Gun Control and the Dismemberment of State “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,” wrote James Madison into the constitution of the United States. However, compared to that of Japan, whom allow no guns to be held by citizens, the United States allowed and perceived constitution in such a way that allows thousands of people to die yearly. Some argue that gun control is against the constitution in their perception, yet it clearly states that guns should be “well-regulated,” firstly. Even though guns may prevent assaults and robberies, it is imperative that the conditions of firearm possession be impeded beyond current means because the availability of guns correlates with an increase of homicide, yet the United States currently has the highest rate of gun violence, and over 50% of the world’s guns. …show more content…
This is simply one case showing the consequence of abundant guns. And while a common defense of guns is that they are required to defend the owners in case of a robbery or conflict, numerous studies and reports show that the opposite is true: guns increase crime (“10”). This increase is evident when compared to another gun less state: The United Kingdom. Compared to the British Isle, the United States has 16% more minor crimes, 20% more hate crime, 82% more total crime, and 5 times more criminals
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.
Since the inception of the Brady Act, over 118 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were subject to background checks. About 2.1 million applications, or 1.8%, were denied.
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...
An estimated 30,000 people are killed each year by guns in the United States alone according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s). Though there have been some restrictions and laws placed, both the conservative and liberal sides are not pleased with either the lack of action or the fact that there has been too much action that has taken place. “About 38% of U.S. households and 26% of individuals owned at least one gun, with about half of the individuals having 4 or more guns, according to a 2004 survey by the Harvard School of Public Health (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s).” Both sides turn to the one document centered on the argument for evidence to support their side: the Second Amendment.
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...
Some of the reasons for gun control are that it will help the government get a control on us.Hitler in world war 2 used gun control against the jewish people to better control and corral them. Historians have documented most everything about it except what made it so easy to attack the defenseless Jews without fear of resistance. Their guns were registered and thus easily confiscated.(stephen halbrook)If the government started registering guns and know their location left and right they could overthrow us with a flick of their wrist. Imagine your local police coming to your doorstep in your house and taking your only good form of self defense.Then turning right around and kidnapping your children and kids and including yourself.I mean thats what the jews were facing during the holocaust.This is why so people do not support gun control for fear of government taking over us and loss of their guns.also some people use guns to provide food for their family thru the form of hunting.you take away their guns you take away their ability to provide for their family.I believe the government doesn't have a right to take our guns to get a hold on us.But its actually better when the government lets us carry weapons around in our everyday lives.
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.
Guns, Crime, and Freedom states that, no gun law which restricts the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns has been proven to reduce crime or homicides, not even the Brady Law and the “Clinton Crime Bill.” These two laws st...
As violence and murder rates escalate in America so does the issue of gun control. The consequence of this tragedy births volatile political discourse about gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the question is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote, “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.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment the make and model of firearms has changed dramatically and so has the philosophies of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle-loading musket used to primarily protect families or solely for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the second amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of gun control articles having been written , still the gun control issue remains unresolved. History tells us gun control debates will be in a stalemate until our judicial system defines or rewrites the Second Amend. This paper will examine the history of the Second Amendment, and attempt to define the framers intent, gun control legislation and look at factors that affect Americans on this specific issue...
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. Many gun supporters will say that more guns will bring down the crime rate. These same believers will give facts stating that the more guns in a state, the less likely gun owners will use them. “The chances of innocent people being the victims of violent crime, including murder, decrease—not increase—when access to guns is made easier” (Luik).
The right to bear arms has been an important conversation in America for decades. As of recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting and the Aurora Colorado Theater shooting, the debate is more heated than ever. From large-scale massacres to single fatality shootings, gun violence is unwarranted and heartbreaking. However, the Second Amendment protects individual citizens’ right to own firearms: “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,” it states (Bill of Rights). Although this part of the Bill of Rights has not been changed in United States’ history, some citizens argue that, because the Constitution is a working document, this should be adapted to fit current needs and protect communities. Citizens who wish tip the scale in favor of the community’s protection argue that guns are dangerous, easy to access, popular weapons that allow disgruntled or mentally unstable citizens to “inflict mass causalities” and were originally only intended for use in a militia (Joe Messerli). On the other hand, those who wish to benefit civilians argue that taking away guns restrains individual liberty and that gun control would prove futile because criminals would find ways such as the black market to obtain guns, weapons can serve as self-defense prevent crimes, and reasonable restrictions would be more effective than an outright ban (Joe Messerli). Both arguments have valid, well developed ideas, and both sides tend to be passionate in debate.
“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.
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...
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...