The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control

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." Courts have universally agreed, however, that the right provided by the Second Amendment is not absolute and that many kinds of gun legislation designed to protect public safety remain valid ("Gun Safety & Public Health," 2013). The ongoing debate between the gun rights versus gun control has caught more attention as number of cases involving gun violence increased significantly. In one study, it stated that major mental illnesses are associated with increased risk of violent act. In recent years, there were several news headlines on

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.” taking away our second amendment takes away our protection that was given to the people in the original rights of the constitution. Gun control has been a topic of controversy since the New Deal in which the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 were enacted. Although some forms of gun control are useful such as background checks and the National Firearms act of 1938, people should not be limited by concealed carry permits or open carry laws. American citizens should not be restricted from the type of firearm they are allowed to buy, how they use them, or where they keep them unless it is unconstitutional.

"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." - The Bill of Rights.“The 21st century” a backdrop for the War On Terror, has since changed that view on the right to bear arms enough to call for major gun reform. Orlando, Florida 50 killed and 53 injured June 12, 2016. San Bernardino, California 16 killed and 24 injured December 2, 2015. The media slanders two weapons of so called “terror”, the infamous AK-47 and the AR-15. The AK-47 a soviet made weapon a by product of the cold war, and the AR-15 a weapon invented to combat the AK-47. Both weapons are used in many mass shootings, in fact the New York Times calls both assault rifles

Violence. Murder. Sadness. These words describe a situation that has been occurring in the United State more frequently, a mass shooting. The thought of something so horrible happening to someone close or even oneself is hard to imagine. However, knowing that that possibility of a shooting happening is raising more concern on gun laws. The debate is one that is difficult to answer; there are those who, almost literally, love their guns more than their children and there are those who love their children more than guns. Both sides make valid arguments and can be quite convincing as well, although, to provide a unanimous solution we must analyze both perspectives. The question is then brought to attention; what are the perspectives on the gun

Gun Politics in the U.S. are defined by two distinct groups: those who are for tighter if not outright ban on guns. And those who want to preserve every American’s rights to bear Arms under the second amendment. This of course led to disagreements when it came to the interpretation of laws and court cases related to firearms. Among other things related to the issue, like the effects gun control has on crime and the public safety (Rozsa, 2017). Debates regarding the access to firearms by the general populous and gun violence in the United States have been characterized by the concerns about the rights to bear arms and the responsibility of the government to serve the needs of its citizens. Such as the prevention of crime and

On October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a large crowd of concertgoers on the Las Vegas Strip, killing 58 people and more than 500, making it the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. Following yet another mass shooting we find ourselves as society asking the same questions of gun control and whether we are doing too little to prevent these now eerily common instances. Although many will agree with Nevada Sheriff Joe Lombardo, “I don’t know how it [the mass shooting] could have been prevented.” others preach that more rigorous gun laws could have lessened the death toll or maybe even prevented this tragedy. I believe that more demanding gun control laws especially relating to assault rifles and gun ownership procedures would help decrease if not prevent many of these mass shootings.

Gun Control is a set of laws that provide limitations on gun ownership by civilians. Gun control has been argued over many years due to advances in technology with weaponry, and whether it is actually necessary to keep the limitations. One major example people are for gun control are the previous acts of terrorism on the United States. People are concerned that background checks are not being performed or not examined deep enough. Background checks one possible way to keep gun control under fair limits. Although the U.S government can not fully ban the ownership of weapons to civilians, there are some limitations that can be questionable. Limitations such as gun modifications to make them more lethal seems like a limitations that should not even exist. But because of recent events

A story the world has been talking about is the shooting in Virginia that killed two people and injured another. People with a mental illness should not be allowed to have guns. If people can be tested by their doctor to see if they possibly have some type of mental related issue and they come back positive then they should be prohibited from having guns period. According to the passage Guns and Mental Health “…an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms for life if he/she has been ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ or ‘committed to a mental institution’” (4). As a nation, we should have learned our lesson by now, and we should be doing something to prevent this from reoccurring again.

