The Pros And Cons Of The Gun Control Movement

Gun control is one of the most talked about topics in modern day America. 43 of 50 states have the right to bear arms. Most states have to background check you in order for you to purchase or sell guns. Some other states prevent carrying guns and some other ban assault rifle weapons. People who support the gun laws say that the second amendment was meant for militias and that gun restrictions have always existed. People who oppose that say that guns are needed for self-defense from people who invade houses or are actual threats. Although both of those are correct, there will always be two sides for control laws.

un control is a very controversial topic especially in today's society; whether gun control is good or bad is a very talked about subject especially when it comes to the United States. This is a very touchy subject because guns are a part of a lot of people's daily lives. People that are anti gun control believe that no one should be able to put any restrictions on guns. They believe that people should be able to buy a firearm just like a pair of boots or a tool. They also believe that if someone were able to take away the firearms from the law abiding citizens that just leaves firearms in the hands of people that do not abide by the law and leaves them defenseless. In 1791 our founding fathers gathered and ratified the Second amendment. The

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.

Many people use guns as a hobby. Gun hobby enthusiasts are not the enemy, as they correctly use guns in a safe and responsible manner. Some organizations spread untrue rumours about guns and the media absorbs it up. Most politicians seem to just want proper background checks, but organizations like the NRA say the most extreme things involving the gun control issue. The NRA has once said “We need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed security.”. This makes gun enthusiasts seem crazier than they really

The development of modern weapons began in 1364. Since then, the evolution of weapons has grown. The first reported rifle appeared in 1498, and the first pistol was debuted in 1750. As America was discovering her identity, wars such as the American Revolution and American Civil War, has encouraged the use of firearm. Guns originated as a weapon of defense, however in recent years people worldwide have taken advantage of the loose weapon control. In regards to Paul Waldman’s argument in the article “ The Case For Banning Guns” Paul states the following , “ Over 30,000 Americans dead every year, and tens of thousands more maimed and paralyzed. Can you imagine how many restrictions on our rights wed’d welcome if terrorists were killing 30,000 of us a year?” With that said, it depicts a vivid image of the disconnect among guns and the people. If the government regulated gun laws, the murder, homicide, and mass shooting rate would rapidly decrease. However, in the article “ The Case Against Banning Guns” the writer Shiha Dalmia argues otherwise. “ There are about 300 million guns in this country- nearly one for every man, woman, and child. Congress can pass all the regulations it wants --- and even declare an outright ban on guns.” (Dalmia.) Meaning, if laws were enforced, and people were wanting

Although I did not agree with the article How Gun Control Advocates Could break the NRA’s Blockade by Ronald Brownstein, it states some points that were hard to refute about gun control and that helped shape my argument. My stance on gun control is that we should not ban guns as a whole, but have more of a centralized approach on how people can obtain a gun. Being an American citizen allows you with certain alienable rights that are outlined by the Bill of Rights. We as a nation were given these rights at the creation of our great nation based on the fact that all men were created equal. Some of the rights that are given include things such as, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights was made because they wanted to place specific limits on government power. The author of the article is suggesting that we as a nation should ban all types of guns. This topic of banning guns or not banning guns is important because in recent events there has been a lot of mass shootings that have ended lives too early. These mass shootings are becoming more and more common the number of people that have been killed by guns within the last year has been four hundred and sixty-one. Also, there have been over three hundred mass shootings in the last 477 days.

