The Issue Of Gun Control Laws

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.

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 government has the responsibility to protect people. Currently, the gun violence has threatened the American public safety, people used gun to kill many people for their own interests. The United States constitution believes Americans have their own gun to protect themselves. Some people said guns will protect their life easily. Whether, America should have strict gun control laws or not bring about the debate in society.

We have all heard of all the tragedies throughout the country regarding guns. According to the President (2013) "We know that we cannot stop every act of violence with guns, but what if we tried to stop even one?" Weapon controls in the U.S. is structured at a state level and each state has their own restrictions on gun control. In different parts of the nation, there is significantly more resistant to firearm laws. For instance, in Texas, the gun law permits individuals to carry handguns on their side like in the cowboy era. In Kansas, firearm owner is not required to have a permit to concealed weapon. In Missouri there is not required that a gun salesman to have a background check or a waiting period. However, there is a requirement to take a gun class, once you pass the class a buyer can purchase a gun then register it with the sheriff department. In California a person can petition the court to remove a firearm from a family member capable of violence.

Few topics can generate more of a divided opinion than gun control. In reviewing the following case study, “Case 8.4: Have Gun, Will Travel…to Work”, several important questions will be discussed involving moral and legal rights of both the employee and the employer. This case involves the dilemma of a company’s rights to protect its employee’s verses an individual’s right to bear arms. In 2002 several employees were terminated for violating company policy by keeping guns in their vehicles while at work. Although at the time there was no state or federal law prohibiting the company from dismissing an employee for having a gun in their vehicle, this action by Weyerhaeuser, a Seattle-based timber-producing company set in motion a legal

The topic of Gun control has not been a light debate, due to the drastic increase in Mass Shootings, since the year 2000. Although, Gun Control is a heavily weighted topic, the discussion and new Texas policy under Higher Education, is Campus Carry, is also packing heat. Campus Carry is the latest Texas policy, Senate Bill 11, which was passed by Governor Greg Abbott on June 1st, 2015. Campus Carry is a law that allows concealed licensed handgun owners to carry a concealed firearm on university campuses. Now this law does not give individuals the right to “display” a firearm on campus property, but it allows for licensed to concealed owners to carry a handgun on the premise. Despite this law being added in June of 2015, the bill will not go into act until August 1, 2016 and with the law comes discretion. The law gives universities the chance to have discretion to monitor campus carry or complete ban campus carry on that campus. With this law being in effect, a lot of Texas residents feel as if their college students safety is at risk, knowing that twenty-one year old adults, with the reputation of partying and drinking, are now eligible to carry a weapon on campus. Despite many believing that Governor Abbott made the wrong choice of signing this bill, the pros greatly outweigh the cons of this matter.

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.

There hardly exists a more divisive issue in the political and media landscape across the United States currently than that of gun control. Advocates on either side of the issue are quick to voraciously fight for what they believe, as well as to tear down anyone who sees the issue differently. But unlike other issues, it seems that gun control advocacy does not rest on a spectrum; either you are pro-gun control or you are against it, and anyone caught in the middle is likely to get flak from both sides. But why is the issue of gun control such a hot topic? And why is it that there seems to be no room for compromise? The reason the issue of gun control is so heated is because it’s not just another frenzied debate; it’s a battle.

As the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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.” However, President Obama addressed a call to limit gun violence in January 2016 due to the tragedies caused by gun violence happened in the past. Gun control has always been a controversial issue in the U.S. While some people claim it is a constitutional right for citizens to carry guns to defend themselves, others argue that guns are more likely to cause harms to people rather than protecting them. During my online research, I have found two primary sources, an advertisement and a gun control policy, advocating for gun control, and a cartoon against gun control, all adopting different strategies and from different perspectives. The advertisement and the cartoon both aim to arise emotional feelings to the audience, while the gun control policy tends to convince the audience through the logical structure. Nevertheless, the advertisement and the cartoon are relatively weak in logos, while the policy has some weaknesses in pathos.

Gun control has been a serious topic in the city of Chicago for decades. Hundreds of shootings occur in the city on a yearly basis, resulting in countless injuries and casualties. Who is to blame? Are guns really the problem, or are the people who own them the problem? Getting a firearm in Chicago becomes more and more difficult every year, yet the shootings seem to increase. Some say this is due to and increase in gang violence. Others say that the city is not monitoring the sales of guns and who is able to purchase firearms. According to Vidal “Illinois still has one of the strictest gun laws in the country.” The city is in controversy on whether or not to ban handguns entirely. 2012 was a record year for homicides. According to Vidal

Scholarly Essay: Gun Control There has been considerable debate recently in Canada over the issue of gun control. The Canadian parliament enacted the Firearms Act to enforce gun control by requiring gun owners to register their firearms. Just recently, the government of Alberta lead in a charge, including five other provinces and numerous pro-gun groups, complaining that the law is unconst...

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 US is among the few countries globally that legally allow citizenry ownership of firearms as long as they remain registered. The US Second Amendment provides a legal framework for the acquisition and ownership of guns as a constitutional right (Bernick 1). The right to own firearms in the US, therefore, has authorities both local and state-mandated to the regulation of the guns that find themselves into circulation through registered ownership. The laws however vary across state borders with residents allowed to carry guns in public under either concealment or holstered on permitted areas.