A Case Against Gun Control It seems to be all over the news these days. The next big mass shooting has occurred and the politicians are clambering for stronger regulations. Meanwhile, the American public goes into panic mode and flocks to the nearest gun store to buy anything and everything that soon might be ripped from the market. Time and time again, this same series of events occurs. Questions about how to fix this likely weigh heavily on people 's minds but, there seems to be no solution. Some argue that registration of firearms, bans of certain firearms, and background checks can curb the violence. However, none of these things seem to fix the issue. That is simply because these “solutions” don’t work. In the wake of recent and past …show more content…
In short, everyone in the United States would have to report to a local law enforcement agency all information pertaining to any firearms they own. This information would include the make, model, serial number, and quantity of firearms owned by each individual. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, such measures would “Make it more difficult for criminals, juveniles, or other prohibited purchasers to obtain guns.” ("Registration of Firearms Policy Summary." Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2015. .)These criteria seem noble and on the correct track to ending gun violence. But, history has shown that it has had a tendency to lead to the exact opposite. Eastern Europe, 1944, as World War Two was drawing to a close a power struggle had begun. A systematic communist takeover consisting of puppet governments of Soviet influence began. One of the first things to happen in many of the now soviet satellite states, was the systematic registration and confiscation of firearms from private owners. In East Germany, private gun ownership was outlawed. In Bulgaria, communist forces immediately …show more content…
Dylann Roof, the gunmen who murdered nine people in a Charleston South Carolina church, should never have been able to purchase a firearm. James Comey, the Director of the F.B.I., states that paperwork issues between federal and local levels allowed Dylann to purchase a handgun weeks before the tragedy occurred. The reason he was prohibited from purchasing a firearm was because Dylann had admitted to possessing a controlled substance after an earlier arrest. This should have denied him the right to purchase a firearm due to him being an unlawful drug user or addict. (Johnson, Carrie. "FBI Says Background Check Error Let Charleston Shooting Suspect Buy Gun." NPR. N.p., 10 July 2015. Web. 15 Dec. 2015. .) The idea of stepping up background checks is well founded, as it would require a much more stringent process to verify a person 's eligibility to own a firearm. However, this enters the wonderful realm of who says what, and who actually gets a say in the matter. The Social Security Administration recently considered adding those collecting disability but with another person managing their finances to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database. Just having their name in the system effectively prohibiting them from owning or purchasing firearms because they have someone else managing their finances. Makes sense right? If someone can’t access a
Tragedy after tragedy, people find themselves mourning over the lives lost. And over and over again, they look back to see how they could have prevented it. People continue to argue and constantly debate what actions should be taken, and while doing so, more and more people lose their lives at the hands of gun violence. It’s clear to see that not much has been done to keep these weapons out of the wrongs hands: the shootings at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech have shown that. What would happen if there were to be another devastating shooting to occur? How would people react? Or would they just argue some more, while the wrong people can still easily get a hold of guns? The only way they can ever gain control of anything is by controlling the source of the problem, where people are able to freely purchase guns without restrictions. In order to reduce gun-related crime, unlicensed gun sellers should be required to run background checks on their customers.
Each person has a different view on the world. If a person is asked about their view on a certain subject, they will likely show support or disdain for the subject. For example, some people believe abortion is morally wrong. Others view abortion as the mother’s choice since she is carrying the child. On the issue of gun control, people are usually either for or against stricter gun laws. Why do people view the world in the way they do? How do people decide what stance to take on an issue? To answer these questions, sociologists look at the sociological perspective which “stresses the social contexts in which people live” and “examines how these contexts influence people’s lives” (Henslin, 2013, p. 4). Furthermore, the sociological perspective
Public policies are developed in response to the existence of a perceived problem or an opportunity. The analysis delves into a public issue or problem and assesses a set of proposed government action for addressing the issue. The job of the analyst is to describe the background and status of an issue and then, using research and analysis, determine a proper government action to resolve the issue. By comparing options and weighing their expected benefits, the analyst should conclude with a recommended course of action or inaction to addressing the issue.
In a world full of hatred and hostility, gun control may seem like an easy fix to the ongoing issue of mass shootings and murders in the United States, but in reality placing restrictions on guns will not eliminate the problem entirely. Nicholas Kristof argues about this issue in his article, “A New Way to Tackle Gun Deaths,” posted in 2015 in the New York Times. Kristof claims that instead of banning guns entirely we should learn how to coexist with them. He argues that for change to occur throughout the world, it would be nearly impossible to rid the world of guns and that evil will always remain, but serious government threats could potentially eliminate this problem. Kristof builds his credibility by including statistics, incorporating
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...
By Setting up a routine check on the firearms it will decrease gun trafficking, make sure of no lost or stolen firearms, and Confirm that they are stored and locked away properly. The reason a routine check will decrease gun violence and crack down on gun trafficking is because it would make it more noticeable if someone was to have a huge number of firearms in the residence . If an officer was to notice that there are ten guns registered to a person and the person only has 2 firearms at the residence or the officer notice that there are many gun coming and going through the individual home It would indicate that the officer would need to further investigate that individual.Many gun violence altercations include stolen or borrowed firearms, and this precaution would help get some of the gun trafficking under control. Doing a routine check will also keep law enforcement up to date with any lost or stolen firearms . being up to date with that will give the reinforcement a head up or leads that there is a possible threat to look out for. In some circumstances people lock up their firearms and keep them locked up in case of an emergency, this precaution will keep the civilian up to date also. Doing this routine check will also ensure that the firearm is up and away in a safe place or lock box where children and just anyone can not get to
To formulate an opinion on gun laws relating to places of employment the U.S. Constitution and Indiana Constitution must first be examined. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 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.” Simply proclaiming people of the U.S. have the preserved and irrevocable right to own and carry firearms to ensure safety and freedom of the people. The 14th Amendment extends these laws to the state by the “equal protection of the laws.” Written as “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” the amendment gives power to the U.S. Constitution over state when a matter of rights is concerned.
Taking into account of the recent shooting sprees, the gun control debate has started again. However, people have contemplated: “Why does America need gun laws” and “Why are so many states disagreeing about the restrictions that need to be put in place for civilians looking to purchase firearms.” The reasoning for such contemplation is that the fluxuating strictness of gun laws have led to several incidences within states that have strict gun laws due to the fact that the perpetrators of these incidences have purchased their firearms either from black markets, or states where the severity of gun control is at minimal levels.
For many years, America has witnessed mass shootings within it’s borders. In 2015 alone, there were 372 mass shootings (Oldham). The question most Americans are faced with is: do we need more gun control or is gun control the problem? With more gun control, it can be made mandatory that protective devices are used on firearms to prevent accidental harm. Gun control creates mandatory laws such as the requirement for an individual to pass a background check before he/she is permitted to purchase a firearm. Gun control has also been proven to prevent suicides due to the increased difficulty of obtaining a firearm. Those who believe that gun control is the problem claim that by removing one 's firearms, you are endangering them to threats that
Americans are faced with a huge problem of violence in the streets, these streets have become a place where old people are beaten for their social security checks, where little women are attacked and raped, where teen aged thugs shoot it out for some turf to sell their illegal drugs, and finally where small children everyday are caught in the way of bullets during drive by shootings. We try to ignore the criminals in our society and how they hurt it, but we shouldn’t. We should take actions to stop these acts of crazy people. And people try, but the hard work of some misguided individuals to stop the legal ownership of guns doesn’t really affect the problem at all, and takes the guns from the innocent citizens, who simply want means of self defense.
Hence, gun control is a frequently discussed controversial topic in American politics. Although the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from completely banning guns in America, limited restrictions are allowed on the distribution and possession of firearms. Certain groups of people such as criminals, the mentally unstable, and soldiers dishonorably discharged from the military are prohibited from possessing or interacting with firearms (Flynn). These restrictions are enforced by background checks in some states, on both a state and federal level. However, gun laws vary from state to state and are often not thorough enough; the background checks are flawed due to lack of information and misinformation, and guns can easily end up in the hands of criminals and malevolent individuals.
Mass shootings have become a common occurrence in the United States society and have brought our society's safety debate to the attention of American politics. Both sides of the debate agree that we need more safety precautions but neither side can officially agree on what is to be done. What can we do about the raging number of mass shootings? There is no definite solution for mass shootings but there are precautions the United States can take to try to overcome the overwhelming number of mass shootings occurring. Gun Control is a major topic in the debate of how we can keep our society safer but how is what remains a mystery but we can start with altering the second amendment, and having stronger gun laws and background checks.
“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.
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 United States today can be a scary place. Someone that is disgruntled, has a mental health issue, radicalized through terrorist propaganda or for any other reason can take up a firearm and mass murder innocent people. It can happen anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Anyone that pays attention to any news or newspapers has probably heard something about gun control. It’s a hot topic in this country and around the world. There are a lot of problems with gun control and regulating guns in the United States. Before you can talk about solutions you need to isolate the problems keeping the solutions from being realized. The people who are for and against guns do have common solutions but there is strong opposition