The Modern Debate Concerning Gun Control

Throughout the history of the United States of America there has been debate on gun control. The debate has become even more relevant as more semi-automatic assault rifles are being sold and the amount of shootings we have been having, especially in this last month. There are a variety of views one can take on this argument. Many conservatives have been saying that more gun control is not necessary as it’s not the guns killing the people, it’s the people pulling the trigger that are killing innocent lives. On the other hand, people who are more liberal would like to see legislation passed that would put control on the sale of firearms as keeping weapons out of the hands of dangerous people who will willingly pull the

Imagine going to school where instead of worrying about a grade you got on a test, you have to worry about your school being the next victim of a mass shooting. The Second Amendment states, “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” (United States Constitution), and yet instead of some people using their guns for self defense, they use it for mass shootings. Some argue that we already have gun control laws that don’t work, but others say if we had better gun laws than it would work. The debate on gun control started in November 22, 1963, when evidence in the assassination of president John F. Kennedy increased public awareness

The debate over stricter gun laws has been ongoing in the United States for quite some time now. Individuals who oppose stricter gun control laws argue that the second amendment to the constitution of the United States constitute part of the bill of rights that protect the right of American citizens to bear arms, and any attempt to set up laws for gun control will be a direct violation of this (Hofstadter 10). They argue that the primary purpose of the amendment was to ensure that American Citizens had the capability to protect themselves against criminal activities and defend the country against external aggression. From a personal perspective, the recent surge in instances of gun violence in the United States of America indicates that stricter gun control laws are necessary for the safety of the American citizenry. Thus, this paper is going to focus on highlighting the benefits of more stringent gun control laws and why members of the public should support it.

In the discussion of gun control, one of the main controversial issues is whether or not there should be more or less regulations put on firearms. In addition, another issue that comes up is whether or not those regulations will have a benefit on society. One one hand, gun regulation proponents believe that stricter regulations restricting the types of firearms and ammunition that can be purchased will reduce the amounts of crimes and make society safer. One the other hand, gun regulation opponents argue that stricter regulations infringe on the rights of citizens and only endanger society more. So what is the answer to the question? Should there be stricter

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.

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

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.

Gun control has become a very hot topic of contention in America today. What seems to echo here are two words: “guns” and “crime”, in a sense that are these words mutually exclusive to each other? Does the use of guns ultimately lead to crime? On the flip side, have the laws in America restricting firearm use been effective enough to protect the lives of the citizens? These are some of the questions that strike the hearts of many when the gun control debate music is played. However, the debate about gun control is not new.

The argument over gun control is an ongoing debate with the first big written regulation dating back to when the 2nd amendment was first written in 1791. The second amendment states that “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). Since then it has been fought over time and time again about what this statement truly means and what it entitles for people. The definition of gun control is “government regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns” (Merriam Webster), so by definition the meaning of gun control already violates a person’s 2nd amendment right to bear arms. However, it was ruled by the supreme court that “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” (Denniston, Lyle), meaning that there are certain things the government can do that would technically not infringe upon a persons right to bear arms because the interpretation of the 2nd amendment could has many possible meaning since our forefathers who wrote it are long since dead and can’t tell us what they really meant.

In December 14, 2012 a devastating shooting out broke in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. This event awakened lawmakers, which started working hard in the direction of more security. In 1971 congress passed the second amendment which stated that “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.” In the year 2016 this statement is generally, very debatable. One side of the party altercates that owning guns is a right that everyone should have because it is the same as the same as the plain right as self defense. The other party says that back when the second amendment was written the plan was of making a standing army. But now that the U.S. has a strong army and police force the amendment is obsolete. In 1968 the Gun Control Act was passed. This act let federal, state, and local law enforcement raise authority in controlling gun control in attempt to reduce crime. The act also said that it is illegal to market or supply firearms or ammunition to “any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age”. In 1993 another act that was passed was the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which required the purchaser of a firearm to complete a background check. Section 922 in the U.S. Code restricts categories of people from freighting, accepting, or owning firearms or ammunition. In 1994

The single source most likely has the most credible information about gun control is “The Gun Debate Is a Culture Debate” by Trevor Burrus. Burrus informs his audience that the gun control debate is more of a cultural debate which won’t help reduce gun violence. For instance, Burrus states “When it comes to guns, the much ballyhooed red state/blue state cultural divide is real”. Without Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a solution, they are divided as they have their own agendas instead of working toward the greater good. As well Burrus states “If we want to have a productive discussion on guns we must find a way to cross this cultural divide”. This proves that without unity, the gun control issues won’t be solved. Both

Close your eyes and relax. Imagine that you are in a time of 236 years ago, and imagine that you are one of the few people that had the privilege of writing the country’s constitution. It would not take long until you get to the second amendment. This 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” (Davis). This amendment has extreme importance, and should not be taken lightly. However, this amendment is not accepted like it used to be, and it is a big controversy in the United States today. Should the public be allowed to have weapons, or should the government take them

Gun Control is a hot debate topic, where people have been divided into two different viewpoints. The majority of states has supported their colleges to carry guns in case of a mass shootout. While the majority of liberal and democratic oppose carrying guns onto school property. Some states such as Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Mississippi has already passed the law to allowed students to carry concealed weapons on campuses to protect themselves from unwanted mass shooters. It sounds good when a politician says all college students should carry concealed weapons, but will it have any effect or will it be a big mistake. The majority of people present their arguments that Gun shouldn’t be allowed in Campuses. A campus is a place where students gain knowledge it’s not a battlefield of guns or place where students fear with their classmates. This day 's people are being irrational about mass shootouts, media also has a huge responsibility on this issue, media has the power to put fears on audience lives. There are many solutions in order to fix this problem. Deploying more security could be a solution, it will also create more jobs. Simply handing guns to teachers and students won’t solve the problem of mass shot outs, not everyone is a hero among college students as well, and there might be some students or faculty member who are same likeminded as shooters. The another solution which could be effective is deploying more police officers onto

The second amendment to the United state 's constitution says "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." Is this not enough can the bill of rights say this anymore clear. Many might state that the way this statement is worded is the point of debate and it should be interpreted differently. This is the root of all the hot debate over gun control. Does the constitution guarantee the right to own a gun, if so what does this look like in our modern society? Current regulations make it difficult to even purchase a firearm this alone could be considered a infringement of our

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.