The following 6 arguments are in favor for gun control. They are in ranked from the strongest to the weakest arguments. Having more gun laws on the books would decrease deaths. Between 1999 and 2013 the total gun related deaths were 464,033. (ProCon.org 2016) Cause of all deaths being killed by a firearm is ranked 12th. It is alarming that 200 people go to the emergency every day because of a gunshot wound. Furthermore, having federal universal background checks could reduce death by 56.9 percent. (ProCon.org 2016) Along with background checks for ammunition would further reduce the death toll by 80.7 percent and having a gun identification requirement could reduce the death rate by 82.5 percent. (ProCon.org 2016)
Mandatory safety features
…show more content…
There was no guarantee for an individual right to own a gun. Owning a gun is a privilege granted by the Second Amendment. Therefore, if we have stricter gun laws then that would reduce the murder rate.
The following 6 arguments are against gun control laws. Per the Second Amendment of the US Constitution stated, “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.” By increasing the gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. In the case McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right to bear arms. (ProCon.org 2016)
Increasing gun control laws infringe upon people the right to self-defense. According to National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. (ProCon.org 2016) We cannot rely on the police to protect us all the time. Defending oneself is a basic right granted by the Second Amendment. 37 states have Constitutions that protect the right to bear arms for self-defense. (ProCon.org 2016) The Pew foundation reports that 79 percent of males and 80 percent of females said owning a gun made them feel safer. (ProCon.org
…show more content…
Providing mental screening and education material would prevent mass shootings. (ProCon.org 2016) Per the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufactures’ Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, “Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind.” (ProCon.org 2016) The NRA has a program call Eddie Eagle which teaches protection and safety of children from guns. (ProCon.org 2016) Children that are taught about firearm safety increases the knowledge of how to use a gun
I am writing on behalf of my thoughts and myself about gun control laws. My position on this topic is neutral leaning towards the "No Gun" law. The idea of a federal law to ban these guns is a good idea, but it could be better. I believe strongly that guns should be banned from our country in some kind of way, but there are exceptions like for law enforcement and hunters. This law could lower the murder and death rates drastically. The US would be a whole different and safer country to live in. No one should live in a society where they are afraid of being killed by a gun, we should try harder to make this society in the US a better place. I have many reasons to back my views on this topic, and here are some main reasons that you should really think about.
Joseph Sobran argues that, “there are solid constitutional arguments against gun control. For one thing, nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right to limit an individual's right to own firearms”. He states that the government has no right to limit guns. Even though he has a point there is a limit to that statement such as serious criminals and mentally unstable people. Likewise Sharon Harris states that guns protect people against criminals, “the right to bear arms protects the individual from violent aggressors and from the ineffective protection state and federal government is offering its citizens … criminals benefit from gun control laws that make it more difficult for ordinary citizens to protect themselves.” She believes that guns keep people safe and that regulating guns will only benefit criminals. This is not true because regulations help prevent criminals from getting guns. Having less regulations is a dangerous
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 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.
The second amendment to the US Constitution shows that it is unconstitutional to have complete and total gun control. The second amendment states that “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.” This means that it is the right of an American citizen, abiding by the constitution, has the right to bear arms. Currently, there are over three hundred and seven billion people residing as American citizens. Within the homes of these Americans, forty five percent have a registered gun in their household. As a diverse nation, there are many reasons why there are guns located within a household. Sixty percent stated the gun is used for protection against int...
Gun control is a highly controversial topic in today’s world where the fight is between the liberal and the conservatives. Many people believe that guns should be banned due to many recent massacres that have happened whereas others are wanting people to have background checks done before owning a gun. I am against gun control because banning handguns in the United States should not be allowed because handguns fail to protect the people and it is ineffective.
Then those who oppose gun control argue guns are a necessity: hunting in the wild, self-defense, and it is part of the American culture. Furthermore, gun violence is having a vast impact on loved ones; losing a family member can have enormous affects socially, physically and mentally.
