A very controversial yet important topic discussed in today’s society is gun control. It is a topic that many political campaigns focus their agendas on. In general, studies have shown that the United Stated is divided about half and half on this controversy. So why does this problem come with such great concern? To answer this question, one would have to evaluate the responsibilities of being a gun owner, for example, the fact that owning a gun could be detrimental to one’s life. When owning a gun, one must examine three important factoring questions: what types of firearms should citizens be able to acquire, how should background checks be administered, and finally possession of guns both in private and public locations? As one could see, …show more content…
Guns have multiple uses including both safety and recreational purposes including the following: self-defense, hunting, and sporting. They can be an extremely useful tool when handled with care, however, they can be destructive when used hastily. The mayhem occurs when the wrong person decides to act out against society. The conflict has become more urgent in the last twenty years because of mass shootings that trigger panic among Americans. For example, the Columbine High School shooting that occurred in 1999, left twelve people and and twenty injured. This prompted a nationwide debate over gun control which led to the enactment of new laws. However, the argument has risen that additional gun control and safety laws could have prevented this devastating massacre. According to David Lampo’s article in the Cato Institute on the myths and realities on gun control, he states, “Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal …show more content…
Countering that argument, others bring up the point that possessing a gun allows for the ultimate self-protection against criminal attacks (Vizzard). It is extremely vital to be able to protect yourself and your family from violent criminals and not rely on law enforcement for protection. In a specific case of the murder of a twelve year old boy and his badly beaten stepfather, there was a 71 minute time interval between the police first learning about the plan and arriving at the house. This was a premeditated murder but was discovered by a group of teenage girls who then informed police (Blatchford). If the father would have had a gun in his home he may have been able to save his son from the attackers. No matter the circumstance, every second in any crime can make the difference between life and
In Mallory Simon article "Gun Debate: Where is the Middle Ground?" Amardeep Kaleka made a vow: He would do whatever he could to ensure nobody ever went through what his family had. When his father was one of the victims of the Sikh shooting. Kaleka asked a panel of polar opposite views if there was a middle ground. Though they had opposite views the panel was able to come to an agreement that enforcing background checks is the middle ground. It will take a lot of money and resources but they feel it is the best option/first step to improving gun control in America.
"The Controversy of Gun Control." Open Discussion about Various Controversies. N.p.. Web. 3 Dec 2013. .
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.
According to Mallory Simon in her article “Gun Debate: Where Is the Middle Ground?” there is a necessity to find common ground in the gun debate in America after incidents like the shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and the “school massacre” in Newtown, Connecticut. Amardeep Kaleka, whose father was gunned down in the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin, questions whether representatives from panelists such as the National Rifle Association, the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, law enforcement representatives, and other participants can agree on anything. Sandra Froman of the National Rifle Association believes there is common ground; however, when Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence mentioned common ground when
Opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. For the purposes of this paper "Gun Control" is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and the like. So defined, gun control understandably brings favorable responses from some, and angry objections from others. The gun control debate is generally publicized because of the efforts of the Pro-Gun Lobby or the Anti-Gun Lobby.
“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.
In a tragic event such as a mass shooting, a large population of Americans are quick to draw the conclusion that the right to own a gun is harmful to society; however, the second amendment is what allows the American people to protect themselves from such shooting instances. The privilege to own a concealed firearm is beneficial to the American population when well-regulated for reasons such as self-defense and expressing freedoms which U.S citizens are privileged enough to receive through the second amendment; given they pass a background check. The second amendment is what makes the privilege to own a gun legal. This thesis paper will highlight the benefits of the right to own a gun under the second amendment,
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
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.
Today in the United States many people argue over the fact of guns being legal or illegal. There are people using guns for personal safety and there are others who use them for crimes, as well as for other situations. Firearm deaths in the United States have slowly been decreasing from year to year with all these bills getting passed to promote a safer country than ever before. Guns are the main weapon for youth suicide, school shootings, and for committing murder. In 2010 there were 2,711 infants, child, and teenage firearm deaths. As in school shootings and in committing murder, studies show shooters often had multiple, non-automatic guns, shootings were planned, most youth tell before shooting, shooters have a history of being bullied or threatened, shooters have mental issues, and shooters have done suicidal gestures before (Gun Control with School Shootings). Although there are people who use guns for murdering, there are also those who oppose guns being used without the proper requirements. 85% of all respondents to the survey supporting requiring states to report people to national background-checks systems who are prohibited from owning gu...
Despite Norway’s strict requirements in order to own a gun, they couldn’t prevent a mass shooting that took the lives of 77 people in 2011 (Masters). One thing you don’t hear very often from the leaders of our country, is the idea that more guns could prevent shootings. In the United States, we have “gun free zones,” which include schools and other public places. In these areas, guns are strictly prohibited, and instead of preventing shootings have actually became a target for them.Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), “found that 92 percent of mass shootings since 2009 have taken place in designated gun-free zones” (Blackwell). The author of “Ban gun-free zones,” Ken Blackwell claims that those who commit mass shootings want the publicity, and will go where they know they can do the most damage, because the more serious the shooting is, the more publicity it will receive. Blackwell goes on to say, “most mass shootings don’t end until the police arrive. Killers typically have several minutes to slaughter as many victims as they can without fear of interference” (Blackwell). John Lott, the author of “A Look at the Facts on Gun-Free Zones,” backs up Blackwell’s claims of mass shooters targeting places where guns are prohibited. Lott uses evidence from mass shooters themselves as his evidence, and one very recent tragedy is the shooting in a Charleston, South Carolina church, in June 2015. According to the Crime Research Prevention Center, cited by Lott in his article, the shooter told those around him about his plans to carry out the shooting. His original plan was to go to the College of Charleston, but apparently veered away from the college when he realized that there was heavily armed security, obviously settling for the Church. Another example is James Holmes, who committed a mass shooting in a movie theatre. Holmes had what Lott referred to as a
Gun control in the United States has been a major debate for hundreds of years. Many people believe that guns should be highly regulated while others believe that anyone should have the ability to own one. Each side has a plausible argument. Throughout this essay it will be show how not having gun control can increase violence and death rates, the right for everyone to own a gun is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and how over usage of guns has played a role in the diminishing populations of animals.
In this day and age, gun control is a major topic of debate in the United States. Many people believe that gun control is the solution to ending violent crimes in the United States while others believe that gun control will only make the situation worse. There are three main causes of the gun control debate that spark public interest in the subject: school shootings, political attention, and gun control laws.
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.
The development of arguments surrounding gun control corresponds to the increased violence and problems related to weapons and firearms use. This then prompted the expansion of gun control initiatives and has shapes public opinion particularly in the promotion of increased regulation to banning. Due to this, it became controversial as it split the opinions of the citizenry particularly in their stance to advance different objectives. Arguably, the process of developing gun control remains to be detrimental due to its capacity to challenge individual rights and liberty, undermine the value of guns and firearms in the promotion of deterrence and self-defense and inability to recognize the commitment of existing reasonable gun management and control initiatives already in place.