The debate between gun-control and gun-rights advocates is one that is fought on many fronts and has intermittently raged on for many years. Today, one such battlefront is that of national concealed carry: gun-control advocates see an armed citizenry as one with more potential for conflict and unnecessary killing while gun-rights proponents see it as a source of deterrence for violent crime. Yearly in the United States, roughly 12,000 people die because of gun-related homicides, and many more are wounded in hostile situations involving firearms. While implementing regulations that prevent certain individuals, like felons, from owning and using firearms certainly are worthwhile, the process for individuals who qualify to own guns should not be arduous. They should be permitted to legally purchase and carry concealed weapons for their own protection, as it is not the citizens who obtain firearms through legal means that are likely to incite a violent incident. Those who intend to do harm to others will do so by whatever means necessary, and that includes buying or stealing a weapon illegally. It is evident that gun-control laws have not stopped gun violence: lawmakers need to empower law-abiding citizens by allowing them to utilize their constitutional right to defend themselves and others with a concealed firearm.

Lastly, a major component to the right to bear arms comes from the interpretation of the Second Amendment to represent an individual’s rights to bear arms not only for individual protection but also for the protection of tyranny from a government. Previously in the United States the idea that the Second Amendment was meant to protect this right, was only one that shared by fringe individuals however, in recent years this has become a more legitimate argument. It appears that on a daily basis the government may be corrupt and many American citizens doubt if they can trust the government at all. David Welna, of National Public Radio wrote an article referencing the idea that tyranny is now a mainstream idea. He explains that in the aftermath

Almost daily, there is a story on the news about gun violence and the discussion comes up about gun control. What is gun control? As defined by Marriam-Webster, gun control is the “regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns,” (Marriam, 2017). When is there too much control? How does it affect the law-abiding citizen? These are questions that need to be taken into consideration while taking a position, as gun control effects everyone in the United States of America. Gun control needs to cease due to the fact that it takes away from the rights and protection of the American people whilst increasing government control.

On January 5th, 2016, an emotional President Obama broke down in tears as he introduced new gun control executive orders. He was clearly upset at the amount of innocent people whose lives had ended by being shot. The image of his emotions made many Americans realize: are our current laws not enough? Although gun violence has been on a steady decline for the last few decades, the U.S. is still the global leader in gun violence and ownership, according to U.S. News(McPhillips). Some people do not like that title associated with their country, so they push for gun control laws. Ideally, the best way to end gun violence is to abolish the 2nd Amendment, and illegalize guns. However, that would be an unheralded task. Banning guns would be impossible.

Gun control has become a pretty big argument. More now so than it ever has before. About 68% of registered voters want there to be stricter gun laws. That totals to be about 2 out of 3 people chose to have it (Shepard, Steven). As to where 25% chose to keep gun laws from being stricter (Shepard, Steven). The other 7% are the people who could care less (Shepard, Steven). I personally think that gun control is a bad idea, it's just another thing the government wants to be able to say yes or no to.

Gun control won’t stop school shootings and other gun crimes. Gun control is a topic that needs more research put into it and more understanding. With current events, people have different views on gun control. Gun control means something different to different people but gun violence cannot be stopped by stricter gun regulation and control it will still happen but does that mean that America is a violent country. Far from it we might have more gun violence because of more guns but we don’t have as many crimes such as burglary and rape mostly because we have firearms to protect us from attackers but gun violence will keep on happening even if you make stricter gun regulations because if a criminal wants a gun they're going to get it criminals don’t follow the laws and those are the types of people others need to focus on.

For many years, people have been pushing the American government to implement new laws that deal with gun control. Supporters of the argument claim that increased gun control will drastically reduce the crime rate in America. Nevertheless, a majority of gun control arguments are formed from strict control of data and emotional appeal. The mainstream media picks up these stories and broadcasts them to viewers without providing any context to them. While gun control activists assert that gun control is necessary, the American government should not ban guns because of the following reasons: potential vulnerability of innocent people being shot at by criminals and the inability for people to defend themselves against their own government.