The Pros And Cons Of Stricter 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

Gun Control has been a main topic lately throughout social media and news networks due to all the mass school shootings and other gun related crimes! People are calling for stricter laws on gun control. In 1981 President Reagan rejected a call for additional gun legislation, saying “there are today 20,000 gun control laws in effect being federal,state,and local in the U.S.”. So what we should be asking for instead of stricter laws on gun control is the laws that are already in place be enforced more diligently. Thus insuring less criminals and mentally ill are able to obtain firearms and commit heinous crimes. Everyday 96 people of all ages die from gunshot wounds either by murder, assault, suicide,or police intervention. With already 20,000

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.

Several places such as Washington D.C, Great Britain, and Australia have implemented forms of gun control only to have it backfire on them. Washington D.C is significant because it showcases that gun control on a large scale won’t work in the United States. Due to increasing gun violence rates in D.C, the city decided to enforce a gun ban that banned everyone but police officers from owning a firearm. Enacted in 1976, the ban was eventually struck down by the supreme court in 2008. During that time however, D.C attorney Jeffrey Shapiro reports; “Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.” (Shapiro). The data seems to reflect that when D.C gun control was at its zenith, criminals knew law abiding citizens would be unarmed and helpless to defend an attack. It is a known fact that criminals do not conform to the guidelines of laws,

Gun control is one of the most divisive issues in politics. Recently, more mass shootings are correlated with an increase in antagonism on both sides of the debate. Proponents of stricter control fear for their safety while opponents fear for the loss of safety with the possibility of less guns. However ideal it may be to pass legislation that completely ban the ownership of firearms in this country, it is unreasonable to attempt to do that. The best method of placing restrictions on gun ownership without completely banning it is to increase the efficiency of universal background checks on all transactions, both from federally licensed and private dealers.

Some people think that their needs to be stricter guns laws why some think that the laws we have in place now are fine. This essay will compare and contrast two different viewpoints about our 2nd Amendment rights. Jeffrey Goldberg is a staff writer for The Atlantic and says that America needs stronger gun laws in place. John Malcolm and Jennifer Marshall both work for the Heritage Foundation and they state that our 2nd Amendment rights should stay the way they are. While Goldberg has very strong points about ways gun control can be fixed with longer waiting periods, and more background checks, Malcolm and Marshalls points are stronger stating that gun problems will be fixed focusing on state and local levels, in the community within the

Gun control is a very controversial subject to talk about, some people are in favor of it while on the other hand there are people opposed to it. There are many pros and cons when talking about gun control. One pro being self-defense, because it gives the individual a sense of support and protection of their material goods and their life if being attacked. The security that this entails are the main beliefs that a bearer feels, the mismanagement of security and the criminal heyday has made the citizens pretend to do justice by their own hand, although it is clear that this is not allowed by the law, we must always wait for the response of the authorities to take charge of the matter.

The wake of so many recent tragic mass shootings has sparked controversy on gun control. Those who oppose the control on guns present arguments against these proposals. The contentious issue tends to divide people into different sides. Both sides believe they are in the right, while the other is in the wrong. The fact still remains that the United States should enact stronger laws on gun control to further prevent catastrophic tragedies.

America has recently taken part in a lot of shootings. The culprits were either arrested or killed and a few went as far as taking their lives before the police could even respond to the scene. America as a whole keeps losing children, brothers, sisters, parents, and friends from this ongoing issue. With all these shootings looming above us, is gun control necessary?

Today it is believed that gun control is essential. But, is it truly? It is believed that society needs this control this in order to feel safe and secure. Gun control was developed with the founding fathers, and has since been modified with new laws and regulations due to a various events in today's society. And while there are many pros and cons to regulating firearms, there will always be those that oppose it.

When it comes to the controversial subject of gun ownership, almost everyone has an opinion on where they stand. Many people that oppose the ownership of a firearm or are pushing for stricter gun control laws argue that guns are responsible for many deaths and tragedies that have taken place in the United States in recent years. Individuals that are in full support of their second amendment right are arguing that guns do not kill people, but people kill people. A recent study has shown that due to an increase in sexual assault, that women are the fastest growing gun owners. Stronger laws need to be passed to control who can get their hands on a gun, however the peaceful gun owners who strictly use their firearms for self defense should be allowed to keep them.

The people trying to oppose will mostly be gun supporters. They feel that they should rights to guns, so that means all guns. They will make an argument that we are trying to take their rights away. When we aren’t trying to take their rights but limit them from the guns they possess. Pro-gun members will argue that we are violating the second amendment that “the right of the people to keep bear Arm, shall not be infringed” (Constitution of United States of America 1789). What I feel that I can agree with is that all assault weapons are fully automatic due to mean most of them are semi-automatic (aren’t as powerful). “Opponents believe the bans won’t reduce mass shooting deaths at all.” Why do you think they believe that? Is it because they

2.Another myth going around is that once your on a universal gun register the government will use this list to find out who has a gun so they can come to your house and take it. That one is so far from the truth that it makes me laugh. No one will come take your gun unless you use it to commit a crime. Even if a ban on Assault Weapons does go into effect, all weapons you now own will not be taken away. Only new weapons will be banned and no longer sold.

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

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.