The Pros And Cons Of Gun Violence

This opinion piece from The Washington Post was written by U.S. Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut. Published days after the recent Las Vegas Shooting, Murphy tells of his past experiences with gun violence urging for stronger gun control legislation. He states that the “phenomenon of horrific mass shootings is exclusive to the United States”, so the solution should be able to be solved by Americans. He argues that our response to “regular mass shootings” has been un-American, and how can a country that has solved the greatest problems in the world, not solve a problem that puts our fellow citizens in harm. “…we choose to be an increasingly distant outlier of exceptional violence”, Murphy states.

One of the main topics of debate is whether or not gun laws actually correspond with lower murder rates. “The average annual gun death rate ranged from almost 3 per 100,000 in Hawaii to 18 per 100,000 in Louisiana. Hawaii had 16 gun laws, and along with New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts was among states with the most laws and fewest deaths. States with the fewest laws and most deaths included Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana and Oklahoma.” (CBSnews.com). These statistics can lead one to believe that more gun laws equate to lower death rates. What these numbers prove is that some gun regulations help lower death rates. However, what gun control activists would have you believe that a full on gun ban would lower these numbers more. This is not the case as evident in the following, “During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower” (James D.

Throughout the past 20 years, the purchase of guns have increased drastically but at the same time, crimes with firearms are down a shocking 69% (Snyder). Gun control is often used to create laws for the intention of reducing gun injuries or death by gun and might involve background checks or creating difficulty to own a gun altogether. Some believe strict gun laws will help America reduce murder rates. However, others believe gun control will remove the right to bear arms as an individual. America needs to refrain from enforcing gun control because citizens have the constitutional right to own guns and gun control will fail to decrease murder rates which would better be decreased by a basic education of gun safety.

This was the headline in “The New York Times” by Christopher Mele and Manny Fernandez on November 5th 2017. The authors highlights the events that led to a gunman by the Devin Patrick Kelly, 26, opening fire at a congregation worshiping on a Sunday at a rural church in Texas, killing 26 people and scores injured. According to this article, the motif of the attack was attributed to a serious mental health problem and a failed marriage which led to divorce the victim having assaulted his wife and child.

The Constitution states the second amendment as, “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.”1 This amendment gives the people the right to own and carry guns for their protection and for the security of their homes. There are many controversies surrounding the issue of people owning guns and gun related violence because of the second amendment. One of the biggest controversies is the regulations on gun control regulating what type of guns people may possess and what kind of registration is required. The tenth amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”2 The second amendment (along with all the other amendments) is under federal jurisdiction; therefore the states do not have power in this case.3 The second amendment gives the right to all American citizens to bear arms, therefore, the States do not have the power to regulate what type of firearm they may possess and how they carry or keep it.

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.

Two thousand, four hundred fifty-eight: the number of gun-related deaths in 2017 in the United States as of February 28, the 59th day of the year (“Number of Gun Deaths,” n.d.). Twenty of these occurred on the 27th alone. Just hearing the words “gun control” puts many people on edge; the explosive and divisive nature of the issue leads them to tread cautiously whenever the topic arises. Gun violence is a national dilemma that no one wants to exist. This is where the consensus seems to end: few people agree on how to end it. Gun violence has gotten an ever-increasing amount of press over the past few years, leaving it in the forefront of American attention, and many are frustrated that nothing is changing. In order for any progress to be made,

Multiple videos of police involved shootings have surfaced on the internet over the past few years raising the question; should police be carry firearms? A few countries have already disarmed their patrol officers and left only a few specialized armed units. There are some that would believe the same should be done in the United States. However disarming officers would have disastrous results. Police officers must be armed to project force, secure a crime scene, and defend the lives of others.

As Boss (2017) mentions, 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” (p. 164). Gun control has always been a controversial issue. Due to shootings related to culture, schools, robberies, movie theatres, and accidents, guns have become an object of violence, fear, and danger. All people have been affected by gun violence or have heard of an event related to gun violence. The two articles that will be analyzed are Erik Gilbert’s “Stop Worrying About Guns in the Classroom. They’re Already Here” and a testimony by Mark Kelly “Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Gun Violence on Gun Violence on January 30, 2013”. After comparing arguments through different premises from both articles, one essay will be chosen superior to the other.

I hate to bore you with the same ol’ statistics showing how strict gun control laws are followed by giant spikes in violent crimes or with arguments asking the left to explain its intellectual consistency behind their view that the only remedy to a failed gun control law is the creation of another gun control law just like it. The real question in the gun control debate is not crime rate data, but why in the first place liberals are so hell-bent on making it harder for law abiding citizens to carry a gun.

Gun Control has been a long debated, and hot topic among the American population for many decades. The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution states that, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Both sides of this debate have very logical arguments for increasing gun control or lessening gun control. These arguments tend to spike shortly after active shooter events, eventually having some type of legislature passed to prevent these atrocious acts from happening. But ultimately active shooter events continue to plague the United States, and much of the world.

Gun violence is a major flaw in our schools and in communities at large. There were 28 people that died in the Sandy Hooks school shooting on December 14, 2012. At the columbine high school shooting on April 20,1999, there were 15 people that were killed. At the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on February 14,2018, there were 17 students and teachers that had been shot and killed. Since Columbine, there has been 122 deaths from school shootings.

A court ruling on firearms is "The U.S. Constitution and most state Constitutions guarantee the right to bear arms, but the courts have ruled that this right may be strictly controlled." (Supreme Court, 1) This ruling by the Supreme Court basically means that there are no restrictions to what the government can do to change and revise the 2nd amendment to their liking. The government can put all the restrictions they want on our right to bear arms, including firearms. Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University argues that "gun control laws have not reduced crimes..."(Egendorf, 1) Isn't the government trying to lower crime by making gun laws? It's not working, the crime rate is not going down. In fact, if stricter gun laws were placed upon our country, the crime rate would most likely go up, seeing as that there would be a greater amount of helpless citizens that would be easily targeted by those wishing to rob, murder, or steal.

Gun control is an extremely argumentative social issue in the United States. Many people support of gun control, these people want stronger laws to ban certain groups from bargaining and buying weapons and use those in the public. They have many reasons for gun control because as citizens, they want a safe and secure society for their families. Although, there are some groups who are not satisfied with this decision and have their reasons. They believe, using gun in the public is necessary. One of the reasons they have is, in case if the mass shooting happen they can defend people in this risky situation. This is logical, if citizens want some rights to have gun and wants safer life for their families, but at the same time gun rights can make tragedy for many other citizens. The government has to find a law that can protect all or majority of citizens. Many mental problems or unhappy people live in this society and they want to have gun and they believe this is their right per second amendment of the Constitution. For that reason maybe they want to use their gun and bring awful tragedy to other people. Killing or hurting people is not second amendment of the Constitution, so the society need stronger law that can control the society. This is obvious that the law has to control the act of the people in the public not the emotion of the people.

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