Firearms are dangerous weapons used to intentionally and unintentionally kill people, which lead to one of America�s most heated debates: gun control. With increasing crime and violence, many people look to gun control laws as a way to slow these trends down. On the other hand, others believe that owning a gun is a constitutional right that should never be taken away. James Q. Wilson�s essay �Just Take Away Their Guns� is an attempt to offer a solution to both sides of this argument. He claims that illegal possession of firearms is the problem and that frisking suspicious characters would be a good solution to the debate of gun control. However, random frisking to end illegal gun possession is a violation of privacy and an overbearing task that would be impossible to take on.
First of all, Wilson states that �legal restraints on the lawful purchase of guns will have little effect on the illegal use of guns� (106). However, Wilson fails to neglect that lawbreakers have to get their guns from somewhere. Of course some criminals will steal their firearms, but others look to breaking a different law. Buying guns from an unlicensed dealer gives criminals a feeling of safety. The criminal does not have to worry about being caught with breaking and entering and can also feel safe knowing that there is not a file containing records that says he owns a gun. Federal law limits who can purchase a gun on the basis of age, criminal status, and mental health (Zimring 37), but it does not put a limit on the amount of firearms a person can purchase. Enabling people to buy as many guns as they would like supports the black market. Without any restrictions on gun laws a criminal can buy firearms freely from whoever wants to sell one to him. Forgetting these facts weakens Wilson�s stance that gun control will not be able to help solve the issue of illegal gun possession.
A large setback with Wilson�s plan is the potential for racial profiling. He even recognizes this and says that �young black and Hispanic men will probably be stopped more often than older white Anlgo males or women of any race� (109). Some say that, to cut down on gun violence, it is necessary to target groups, neighborhoods, and races that are more likely to commit these crimes; however it is demeaning and backwards. A good example of how the stop-and-frisk can lead to racial profiling is a case filed...
... middle of paper ...
... but to go about it in the way Wilson suggests will only hurt the nation. Instilling a random frisk would cause more problems than it would solve. First and most important, Americans� privacy would be at risk. Another point to look at is the large possibility of racial profiling. To come so far in the area of civil rights and adopt Wilson�s plan would be taking a step backward. Also, it would be a travesty for the police to waste their time frisking possible suspects when there is already so much crime for them to be putting a stop to. Wilson fails to realize the problems his plan will cause America. Forgoing the end of illegal gun possession as Wilson proposes is not worth it when one looks at the harms it will create.
Works Cited
Boyd, Herb. �Cops Must Pay.� New York New Amsterdam News. 25 September 2003. 1.
Wilson, James Q. �Just Take Away Their Guns.� The New York Times Magazine March 24, 1994. Rpt in Current Issues and Enduring Questions 7th ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston; Bedford/St. Martin�s . 2005. 106-109.
Zimring, Franklin E. �Firearms, Violence, and the Potential Impact of Firearms Control.� Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 32.1(2004): 34-37.
Valdez, Angela and John Ferguson Jr. Gun Control: Firearms Ownership, New York: Chelsea House, 2012. 58-60. Print.
Our country has always believed in a citizens right to own a gun. It is a principle that is so important to our country, that it is listed as the second of twenty-seven constitutional amendments. Gun control is a subject of great controversy that carries many true and false claims. Many people believe our second amendment rights are being attacked, and that the government wants to take our guns away. It is my belief that Obama does not want to take our guns, but future administrations may use laws made today to do just that in the future. As more gun related tragedies occur in our country, the question has become "How can we reduce gun violence in our county?", as opposed to "How can we take the peoples' guns away?", but are the laws that the Obama administration are attempting to make paving the way for Americans being disarmed in the future? In this paper, I hope to help the reader realize that Obama does not want to take our guns, but the actions we are taking now may not be the best decisions for the present or the future.
