The Pros And Cons Of Stricter Gun Control Laws

The gun law controversy has been a public debate for the past few decades. With the current state of the nation, it is not uncommon to see mass shooting occur in schools, churches, and in public. The most recent current events would illustrate the use of these weapons can cause massive death rates: the church in Texas being attacked by an individual with a domestic abuse history, the country concert event in Las Vegas, even the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the death of children who could not defend themselves. As onlookers watch these events unfold, ideas of creating more laws to regulate guns arise and a national push for legislation to act is engaged. Countering this movement are those who would oppose more laws as the fear that rights would be trampled, and personal safety removed. The answer to this heated debate of strict gun control laws is not to take them away; they are put into place with the intent to govern the safety of our society.

One of the most controversial issues in our society today is the topic of private gun ownership and gun control laws. This controversy has arisen mostly due to the different ways that the second constitutional amendment is interpreted. The amendment states that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Lott, 2000). On one side of the issue, there are those that believe that the amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. On the other side are those that contend that the amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.

Congress, do not pass this bill! Smart guns are not any more effective at curbing violence than non-smart guns. Even if they would prevent some future catastrophes, they will also cause future catastrophes! These guns will cause more problems than they solve, and the negative results will be detrimental to the American people. Anything managed by software will have vulnerabilities; systems are hacked all the time. If this happened with the gun regulation system, it would make things infinitely easier for criminals, while possibly preventing the average American from defending himself. Even without anyone hacking the software, many reasonable circumstances would also prevent someone from defending himself. For example, what if multiple

What gun control laws are going to help stop mass shootings? Even if the government banned the sale of assault rifles and guns in general,people with bad intentions are going to purchase them illegally. In the three recent mass shooting that caused many deaths, the shooters got their guns illegally with no trace of the sale on these weapons. Sandy Hook,Columbine,and San Bernardino were all mass shootings where the shooters got their guns illegally, stole the gun from family members or other people, and caused a lot of danger and harm to people. There would be no regulations to stop them because even if there were stricter gun laws, they still would be able to purchase their guns illegally.Stricter gun laws will not prevent crime,people will still get illegal firearms,and no sales to the public will reduce revenue.

“There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870”(MST). Guns are not a bad thing, it’s the people carrying them. That is why I think there should be Gun control that does not abuse the power of the rightfully armed. Stronger regulations are okay, but they should not violate the Second Amendment. All states should have carry laws allowing concealed carry in all states, while banning open carry of guns.

Background: There are people in this world who will find a way to get revenge on someone even if it means breaking the law. Shooters will be able to find gun access wherever they can. There are also other people who don’t always use guns in an incorrect manner, like self defense. Lastly, the second amendment states that we are allowed to own weapons and that the government can’t take it away.

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.

Criminals also would not care about upholding the law in order to acquire a firearm legally. Therefore law-abiding people would lose their ability to defend themselves resulting in guns in the hands of lawbreakers (Ludwig 4). “There is no politically or legally feasible way to reduce the stock of guns now in private possession to the point that their availability to criminals would be much affected….And even if there were, law-abiding people would lose a means of protecting themselves long before criminals lost a means of attacking them” (Ludwig 4). Dana Loesch, conservative talk radio host, notes that a law fearing honorable citizen is a trustworthy possessor of arms. She claims that guns are used 60 times more to preserve lives rather than

“It's not a gun control problem; it's a cultural control problem” said Bob Barr. For the past 19 years, gun violence in America has been on the rise. As the years go by, stricter gun laws have been enforced, but instead of alleviating the issue, gun violence continues to increase. In his article Standing up to Violence Craig Sautter incurs that “ the American public -- numbed by decades of television, radio, newspaper, and real-life images of dehumanizing violence -- has not responded to the loss of so many children and teenagers with the same sorrow, anger, or grief as was roused by Vietnam”. As the quote indicates, the American public does not react immediately to violence within their communities until massacres like the Aurora, Colorado

The United States needs stricter federal handgun control laws because stricter gun control laws would reduce the number of handgun deaths and injuries, more gun control laws would lead to fewer suicides, banning high-capacity magazines would prevent mass shootings and murders, stricter gun control laws have worked in other countries by leading to lower homicide and suicide rates than the United States, and guns are rarely used in self-defense and they do not decrease crime rates.

Should gun control laws be changed? Well, first, gun control is entirely based off the notion that people are committing gun related crimes because they have access to them and these debates are whether or not the nation should ban guns entirely. This whole rebel of gun control change is said to help reduce violent crimes (Swickard). This is a well-known debate in today’s world. Many are involved in protests all around the world, while their schools are getting shot up and are asking for changes to make gun control laws stricter. However, the fact is, guns are not the problem in this world, it is the individual. If you put a gun in a criminal’s hand, they could do whatever they wish. Gun control laws should not be changed because current laws

In this paper I discuss why gun control laws are working. I am in favor of very strict gun control and removal of guns from the hands of criminals. I n the paper, I discuss some of the most objectionable practices:

With more and more people starting to get fed up with all of the gun control laws, the question is, should gun control laws become more lenient or should they become more strict? First point is that people kill people not the guns. Second, people should be able to use guns as they like without breaking the law plus the gun control laws don’t deter crime. Last, if guns are getting taken away then other things should be taken away too that some may not even think about.Many people think that they should be more lenient and that is a very valid side of the story.

Gun control refers to the laws and policies that regulate things related to citizens using firearms. Gun control laws are a very controversial topic and has created many arguments on social, political, legal, or ethical perspectives. The United States has separated into two groups: the people that think gun laws are not the problem and then the people that think gun laws need to change. Gun laws do not need to change they need to enforce background checks and prevent the mentally ill from possessing weapons.

Gun control is described as the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale,