Argumentative Essay On Gun Control

They discuss issues such as mental stability, the Constitution, and the type of gun that is legal to own. Those that are in favor of changing gun laws believe due to recent events such as Sandy Hook, The laws should ban gun ownership to a citizen unless they are certified to own one. The citizens that oppose changing gun laws are saying people need self defense and bring up the recent Boston Bomber incident. Those that are trying to change the gun laws are saying that the Constitution was written a long time ago and needs to be updated about a person’s self defense. Those who are against change are saying that the Constitution cannot be changed because the guns aren’t to blame but the people that are using them.

Guns can be hazardous, but only if they are in the wrong hands. Owning a gun is a right that every American should take pride in having. Guns are used for self-protection, hunting, law enforcement and other practices. However, recent incidents, like mass shootings, have caused a change in opinions and demand for gun control. Obama’s proposals sought to reform the national firearm purchase check system, so that offenders and the mentally ill could not buy guns legally, and close down the unregulated secondary gun market which is such a handy supply line for the criminally inclined.While critics dispute that enacting restrictions on gun sales is imperative to keep Americans safe, gun control restricts citizens’ rights to the 2nd Amendment, proves ineffective in other countries, and neglects to lower the crime rate.

Gun Control in America I do not believe there is a need for more gun control in the United States. Gun control is strict enough. Gun control law is designed to impose legal measures to license, control, or restrict the ownership of firearms by members of the public. By strengthening the gun laws you are only hurting the average citizen who has the right to bear arms. They should do background checks for any mental illnesses, past criminal activity including petty crime, and whether or not they contribute to the community.

27 Mar. 2014. "Gun Control And Gun Rights." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 2014.

Rather than put more restrictions on guns and gun owners, we should be able to freely protect ourselves and our fellow man. As we look at the way pro gun control parties are planning on enforcing gun control, you may begin to question why we would even consider using such drastic means. The idea that limiting the size of a magazine or regulating the type of gun you can purchase or even doing something as simple as a background check can stop murders like the Connecticut shooting from happening is very far-fetched. In Making Gun Control Happen the author, Patrick Radden Keefe, writes from a pro gun control standpoint. He describes that one obvious change would be to “mandate a criminal background check for all gun purchases” as it would obviously stop criminals from getting their hands on a weapon (Keefe).

Should the government outlaw handguns? This has been a controversial point for many years. There are those who argue: yes handguns should be banned because it gives guns to the criminal, its dangerous in households and the Second Amendment was intended for militia. However, others argue that handguns should not be banned because they are in the second amendment, for self protection, and for the fact that they are already restricted so that not just anybody can own a handgun. Handguns should not be restricted because they are a right in the second amendment, they offer self protection and crime deterrent and that there are already restrictions put in place to control guns, and finally there are a couple of examples where handgun bans have not been effective.

Of late, however, the most lengthy, argumentative and noisy debates have focused on gun control. Some people think that guns should be more harshly regulated, while others believe that they should be more easily available. Gun control lobbyists and activists claim that firearms only cause pain and destruction, but they are wrong. In this country, firearms are not only used for sport and competition, but also for self-defense as well. The founding fathers made it crystal clear in the Constitution that the ability to own guns is a right, and this decision has been confirmed by our nation’s courts and by the custom and practice of the generations that came before us throughout our history.

This question is where much of the misconception begins. Many people would reply to this question simply by saying taking away guns. They are correct but this is just a small part of what gun control actually is. The authors of the article, "Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?” give a good definition for what gun control is. “Gun control is an umbrella term covering everything from laws prohibiting the ownership of defined classes of firearms to mandating the inclusion of gun locks with every firearm sold.”(Moorhouse) The first step to making a stance on any subject should be to fully understand what all is contained in the issue.

He uses recent shootings, including the George Zimmerman case and the Connecticut elementary school shooting, to present his case that gun violence will remain in the United States as long as guns remain high in number and low in regulation. Collier states that if Americans did not intend the consequences of holding an army with almost unlimited access to firearms, they would start demanding laws to control the gun violence: But changes of this magnitude are hardly to be expected—not in a land where a one-gun-per-month purchase limit counts as bold—even “pioneering”—legislation. (The debate over assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, after all, is not about whether people will be killed; it is about how many will be killed, and how quickly). (81) Collier writes his article in a pessimistic view of the future of gun regulation. He uses logos in the quote above by using deductive reasoning.

The government is using our society’s violent incidents as cover to place restrictions and bans on firearms. This essay’s purpose is to provide proof that buying and owning firearms is our legal constitutional right and that our government is trying to attack the wrong angle when trying to fight crime involving guns in the United States. If we take a closer look into the U.S. Constitution, you will find that James Madison stated in Federalist 46 that the people need to have access to the same weapons the military has access to, incase of the event of a tyrannical uprising, the people would not be forced into government oppression. Now some people’s rebuttal to that is saying something along the lines of “well our founding fathers had no idea what AR15’s were at that time”. If we take that statement and apply it to other amendments of the constitution, our... ... middle of paper ... ...takes time to educate and promote safe gun practices and competency with firearms.