America is the most well armed nation in the world, with American citizens owning about 270 million of the world’s 875 million firearms (Marshall). Indeed, this is more than a quarter of the world’s registered firearms. The reason why Americans own so many guns is because of the Second Amendment, which states, “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.” (Rauch) This amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to have firearms. Since this amendment is relatively vague, it is up for interpretation, and is often used by gun advocates to argue for lenient gun laws. Hence, gun control is a frequently discussed controversial topic in American politics.
U.S congress woman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head. This happened in Arizona, a state where guns are allowed in open carry meaning everyone has option to carry a gun as long as it is not concealed. When this congress woman was shot, the shooter became enraged. After shooting 3 more people his gun got jammed, this is when a civilian jumped him and stopped his irrational behavior. This brings up many different opinions on whether guns should be allowed or taken away. John Luik author of the article “The Increased Availability of Guns Reduces Crime” and Sabina Thaler the author of the article “The Claim of Increased Gun Availability Reduces Crime is Unfounded” are two examples of people having different opinions on such a debatable topic. Both authors talk about guns taking people’s lives, Thalers article focuses on guns taking innocent people’s lives, and Luiks article focuses on guns being innocent people’s protection.
“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.
This also states that gun violence would be reduced and restrictions have already existed. It also states that the majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. However, some people affirm that the Second Amendment protects the individual(s) right to own a gun. They state guns are needed for self-defense from the threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders (gun-control.procon.org, 2016). Gun ownership deters crime rather than cause more crime.
People have questioned gun control long time. Many people wonder if anyone, aside from those who join the law force, should be allowed to carry guns. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Wright 4). Franklin understood that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not uphold their liberty. Some people who argue for gun control state many violent crimes involve guns. Others believe a child could find the gun and something bad could happen to the child or others when a gun is unsafely stored. People who argue against gun control might say there is a huge psychological gap between citizens who shoot to protect themselves or their property and those who go into schools and shoot at others. Criminals will always find a way around gun control laws and will be able to obtain and use guns illegally. The second amendment protects gun rights for individual citizens. Reasonable gun control laws and educational steps can be taken to protect the majority of U.S. citizens. Gun control does not only take guns away from criminals, gun control also limits law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families when necessary.
The Second Amendment of the United States protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The United States Government should not infringe on those rights by the enforcement of gun control against law-abiding citizens. Gun control does not reduce crime, does not stop criminals from obtaining guns, and does not address the real issue of violent crime. There is no evidence that gun control affects the crime rate. The United States government is attempting to reduce violent crime by controlling the amount of guns on the market, who is allowed to purchase a gun, and what type of gun a person is allowed to purchase. The only people affected by gun control laws are the law-abiding citizen that should be allowed to purchase firearms without the government’s interjection.
Gun control is an awfully big issue in the United States today. Many people in America don’t agree with the gun control laws that they have today. Gun control laws only take guns and freedom away from law-abiding citizens. Many citizens have their own reasons for owning a gun. Why would the government want to make it harder for people to own a gun? People that own guns aren’t very likely to be attacked by criminals. Owning a handgun is one of the best ways of protection when used correctly. The second amendment states “the right to bear arms”; does this grant everyone the right to own a gun? Gun control laws have not been proven to do anything for citizens. Gun control laws just make it harder for the good guy average Joe to own a gun. Gun control laws are not a good idea, and are taking part in the loss of our freedom that was given to us.
Central in the arguments against gun control is its ability to restrict any citizen of the United States the right to own guns which is protected under the constitution. Specifically, due recognition is made to its connection to the 2nd Amendment wherein it seeks to protect the individual liberties of people. This facet also applies to gun ownership regardless of the original objective and intention. “The second amendment from the Bill of Rights grants private citizens the right to bear arms. Thus, people who stand firmly against gun control insist that no legislation, technically, should have the right to take away a citizen’s guns without first repealing the amendment in question” (Groberman 1). A good approach to consider in highlighting this part comes from depriving the citizen of his basic right on the basis of specific presumption that it would be used for violence or crim...