There are currently 88 guns for every 100 people living in the United States. That is not even counting the numerous illegal weapons that our government could not account for. We have so many guns in this country and very few laws on who can own them. With this in mind, it is easy to see how simple it is for guns to get into the wrong hands of criminals and mentally ill and cause harm. I feel that guns cause a lot more harm than good and there should be more gun control laws. There should be more gun control laws because guns are rarely used for self-defense, there would not be as many guns for criminals to steal, and there would be a reduced number of gun deaths. First of all, there should be more gun control laws because guns are rarely …show more content…
A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that the legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with the long-lasting increased risk of violent death. (P. Cummings, T.D. Koepsell, D.C. Grossman, J. Savarino, and R.S. Thompson 4) Numerous statistics additionally prove this to be true. There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 58.2% suicide, 37.7% homicide, and 2.2% unintentional death. Furthermore guns were the leading cause of death by homicide and suicide. And to top all of that off firearms were the 12th leading cause of all deaths, representing 1.3% of total deaths. All of these facts help to even further show that guns are incredibly unsafe and result in many deaths, even if they are in the right hands. I especially feel that there should be more gun control laws for this reason. Those who oppose gun control laws have just as many arguments against gun control. One of their oppositions to gun control the argument that guns do not kill people, people kill people. Yes, it is true that guns cannot harm others by themselves. They are though the most common way to kill people, as well as the most efficient way to do so. Being both easy to obtain and easy to use, it is no wonder why it is the most common way to murder someone. Even if there were fewer guns due to more gun control laws, people would still kill. …show more content…
This is the most common opposition for gun control. The Second Amendment 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." While it is true that the Second Amendment does state the right to bear arms, it was written with the intention to protect the rights of states to maintain militias and for them to have the right to bear arms, not individuals. It is not an unlimited right to own guns. It does not even give individuals the right to own guns. Republican Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger said about the proposal that the 2nd Amendment is aimed at protecting every American’s right to own guns: “…one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies—the militias—would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she
The two sides of this argument are the pro and anti gun groups. The anti-gun groups main goals range from more stringent gun control laws to a total ban on handguns. The political supporters of this group are susally liberal democrats and a few other small independedt groups such as Handgun Control Inc. Their main arguments are questionin gth eoriginal intent of the framers of the constituion adn the way of life in the time it was written, and also the purpose of guns in modern siciety. For thte most part, their claims are mainly emotional and use popular incidences adn the high number of people killed annually from firearms and, gun saftey in households. On the other side of the fence is the pro-gun grouuups who lobby to support law abiding citizens' second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Their suporters tend to be conservative republicans and pro-gun groups. The most popular of these groups is the NRA(National Rifle Association) which is a strong political group consisting of over three million members. Theses groups tend to use statistics and sases wehre lives have been saved by the use of firearms while strongly stressing gun saftey and training programs. They favor strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights. INthsi paper I am taking a stand against gun control. I feel that law abiding citizens should be entitled to their second ammendment rights to keep and bear arms for the purposes of protection of home, property, and person.
Gun control advocates think that outlawing guns would have stopped the killings from ever happening. While gun rights advocates believe just as strongly that it could have been stopped by one innocent person being armed and fighting back. In order for an issue to even be at hand, both sides must agree that there is a problem with guns and gun control. Both gun control and pro gun advocates do agree that there is a problem. Pro gunners say it is too hard to own a gun and the gun controllers say it is too easy to get a gun.
Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate firearms by selecting who can sell, buy and possess certain guns. Criminals do not obey laws and stricter gun control laws or banning guns will have little effect on reducing crimes. There are many myths about gun control reducing acts of gun violence, which are simply not true according to research. People are responsible for the crimes, not the guns themselves. Taking guns away from United States citizens that use them for many reasons, shooting practice, competition, hunting and self-defense, should not be punished for the acts of criminals. As stated by Mytheos Holt, “Guns in the right hands help public safety. Guns in the wrong hands harm public safety”. Research shows that defensive use of guns discourages criminals and reduces crime (Holt 2). Not only is it wrong to penalize law-abiding citizens, it is against the Second Amendment. It is unconstitutional to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
“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.
