The old saying goes, “Live by The Sword, Die by The Sword”. The euphemism that suggests anyone living a life where violence is a means of survival will ultimately meet his end by violence. The idea is contemporary to our modern society, where many Americans are opposed to private firearm ownership among a costly ongoing war, and an increase in random shooting massacres and firearms related deaths. However, in the ongoing and emotional debate of the right to bear arms, many Americans may also tell you that the most important part of living by the sword, is that you do live. Those who support the right to bear arms claim that not only is firearm ownership an inherit right of American citizens, but is necessary in a country that is among the highest in the world in firearms related deaths. Amidst questionable political agendas and the rise in violent crimes both with and without firearms, the underlying question appears to be; Is our domestic policy on firearms out of control, or are Americans themselves?
In the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the increase of killing sprees involving firearms in the U.S. since the Columbine Massacre, the case against guns is emotionally charged and captivating. The use of these examples has been a powerful recruitment tool in the case against private gun ownership and the lobbying for stricter legislation governing the sale, and distribution of firearms within the U.S. and internationally. In addition to this, Pro-Control supporters most often use startling statistics in firearm-related deaths and homicides as contention that these incidents are reflections of an ongoing killing spree in the United States, whom remains among the top countries in the world for firearm related deaths, a...
... middle of paper ...
...nd propagating the need for American citizens to be armed in order to defend themselves from a corrupt government. The NRA has been the chief figure in anti-gun control legislation. In fact, The National Review stated in 2007 that, “The
Democrats are not “in charge” of Congress, at least when it comes to guns—the National Rifle Association is.”
In spite of strong support on both sides of the argument, violent crimes and firearms related deaths and homicides have remained consistent for decades. With the number of American lives lost on the rise, and efforts to reduce firearms related violence proving ineffective, the radical solution of a permanent ban on firearms is coming closer to a reality. However, how this will be executed and how effective it really can be are variables no side of the argument can be sure of, but both could carry the gravest consequences.
National Rifle Association of America. (2011). The Institute for Legislative Action. Retrieved April 7, 2011 from http://home.nra.org/#/ila
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
Guns are not the trouble, people are. The United States is #1 in world gun ownership, and yet is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people. The number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58 percent between 1991 and 2011 Based on these facts, one can see the guns not the causes of gun violence. moreover, civilians who get permits take gun safety courses and have criminal background...
‘Useless laws weaken necessary laws.’ --- Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1775) Importantly, gun ownership doesn’t create a violent society, but lenient gun control does. Nevertheless, bans do not make something disappear, rather harder to control! Therefore a strict, uniform federal gun control system is far more essential so as to ensure no collateral effects of any gun uses!
Aroung the time of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the controversial and widely argued issue of gun control sparked and set fire across America. In the past decade however, it has become one of the hottest topics in the nation. Due to many recent shootings, including the well known Sandy Hook Elementary school, Columbine High School, Aurora movie theater, and Virginia Tech, together totaling 87 deaths, many people are beginning to push for nationwide gun control. An article published in the Chicago Tribune by Illinois State Senator Jacqueline Collins, entitled “Gun Control is Long Overdue” voiced the opinion that in order for America to remain the land of the free, we must take action in the form of stricter gun laws. On the contrary, Kathleen Parker, a member of the Washington Post Writers Group whose articles have appeared in the Weekly Standard, Time, Town & Country, Cosmopolitan, and Fortune Small Business, gives a different opinion on the subject. Her article in The Oregonian “Gun Control Conversation Keeps Repeating” urges Americans to look at the cultural factors that create ...
The best known of the Pro-Gun Lobby is the NRA, headed by Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre. The Anti-Gun Lobby includes such organizations as Handgun Control, Inc., The Violence Policy Center, and the ACLU, and is commonly associated with such figures as Sarah Brady. It is doubtful that anyone would dispute that reducing violent crime is a good thing. Most pro-gun lobbyists will concede that guns are used in violent crimes, and that guns act as an enabler for criminals. It is impossible to deny that mass shootings could not be carried out without guns.
