
With the recent shootings at schools. Military bases or offices. People start to wonder whether gun control is needed in this time period. Passing of strict laws is creating a tension between people who believe Americans have the right to bear arms against those who think guns kill people and need to be controlled. Who should Americans believe?
Gun control has been a major problem in our society because it’s been in the (Molly)world just know one payed it any attention. In the year of 2014 a young man Travon martin passed away and it became a question of gun control. Gun laws are the cause of much of the violent crime in the United States and it needs to change who Is illegal interactions transportation of guns and mass shootings around the United States.
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 guns to feel safe just think about a woman that has three kids and she lives 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 their 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 too, so I don’t get where she is trying 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 topic of gun control is always discussed in various conversations. Lately, the topic has been brought up a lot more from all the shootings going on in the country. Since then the government has become extremely strict about selling and buying guns and everything about them. But, should the government regulate the buying and selling of guns or should they regulate the owners of the guns? Should the government make sure the owners of the guns are using them in the right way and making sure they lock their guns in a secure place where another person can 't get to them? The government is attacking gun violence in the wrong way. They should stop making new laws on the selling and buying of guns and put laws into effect to make sure gun owners are provided the correct information on how to keep everyone safe. This may lead to better laws on selling and buying of guns. Information and communication is more important than jumping the “gun” and banning gun sales and other unrealistic laws. These laws are enraging consumers and making them even more furious and they are making rash decisions.