The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control

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.

Gun control is defined as the “regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns” (“Gun Control” Merriam-Webster 1). Gun control is a heated topic that many Americans concern themselves with today after recent mass shootings. Suggested solutions are posed and debated between different viewpoints. The laws in existence today should be carried out and tightened before excess laws are passed. Many Americans have turned to face the issue of gun control after recent mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas or in some Churches. Some Americans with a more liberal view believe that tighter gun control laws should be enacted. More conservative Americans believe that the gun control laws already passed should be followed through. The gun laws that have already been passed should be followed through opposed to enacting new laws because many laws are already in place, gun control laws do not stop illegally obtaining a gun, and strict gun control laws have failed to prevent mass killings in countries.

This article stood out to me as the author of this article does not have a strong stance in any of the side regarding gun control. However, it has convincing content of gun control in both side of the argument. I plan to use this article’s points in relation to the cons of gun control, and express it to my audience. Nonetheless, I plan to revoke every appeal the other side of argument holds for gun control.

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.

The second amendment of The Constitution of the Unites States rules 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 recent years this has become a highlighted and popular discussion topic throughout people and media. Typical with American media the subject of gun control is visited with broad stroked of red and the use of fear tactics while completely ignoring the complicated and underling positives and negatives of public access to firearms and the benefits and risks associated with this freedom. Most people do not carry a weapon at all and may question others who do because of the moderately low risk of being a victim of a crime. Those how carry however like to think “Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.”

Gun control and gun rights are crucial topics that have been debated for years. Some people believe that civilians should not have the right to own a gun while others believe it is our god given right to bear arms. The second amendment of the Bill of Rights 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.”(Shermer). This is a right that society has had for years and is one of the main reasons why no solution has been reached yet. There are two main sides to this debate, Gun control advocates focus on the serious negative effects of gun availability on health and safety, while gun-ownership advocates emphasize the lawful use of guns and

“I have a very strict gun control policy: if there is a gun around, I want to be in control of it” (Clint Eastwood). Every year according to ATF statistics, over six million guns are sold on average in the United States alone. As of 2015, gunviolencearchive.org reported 46,350 incidents related to firearms. Out of those incidents 11,664 deaths were attributed by a firearm. “Staggering numbers on both fronts with no resolution in site. 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” many have challenged this right, and it has become one of the most controversially debated subjects to date.

The arguments of those in favor of gun control are primarily based on numbers- the statistics. The New York Times stated that the United States has more guns and more gun related crimes than any other developed country. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proved that the nation had more that 33,000 firearm deaths; more than 70% of all homicides and 50% of all suicides. Currently, it is incredibly easy to buy a gun. In fact, there are more restrictions on buying a pet (these include a minimum age, personal references, ID check, and a home check) than a gun. For this reason, gun control advocates desire fewer guns, better records of who owns them, and higher restrictions on the purchase of a gun. This compromise will not completely abolish the right to bear arms, but will make it less available. The advocates believe that the more people carry guns, the more likely it is for a shooting to occur. This belief is rising with the escalating amount of mass shootings. A mass shooting, as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is "four or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter." In 2016, 31% of all mass shootings occurred in

With mass shootings on the rise, street violence killing by the thousands, and suicide victims climbing as well, gun control laws have been a hot topic in today’s media. There are many state laws and a federal amendment that pertain to firearms. These laws try to restrict and regulate the sale, purchase, and possession of firearms through licensing, registration, and identification requirements (US. Legal, Inc.). These laws are in place to protect people who own or do not own guns from those who would be the most dangerous when in possession of one. However, there are large loopholes in these laws that allow people to get a gun without facing any of the laws’ requirements. It is these loopholes that give people whom wish to harm or kill other, the ability to purchase a firearm when otherwise they would have been prohibited. Stricter and more thorough firearm-related laws need to be put into place, so that previous loopholes will be eliminated.

people are killed. The people and politicians warm up to talk about gun control and strict laws,

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

Another position that gun advocates support is self-protection. They claim that everyone having guns would be safer because there are many bad people who own guns, and because the bad people do not obey laws anyway, so they always will own guns. The only way to avoid being a victim is that you either carry one on you or have one at home so that you might fight off an intruder. Although protection from bodily harm is a basic good, it remains to be proved whether owning a firearm for personal safety as a concealed weapon or in one’s home is actually safer. Given that there are many safety issues at stake, it would seem that the risk does not justify the reward. Unless one is an individual who encounters, reacts, and is trained to deal with dangerous situations involving firearms on a very regular basis, that the possession of a concealed weapon will not enhance personal safety. In a society of armed individuals, the potential for erratic and irrational action is far greater. The individual may feel empowered, but this is because of the fact that they have a gun. Because of this then the possession of a concealed weapon actually may impair personal safety because it creates a false sense of security because the overwhelming number of people who own guns do not regularly use their guns and there is a possibility for collateral accidental shootings among bystanders. Under gun control the

Gun control has been a heavily debated issue over many years to whether guns or people are the brute force behind the violence all over the world. People are the main reason behind violence in the world, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Those who are mentally unstable or violent masterminds are unstoppable when it comes to completing a task of violence: “They plan methodically to execute their victims, finding the means no matter what laws or other impediments the state attempts to place in their way” (Fox, 2012). There is no simple way to cure or stop these people from obtaining or even using the guns in a despicable way. The right to bear arms is written in the constitution as a precautionary measure to protect those who may be in harm's way: “The second- amendment is clear - under the Constitution, these rights may not be infringed upon by any level of government, unless due process of law should dictate that these freedoms have been stripped of someone for some wrongdoing” (tenthamendment.net, 2018).

When asked the question from a survey done by the Pew Research Center on how they feel about the homicide rate in the United States, 56 percent of the public said that it was increasing and violent crime was getting worse. The truth is that although violent crime still seems to be happening more and more often, it is actually on the decline of 49 percent since its peak in 1993. The reasons why people feel otherwise about homicides has to do with the increased media coverage of homicides and mass shootings. This coverage usually includes biased opinions to increase viewer ratings and promote their political party’s views instead of using their soapbox that they are on, to do what the news was originally meant to do, tell the facts. Because of

Another one. Another mass shooting. Another act of senseless murder. This happens too often. In fact it’s becoming normal.There’s that many. And as always, whenever one of these tragedies occurs there are calls for more gun control. However, as is the norm in American politics, nothing meaningful ever happens. No change is made, no policy is introduced, and these horrible events keep occurring. The argument seems plain as day. If these criminals are able to legally purchase these weapons that are then used to slaughter innocent men, women and children, then it only makes sense to ban these guns. So, why are no new gun control measures ever put in place? Because the state has no right to disarm the people? Under no circumstances?