Ratner, begins the article by presenting the statistics and claims of gun ownership in the Unites States, specifically AR-15’s. The “National Rifle Association estimates that Americans own more than eight million AR-15’s” (Ratner), this number is quite astonishing, it assures us that there is more than necessary AR-15’s. The NRA then claiming that the reason for the high number of AR-15 gun ownership is due to the variety of uses that the weapon has “like hunting, shooting, and ‘self-defense situations’” (Ratner). However, the article then takes a turn by Ratner proclaiming that the National Rifle Association is contradicting themselves and disagrees with the NRA’s point of the AR being for self-defense. The claim comes from the ability of the AR being able to fire more quickly, which is what makes it effective in mass shootings. Ratner then pulls a statement by a man named Daniel Bogdan, who works for a gun manufacturer, whom states that “a gun is a gun” but should not criticize the AR-15 more than another weapon. However, Ratner is out to disprove this statement. He gives five reasons to ban “these types” of guns, first by stating that the “worst mass shootings are done with AR-15’s” (Ratner). The list is a long one and in each occasion we are told how many individuals were either injured or killed with a gun that was either an AR-15 or a gun that looked similar to one. Then, Ratner proceeds to argue that the AR-15

Since 1791, the United States has allowed citizens the right to bear arms; citizens have depended on the ability to carry and use firearms. What if that just, went away? Every citizen would give up their firearm and there would be nothing for civilians to use to protect themselves with, at least, not something that they are used to carrying or having in their homes. The government should not restrain the ownership, the use, or the concealed carry of firearms for the reason that owning guns has shown to lower crime rates; keeping guns prevents the Second Amendment from being violated; and banning guns does not prevent criminals from disobeying the law.

Gun Politics in the U.S. are defined by two distinct groups: those who are for tighter if not outright ban on guns. And those who want to preserve every American’s rights to bear Arms under the second amendment. This of course led to disagreements when it came to the interpretation of laws and court cases related to firearms. Among other things related to the issue, like the effects gun control has on crime and the public safety (Rozsa, 2017). Debates regarding the access to firearms by the general populous and gun violence in the United States have been characterized by the concerns about the rights to bear arms and the responsibility of the government to serve the needs of its citizens. Such as the prevention of crime and

A story the world has been talking about is the shooting in Virginia that killed two people and injured another. People with a mental illness should not be allowed to have guns. If people can be tested by their doctor to see if they possibly have some type of mental related issue and they come back positive then they should be prohibited from having guns period. According to the passage Guns and Mental Health “…an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms for life if he/she has been ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ or ‘committed to a mental institution’” (4). As a nation, we should have learned our lesson by now, and we should be doing something to prevent this from reoccurring again.

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

Over the years there have been many debates about whether or not gun control is a good solution for the United States. As a result, two very distinct sides have formed: one for gun control and one against it. Recently, the pro gun control side has argued that the many school shootings were partly a result of our country’s minimal gun control. To many this may seem like a reasonable argument, but in reality it is an overgeneralization; there are many other factors that play a part in horrific events like school shootings. Those against gun control have argued that gun control laws are a violation of citizen’s constitutional rights often saying things like, “to take away the right to have guns is no different from the attempt of the British to “disarm” the colonists during the Revolutionary War” (Hanson 68). But which side is right? Many would say that neither side is completely correct, but when the facts are presented it is obvious that gun control is not a good solution because “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, self-defense is the number one reason for owning a gun, and because the gun control laws that are being instituted do not work (Zimring 13).

Gun control is an extremely controversial topic in America. There are many advocates of weapon control - individuals who wish to have stricter laws to keep certain groups of individuals from acquiring a gun. In any case, there are likewise the general population who can't help contradicting gun control laws and accept there ought to be a more tolerant gun control to moreover enable individuals to protect themselves amid dangerous circumstances. On the two sides of this issue, sentiments extend from direct to outrageous. Firearms are not for everybody. Certain people can't deal with a gun securely, and a few people utilize guns improperly. Our society has passed laws controlling the possession and utilization of guns, and more enactment is

Some people like it and some people hate it. Gun control is not needed. I am against gun control. Taking guns away from people will not keep criminals from finding a way to get one.Therefore rendering people defenseless. More gun control leads to less suicides and homicides. Gun control laws do not prevent suicide,people will just find another way to kill themselves. If the government tries to take our guns away,the people with guns are not going to do it peacefully. People don’t understand the second amendment, they need to understand and then they will stop. If they take our guns away, then the government will take over.More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. Strict

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.