When presenting the proposal to society; consideration is needed on what would happen in the likelihood that there is a large disapproval rate. The ethical ramifications could be a negative factor in not being able to get the proposal passed by knowing how society reacts to gun control. There are constant arguments when the suggestion of banning guns is presented. Most of the argues involves rights and discrimination issues. Since most criminals will get a gun if they want it; some individuals in society feel that by owning a gun; they can protect themselves better from the criminal and that crimes involving guns with stop.
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.
While the writer is an advocate of gun control laws, the literature demonstrates all too clearly that creating, passing and enforcing such laws is difficult, and... ... middle of paper ... ...owning family. As we just saw in McConnell's piece, in fact, many if not most American gun-owners do support some form of gun control laws which try to prevent the use of firearms by criminals or those with mental problems. The question, as with all laws, is determining precisely what measures will prevent such use of firearms, without infringing improperly on the rights of law-abiding Americans to own firearms. This debate rages in part because there is much emotion on both sides of the argument. Gun-control advocates seek to quell firearms-related violence with laws.
Those who want more lax gun laws believe that it acts as a deterrent and as a safety measure to protect innocent citizens and themselves. As with most gun control debates there is always a lot of statistics involved in the argument. Taking a look at numbers helps to see if gun control laws are effective or not. The argument for more lax gun control laws makes more sense and has the statistics to back it up. Gun laws control what firearms may be purchased, who may purchase them, and restrict the use of firearms.
The groups against gun control show concern about violent crime and they don’t perceive gun control is the answer to violence committed using guns. However, they support strict laws against gun-related crimes and better enforcement of those laws. On the other hand, those who support gun control are of the opinion that background checks are
But most of these laws have only prevented the common citizen from acquiring a firearm. There should be some regulation with regard to who can own a gun, but we need to ensure that this regulation is done in a fair and practical manner. The best argument for the protection of the right to possess arms is the Second Amendment. The purpose of the amendment, and the entire Constitution, is to establish certain rights that cannot be abolished or changed by our government. But the wording of the amendment has been a source of debate.
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights 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. (Amendment II 1791) This debate has produced two familiar interpretations of the Second Amendment. Advocates of stricter gun control laws have tended to stress that the amendment’s militia clause guarantees nothing to the individual and that it only protects the states’ rights to be able to maintain organized military units. These people argue that the Second Amendment was merely used to place the states’ organized military forces beyond the federal government’s power to be able to disarm them. This would guarantee that the states would always have sufficient force at their command to abolish federal restraints on their rights and to resist by arms if necessary.
Our society has passed laws regulating the possession and use of firearms, and more legislation is being considered. Most of this legislation restricts, to some degree, the rights of individuals to possess or use firearms. “Some limitations may be necessary, but some modern legislation has gone too far. Society benefits from firearms in the hands of conscientious citizens. Attempts to keep firearms away from these citizens do more harm than good.” (stated by the NRA) ...
Gun control is a hot issue in the wake of so many recent, tragic mass shootings. So, what is gun control? Gun control which is also known as firearms regulations refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms. Some people would argue that gun control is generally a widespread of gun ownership that increases the danger of gun violence while others would argue that gun control does not increase the crime rate as far as gun violence; however it does violate individual liberties. Gun control is the heart of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
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.