“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns. (Obama)” This said prior to Obama’s presidency, in the 1990’s, is still a topic that is constantly questioned today. Many American’s feel the need to seek ownership of weapons as a source of protection; While others believe that private ownership of guns will do nothing more but heighten the rate of violence due to people taking matters into his or her own hands. Philosophy professor Jeff McMahan agrees with Obama’s statement in regard to the ownership of guns. In his New York Times editorial titled “When Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” McMahan provides evidence to support his theory of the dangers that quickly follow when allowing the community to own guns legally. McMahan, throughout the text, shows responsible reasoning and allows the reader the opportunity to obtain full understanding and justifies his beliefs properly.
Roark, J.L., Johnson, M.P., Cohen, P.C., Stage, S., Lawson, A., Hartmann, S.M. (2009). The american promise: A history of the united states (4th ed.), The New West and Free North 1840-1860, The slave south, 1820-1860, The house divided 1846-1861 (Vol. 1, pp. 279-354).
Over the past five years Americans have seen many horrific tragedies related to gun violence. Each of these terrible events has been accompanied with scrutinizing media coverage, and subsequently, a push on government level for increased gun control. On the surface these movements to take away guns from Americans may seem justified because of these events. In reality the federal government is encroaching upon our Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
As you now know, gun ownership is a very arguable topic. Countless people believe that guns will help citizens protect themselves when targeted for a crime, whereas, a large handful of citizens say that guns “help deteriorate the quality of life in our communities” (Roth 1). What if all the guns in the world just vanished?
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. The ease of obtaining a firearm in America fosters crime and a dangerous environment. Hence, the Second Amendment should be reinterpreted so that stricter gun laws can be implemented because modern citizens do not require guns, current background checks are flawed, gun...
Carter, Gregg. Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2012. Print.
Crime and guns. The two seem to go hand in hand with one another. But are the two really associated? Do guns necessarily lead to crime? And if so do laws placing restrictions on firearm ownership and use stop the crime or protect the citizens? These are the questions many citizens and lawmakers are asking themselves when setting about to create gun control laws. The debate over gun control, however, is nothing new. In 1924, Presidential Candidate, Robert La Follete said, “our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions.” Clearly this debate still goes on today and is the very reason for the formation of gun control laws.
"In dismantling the notion that sex and gender are innate, first the two must be defined. Sex is described as the interaction between genes, hormones, behavior, and the environment. The adjectives female, male, or intersex is used when referring to sex. Gender is the social status, legal
In his essay “Just Take Away Their Guns”, James Wilson presents to his readers the opinion that he holds about gun control laws, explaining why our aim as a society should be to get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals, rather than banning law abiding citizens from carrying them as well (Wilson 126). By explaining the problems that this issue brings to society, backed up with solid facts, he offers possible solutions to these problems to ultimately convince his audience that illegal guns must be removed from the streets.
In this article the author Fawn Johnson gives us a brief look of what goes on during the great gun control debate. This article gives us a look at the gun control proposals, from American’s not bein...
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.
When considering gender and sex, a layman’s idea of these terms might be very different than a sociologist’s. There is an important distinction: sex, in terms of being “male” or “female,” is purely the physical biological characteristic differences – primarily anatomical differences. (There are also rare cases of “intersexual” individuals as outlined in the Navarro article, “When Gender Isn’t a Given”.) Gender, on the other hand, is an often misconstrued concept that is commonly mistaken as synonymous with sex. A non-sociologist might surmise the following, “men act masculine and women act feminine, therefore, it must follow that gender is inherent to sex,” however, this is not necessarily the case.
When kids enter high school they begin to get involved in numerous activities. Most of these activities, such as sports, are after school. Teenagers start to spend more and more time with their peers and less time with their families (“Peer Pressure: Its Influence on Teens and Decision Making”, 2008). With this happening teens tend to pick up on habits that their peers have, or start talking and acting as their peers do; they start taking more risks. It often seems as if “peer influence can be hard to resist- it really has become “pressure”- and you may feel compelled to do something you’re not comfortable with” but they do it anyways (“Peer Pressure: Its Influence on Teens and Decision Making”, 2008).