In the book Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms, Wilson discusses the complex issue of gun control and the many debates and controversies regarding the issue. Many people throughout the United States feel it is the right as a citizen in the United States to own a weapon, and the government should have no say in the matter. These people believe this because of the part of the Second Amendment that states, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” People who are strong advocates against gun control use this part of the Second Amendment to drive their point across. Advocates against gun control believe that preserving the freedom of a state through a militia is not the only way it should be looked at, these people believe that the amendment also implies a clause that takes into account one’s right for self-defense.
Those who argue for gun control usually state guns are a part of most violent crimes. However, this is not always true. While it is true that limiting gun ownership with laws could prevent individuals from possessing guns, it does not prevent people from illegally having or using guns. Those who carry guns legally are not the problem. According to Mark Gius, the author of “Gun Ownership and the Gun Control Index”, “…only about 25% of total violent crime is committed by a person using a gun, no inferences...
Gun control is one of the most debatable topics. Some people have personal reasons for wanting guns or not… not all people should have guns, but not all people should be trusted to drive a car, but they are still given a licence. It's not the guns killing the people it's the people pulling the trigger.
Guns, like many other issues of the day, have two distinct opposing views with many people in the gray area. Even when looking at a tragic situation, people will have two opposite spins on it. For example, a suicidal madman on top of the Empire State Building kills six people including himself with a gun. Gun-control advocates think that outlawing guns would have stopped the killing from ever happening. Pro-gun advocates think that it would have been stopped by innocent people being armed and fighting back. In order for an issue to even be at hand, both sides must agree that there is a problem with guns and gun control. Both gun-control and pro-gun advocates do agree there is a problem, pro-gunners say it is too hard to own a gun and the gun-controllers say it is too easy to get a gun. While using a point-counterpoint style to argue against gun control I will show guns are best controlled by good aim. The government must keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally ill, and they must not limit the rest of the society from owning them.
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...
Groups for stricter gun control,such as Handgun Control Inc. (HCI), argue that guns do kill people. They think that it is the gun that makes people feel they are in the right and have the power to take someone 's life and control a situation (Kriegel 818). In reality, one cannot place the blame on the gun. Guns aren 't animate objects that can pick their victims. Guns require people to pull the trigger. For this reason it is my belief that the emphasis of gun control should be placed on teaching gun safety and keeping the criminals from getting their hands on firearms.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. To many people gun control is a crime issue, to others it is a rights issue. The US should not adopt stricter gun control laws because, it 's the best source of protection, laws will not control criminals, and it takes away your Second Amendment rights. The majority of U.S. gun owners does not represent a threat to society ( Gun Control Reform par. 1). The other part is either mentally ill or a criminal.
One who is for gun control would argue that due to the new types of weapons and technology that are being drowned in the twenty first century more laws are needed to better control it. Gun opponents would state that if certain laws that are already on the books are ineffective what effect would new enact law bring. . (Streissugth, Tom). Crime will always be apart of America that is why the individual need to be able self defend themselves. One major group that was against any type of gun control was the National Rifle Association; this group did not any laws that tried to prohibit gun rights to individuals. The NRA was founded in 1871 in New York and later moved to Washington D.C. the group served as an association for instructing and rewarding
A shooting here; a shooting there; an every day occurrence heard in the newspapers and on the news channels on television. New media are reporting a shooting somewhere. Whether the shootings are accidental or intentional; they are happening across the United States. Nevertheless, in today’s society, gun violence is sparking debate and controversy on how to control gun violence. Throughout the country, thousands of laws and regulations have been created to aid in the control of guns. Through much study, the gun laws and regulations in place have very little effect on the number of gun related injuries and deaths. More needs to be done to establish an effective way to control gun violence.
“According to FBI statistics, 46, 313 Americans were murdered during the time period of 2007 to 2011. This translates to an average of 9,263 murders per year.” There was about one murder every hour. These murders involved guns. If gun control laws are enhanced then everyone would be safer. There would be less crime and no one would have to be as concerned. That would be a huge benefit to us all. According to JustFacts, “12% of Americans will be the victims of a complete violent crime in the course of their lives. 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed crime. 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed crime more than once.” Obviously many Americans have been involved in a violent gun act. Many probably live in fear. Maybe someone suffers from trauma after an incident like this happened. People who commit these crimes do not even stay in prison for that long. Thus, this makes the United States a scarier
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.