Over the past year, the United States has been plagued with controversy in regards to gun control legislation. On January 24, 2013, Senator Feinstein introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. The Assault Weapons Ban was a bill written to stop the acts of sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of military styled weapons. The NRA-ILA website quotes an excerpt of Feinstein’s bill, which states, “Feinstein’s new bill are as follows: Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.” (NRA-ILA) Wayne Lapierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, said in 2009, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the guns you want to ban and you don’t want to ban. You’re going to ban these semi-autos, and then it’s going to be handguns, and then it’s going to be pump shotguns.” Lapierre’s statement supports the fact that the recent gun ban legislation across the United States will not solve the problem of increased violence.
The writers of the law lacked understanding of the actual weapon terminology, causing this ban to be too broad and confusing. In the year 2012, Senator Feinstein drafted a new ban for guns. She came up with a new definition of the term “assault weapon” thereby expanding the word beyond what the scope should be. This will ban the use of many more guns. Her definition includes the M1 Carbine, the model of the Ruger Mini-14, and almost all of the models of the SKS which are common and readily available guns. It also includes any “semia...
... middle of paper ...
...ocent, honest people who now need guns to protect themselves from the illegal guns in the hands of a criminal. The Justice Department conducted a survey of inmates in 1997 and it showed that “80% had obtained guns from family, friends, or an illegal source” (Gold, 112).
The 2013 gun ban legislation will not solve the problem of violence, but instead will gradually promote it. The writers of the legislation did not appropriately use the correct firearm terminology, which caused the ban to be too broad and generated confusion. In addition, the constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms for self-defense against criminals and if necessary, an overextending, dictatorial government. Therefore, this recent gun ban is not helpful for the general public because the ban is too broad and removes the right we have as U.S. citizens to keep any type of firearm.
Imagine you are woken up to a noise in your home at 2:00 a.m. An intruder has broken into your home and is armed with an illegally obtained handgun. Guns are outlawed where you live, so you have no way to defend yourself. A call to the police might work, but the police are ten minutes away. In this situation, ten minutes could mean life or death for you and your family. What are you going to do? You do not have very many options. Banning guns is a very illogical idea because not all murders involve guns, guns are used for recreation and hunting, and criminals do not obey laws. Gun control laws have been starting to become more prominent in American culture as a result of the increase in the number of mass shootings around the country. These laws do not necessarily decrease the murder rate, and in some cases, banning guns has resulted in the murder rate increasing, which defeats the whole purpose of the gun ban.
Enforcing an assault weapons ban can reduce the all-too-familiar occurrences of mass shooting and massacres. When Adam Lanza shot 26 people in Sandy Hook Elementary School..police say he largely relied upon a Bushmaster AR-15 "assault-type weapon," a semiautomatic rifle that could rapidly fire multiple high-velocity rounds. He was also equipped with magazines that held 30 bullets each (Plumer). As a chart from Princeton's Sam Wang shows, the number of people killed in mass shootings did go down in the years the [1994 Assault Weapons Ban] was in effect...and the number of mass shootings per year has doubled since the ban expired (Plumer). This statistic clearly shows the effectiveness of the ban passed by Congress and signed by former president Bill Clinton as part of the V...
Assault weapon control is becoming an unavoidable topic in the United States. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation more than nine hundred people have died from mass shootings in the past seven years and an assault rifle was used in twelve of the forty-three mass shootings in the past four years. The U.S. Department of Defense has long defined assault rifles as fully automatic rifles used for military purposes. The National Firearm Act of 1934 prohibited fully automatic weapons in the United States. The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban prohibited semi and fully automatic weapons and any weapon with military style characteristics. California Senator, Dianne Feinstein, is leading the charge in the American government to pass a bill that will limit the capacity of ammunition in a magazine and ban assault weapons that are too dangerous for public use. It is time for the American government to act swiftly and acknowledge the dangers assault rifles pose.
Some people believe that extremely tight gun control laws will eliminate crime, but gun control laws only prevent the 'good guys' from obtaining firearms. Criminals will always have ways of getting weapons, whether it be from the black market, cross borders, or illegal street sales. New gun control laws will not stop them. Since the shootings of Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook, the frequency of mass shootings has increased greatly. Gun control is not effective as it has not been shown to actually reduce the number of gun-related crimes. Instead of considering a ban of private firearm possession, and violating individual ownership rights, it may be more practical to consider the option of partially restricting firearm access.
Firearms are classified into three broad types handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are both considered “long guns.” A semi-automatic weapon fires one bullet each time the user pules the trigger, it will also eject the empty shell after its fired, and will automatically load another round into the gun. A automatic will fire multiple bullets as long as u hold the trigger down. Gun control has been a topic in government law making for years, although here recently gun control has been pushed for harder than ever. The major incident that started the fuss was the Sandy Hook school shooting in which they blame guns for a troubled young man killing six adults and twenty children. According to politics/policy a news paper article “Republicans have shot down any attempts to enact new Federal gun control laws and restrictions. Yet lawmakers have had some success in a handful of states such as Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and New York have toughened back ground check rules or banned large capacity clips or weapons.”
In conclusion, enabling stricter gun control laws will help to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, criminals, and children and teens. With these laws put into place there will be more assurance of the safety of American citizens. It is not necessary to strip citizens of their right to own a gun, but we should be able to make it harder to get guns. If you are someone with a clear record and using a gun for recreation use, you will have no trouble obtaining a gun. In the long run increase the laws on gun control hurts nobody. Despite historic events where governments seized firearms and killed millions of citizens, today we have a different problem, which is making sure guns are in the right hands.
Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate firearms by selecting who can sell, buy and possess certain guns. Criminals do not obey laws and stricter gun control laws or banning guns will have little effect on reducing crimes. There are many myths about gun control reducing acts of gun violence, which are simply not true according to research. People are responsible for the crimes, not the guns themselves. Taking guns away from United States citizens that use them for many reasons, shooting practice, competition, hunting and self-defense, should not be punished for the acts of criminals. As stated by Mytheos Holt, “Guns in the right hands help public safety. Guns in the wrong hands harm public safety”. Research shows that defensive use of guns discourages criminals and reduces crime (Holt 2). Not only is it wrong to penalize law-abiding citizens, it is against the Second Amendment. It is unconstitutional to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Gun violence in the United States is higher than ever, and criminals with guns will “…kill as many as 1000 people each day” (Alpers&Wilson). Taking this into perspective, it is only right to fight fire with fire or, in this case, use a gun to protect yourself and those around you. Gun control does not only decrease the ability for protection, it also decreases our rights as U.S citizens. The constitution clearly states that we are given the right to bear arms, meaning we may carry fire arms. Even if we have stricter laws for guns, it will not stop killers from shooting innocent people. These men and women causing damage to the lives of numerous individuals do not care if there is a law banning guns, because all they truly want to do is hurt others. The pain citizens endure every day from losing a family member, friend, or even just a colleague is repulsive. These permanent deaths continue to make people fearful and it causes damage in their lives; unless something is done. Most people agree that action needs to be taken to stop this inhumane cruelty, but the question is; what can be done? Americans need protection, rights, and power to break this inexcusable gun violence circling America. Gun restrictions for trustworthy and reliable gun owners have not been proven to weaken gun violence in the United States; therefore, gun control should be limited because it is only hurting America, not helping it.
Comparing the United States’ homicidal statistics to England and Wales’, I’ve been moderately persuaded towards the opponent’s side of gun control. It’s difficult to dictate what’s morally acceptable in today’s society with the increasing amounts of controversy, but noticing the dramatic increases in crime rate due to the lack in supply of guns, versus the dramatic decreases in crime rate because of an increase in the supply of guns, definitely proves the consequences of gun control to a certain degree. I would also have to agree that ridding the public from their firearms does take away the privilege of defending ourselves from any sort of crime. With the given results, knowing that our American citizens defend themselves from
Gun control and gun banning have been a highly controversial issue since all the gun crimes hitting the news in America. Crimes like Sandy-Hook , Aurora , San Berdindno , and Oregon have lawmakers thinking about banning guns by enacting laws that allows them to. Lawmakers believe guns are the prime suspect in all these gun violence crimes and they believe it well reduce murder and violence. Banning guns well do nothing to reduce the mass killings. If a criminal has the intent to commit a crime nothing can stop them. Also a criminal doesn’t abide by the law that is why they are criminals. Gun banning would only disarm the legal law abiding citizen leaving them defenseless. Also the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constution and the Bill of Rights. If lawmakers have the courage take away one Constutional right they will have the courage to keep going, I have three logical reasons why gun banning well not work.
...laws protect the society. They need to understand that bans and laws work and that they need to be enforced more strictly so the people of the nation can feel safe and protected. The nation has brought many new ideas to try to solve the issue on illegal gun selling and gun traffickers. They have provided with legislation laws on gun control, the declining of allowing fully-automatic weapons to be legal in this country to keep all citizens safe. All of the proposals that legislation has introduced do a great job in monitoring the selling and purchasing of weapons that should not be bought and sold. If the country wants us to be safe and protected by our government, they need to know that bans and laws on assault weapon works and saves lives of the American people and that there needs to be cooperation with them so the bans and laws can stay strict and strong.
Being that this paper has objectively presented argument for both banning and not banning assault weapons, it will now proceed to briefly further develop the idea of less stringent gun control laws on the premise that until a “bullet”-proof definition can be agreed upon and a law that would not allow for any type of loopholes, banning assault weapons will do little to truly protect the American Public. The main support for this claim can be supported by the fact that the ban of 1994 was not effective, and in reality, did not protect the average American any more than before it was passed into law. Assault weapons are undoubtedly dangerous, but until their can be more effective assault weapon definition, America should not be subjected to a ban on assault weapons
The Reasons for the government attempting to ban the vast majority of firearms comes from all the violence that is caused using them. The government’s aim is to make a safer environment for the people. That is a reasonable goal, but most crimes are dealt using illegal firearms. Banning firearms most likely wouldn't cause much of a decline in gun related crime. Majority of the crimes are done by people who have had a prior past of criminal activity. Guns are not the reason for the violent crimes. The crimes are caused by the typical person with a violent past with them. Most people would agree that the firearms they have are used either for recreational activities or home protection in times of need. So they believe that without firearms, they are defenseless. Most will also tell anybody that the weapons aren't the ones causing the harm.
“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.” The right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence would ultimately fail given the previous experiments of gun control in England and in numerous states.
The debate over gun control in America has constantly been brought up over the years due to gunmen killing large amounts of people in shootings. From Columbine to Sandy Hook, or the shootings of the two reporters in West Virginia, these public shootings are occurring everywhere. Lawmakers and civilians alike are pushing for increased gun control in hopes of preventing the same tragedies. Anyone that has been affected by the shootings has been pushing Congress and state governments to force new sanctions on the government. Over the past three years, Congress has shot down all the laws despite the large amounts of public support.