“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns. (Obama)” This said prior to Obama’s presidency, in the 1990’s, is still a topic that is constantly questioned today. Many American’s feel the need to seek ownership of weapons as a source of protection; While others believe that private ownership of guns will do nothing more but heighten the rate of violence due to people taking matters into his or her own hands. Philosophy professor Jeff McMahan agrees with Obama’s statement in regard to the ownership of guns. In his New York Times editorial titled “When Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” McMahan provides evidence to support his theory of the dangers that quickly follow when allowing the community to own guns legally. McMahan, throughout the text, shows responsible reasoning and allows the reader the opportunity to obtain full understanding and justifies his beliefs properly.
Today in the United States many people argue over the fact of guns being legal or illegal. There are people using guns for personal safety and there are others who use them for crimes, as well as for other situations. Firearm deaths in the United States have slowly been decreasing from year to year with all these bills getting passed to promote a safer country than ever before. Guns are the main weapon for youth suicide, school shootings, and for committing murder. In 2010 there were 2,711 infants, child, and teenage firearm deaths. As in school shootings and in committing murder, studies show shooters often had multiple, non-automatic guns, shootings were planned, most youth tell before shooting, shooters have a history of being bullied or threatened, shooters have mental issues, and shooters have done suicidal gestures before (Gun Control with School Shootings). Although there are people who use guns for murdering, there are also those who oppose guns being used without the proper requirements. 85% of all respondents to the survey supporting requiring states to report people to national background-checks systems who are prohibited from owning gu...
...here the Court decisions supported an individuals’ right to own a firearm. In addition, when then New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin ordered the confiscation of all firearms, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The NRA filed suit to protect individuals’ rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Nagin’s actions in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution led to the enactment of a federal law, prohibiting the confiscation of legal firearms from citizens during states of emergency. Although, NRA members are not unanimous in support of its policies, they are unanimous in support of the Second Amendment right. As long as firearms owners perceive a threat of losing the right to own firearms, the NRA will remain a viable organization. In actuality, the NRA’s membership is comprised of citizens, possessing a love of firearms, and fear of their government.
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
Joaquin Sapien, How the NRA Undermined Congress’ Last Push for Gun Control, propublica.org, Jan. 24,
...takes time to educate and promote safe gun practices and competency with firearms. The NRA’s official motto is “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. I believe this is the sole valid argument when talking about gun control. If we look at almost all gun related incidents, most of the time the member involved has some motive or is mentally unstable. Shootings do not simply happen from the gun itself, but the person behind the gun. The NRA’s sole purpose is to get the negative misguided information that the government and media are spewing out, and turn it into truthful information used for the purpose of educating American’s on safe operation and proper use of firearms. Knowledge in this context is power. If the NRA can educate people into realizing guns are not the issue, viewpoints across the country would change, and the second amendment would stay intact.
There is an American consensus for some form of gun control. “…[F]irearms were involved in two-thirds of all murders in the United States and [t]he United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths…murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology” (Lepore). There might be some far extreme people who think that all guns should be banned but most sane Americans do not think that gun rights should be abolished. Americans regard self-defense as the most compelling reason to have a gun and twenty-two percent of households have handguns in the United States. However many people do think that gun control laws must be enacted and enforced. Pro-gun extremists and the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) must understand that there is a real for many people at the uncontrolled s...
Tyrrell, R. Emmett, Jr. "The National Rifle Association's Deterrent to Gun Violence." The American Spectator. (2013): Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Web. 31 Oct. 2013
Professional champions of civil rights and civil liberties have been unwilling to defend the underlying principle of the right to arms. Even the conservative defense has been timid and often inept, tied less, one suspects, to abiding principle and more to the dynamics of contemporary Republican politics. Thus a right older than the Republic, one that the drafters of two constitutional amendments the Second and the Fourteenth intended to protect, and a right whose critical importance has been painfully revealed by twentieth-century history, is left undefended by the lawyers, writers, and scholars we routinely expect to defend other constitutional rights. Instead, the Second Amendment’s intellectual as well as political defense has been left in the unlikely hands of the National Rifle Association (NRA). And although the NRA deserves considerably better than the demonized reputation it has acquired, it should not be the sole or even principal voice in defense of a major constitutional provision.