The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control

In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of

The American society has for long struggle with the debate and issue of private gun ownership. There are the advocates proposing lenient laws to allow more gun possession while the people against it calling for stringent laws to control the situation. For many centuries, since the enactment of the Second Amendment and even during the slavery period, gun ownership remains an issue to debate. The negative effects have been the harassment of the minority and the vulnerable as well as increased crimes. On other hand, it has helped promote the security of the people and ensure there is no violation of people’s rights to own guns as required by the Second Amendment. As such, gun control and ownership remains a controversial and hot topic of discussion

Guns under the control of the government are able to show who is buying the guns and is able to tax the guns. Gun control is the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians. I chose to do the moral issue of gun control because I am for limited gun control. In this paper, I will argue whether gun control is necessary for the United States or does the government have the right to ban guns from the citizens.

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.

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.

With an increase in the number of mass shootings that have occurred in the United States in the last few years the issue of gun control laws has become a prevalent topic of debate throughout American society. This debate stems from two opposing arguments over gun control. Some feel gun control laws are fair and not the contributing factor to these mass shootings, whereas, others feel that there is an urgent need for strict laws in order to end the problem of mass shootings. There are numerous pros and cons to the enforcement of stricter gun control laws but we must note a few things: stricter gun control laws would interfere with the second amendment, it is not the gun that kills it is the individual, and it is ultimately not laws that are

In “Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” Jeff McMahan sets out to prove his claim that the government should impose a ban on private gun ownership through several premises. His premises nearly succeed in contributing to McMahan’s position on the matter, but fall a bit short in several aspects. Within this paper, I will be explaining Jeff McMahan’s argument for the claim that the government should impose a ban on private gun ownership. In addition, I will be critiquing McMahan’s argument through objections and responses to these objections that a defender would most likely give. McMahan’s conclusion in this particular argument is that the government should ban the private ownership of guns in the United States.

The continuing Mass Shootings in the United States has caused the gun control debate to intensify. While anti-gun control advocates say the Second Amendment guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, the pro-gun control group reads the Second Amendment as a collective right to bear arms; meaning organized militia are the only ones with that right. This essay will analyse the effectiveness of several different articles which present arguments for and against gun control.

The debate of whether or not the government should ban the sell of guns, and attempt to remove all guns in existence has been debated for a long period of time; I believe that banning guns is not only implausible, it will do more harm than good. In this essay, I’ll be discussing the history of this debate, as well as discuss some misinformation that’s been proposed by those wishing to ban guns. I’ll also discuss how guns do not turn ordinary, law abiding citizens into killers, and how owning guns can effectively help protect yourself, your family, and your home while decreasing casualties and crime.

Guns did not create our country, but they did help it develop. This statement does not necessitate the unregulated purchasing of firearms but does imply the strength the ability to defend one’s self and values grants a person. Within this paper, it will be argued that a ban on guns is equivalent to tying the limbs of an activist or duct-taping the mouth of a muckraker. Without guns, social change would become a cumbersome process bordering on impossible. Conversely, the unrestricted permissibility of guns is very akin to allowing a pack of sheep play in a field inhabited by wolves. There must, therefore, lie some middle ground where we ensure all of our liberties; both that of our speech and that of our lives. Though some are apt to say that the possession of guns is a

As opponents against gun control have numerous reasons as to why guns should not be restricted amongst the American public but pointed to the Second Amendment to the United Constitution as the main reason why gun control should not be permitted in the U.S. However, what these critics do not want to accept is that since 1980, several crucial events in the United States have led to excessive gun control movement. Remarkably, it takes a lot more than one appalling catastrophe to influence Americans that more attention should be taken into monitoring the number and types of guns the public can get access to. However, some major shooting calamities in the U.S such as assassination attempts on President Reagan’s, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook have all triggered majority of Americans to take a stance in favor of gun control legislation. The first key push in the direction of the gun control movement begun during the era of Ronald Reagan presidency since he happened to be of one of the most “pro gun” presidents in American history.

In the United States Constitution, American’s possess, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” (Madison) however this document, which has dictated law in the United States since 1776, may be under friendly-fire. With the rise in mass shootings within the United States, a considerable amount of people is seeking the regulation on the purchase of firearms. Some go as far as to pleading for the removal of firearms entirely in order to protect the masses of the United States, however these regulations would not fix many problems in the United States crime rates. Restricting firearms from the everyday American will only leave them defenseless while leaving the issue of crimes committed with firearms unsolved.

The topic of gun control laws has risen to become one of the most controversial ethical issues of the twenty first century in the United States of America. The US is world-leading in terms of gun ownership, according to a 2012 Congressional Research Service report, per 100 residents there are “112.6, meaning there is more than one gun for each American citizen” (Krouse). This means that there are more guns in the US than in any other country, with over double and even triple what the next closest countries have. There are two perspectives to this ethical issue, those for and against stricter government gun control laws. Activists who support stricter

In this paper, I consider the topic of gun control. First, I present Dixon’s argument in support of gun control, which is that all personal guns should be banned. Second, I introduce Huemer’s argument against the regulation of guns, which is that banning personal firearms is not justified. Third, I critique Huemer’s argument against gun control on the grounds of three claims. First, the right to own a gun is nullified by its negative repercussions. Second, gun control does not violate an individual’s right to defend themselves. Third, guns are not necessary for preventing crime. Finally, I argue in favor of Dixon’s position on gun control because the use of personal guns is immoral.

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.