More handpicked essays just for you.
Summary of the second amendment
Controversy over the second amendment
Gun control debate arguments introduction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Summary of the second amendment
During the Vietnam War, more than twice as many Americans were killed with firearms in the U.S. than died in combat. Today, firearms are used in approximately 65% of the 11,000 homicides a year. Suicides are carried out via a gun 57% of the 16,600 a year (“GunCite” 49). These statistics pose the question, “Would there be that many fewer deaths if guns were banned altogether? Or would these deaths occur just the same but by other means?” Studies on both a local and a national level have shown that the majority of murders are committed by those with previous criminal records. The “crimes of passion” are not very common; rather, most murders are planned and therefore would occur no matter what weapon is to be used (“GunCite” 49). However, controlling the guns in America is still an issue that needs to be addressed. Banning guns completely is not what should be done, however; if the government controls guns by other means, then crime will be reduced yet many Americans will still have them to use in recreation and in self defense.
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Right in the United States Constitution says “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 statement has been interpreted two very different ways over the years. The Americans that favor strict gun control have come to the conclusion that this amendment guarantees the right of the states to own firearms. They believe the forefathers of the Constitution wanted to guarantee every state the right to keep and bear firearms, in order to defend against the federal government, should it try to possess too much power. The “well regulated militia,” they say, refers to state troops using state-supplied firearms, such as the National Guard or the Naval Militia. They believe that the Second Amendment was just another part of the checks and balances built into the American government. One strength this viewpoint has is that while the Supreme Court has never made a direct ruling on how to interpret the Second Amendment, it has never stuck down any gun-control law as being unconstitutional under the Second Amendment (Beard and Rand 224).
Americans that are against gun control interpret this amendment in a very different manner. While they do not dispute that every state has the right to keep and bea...
... middle of paper ...
...iewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
“GunCite” http://www.guncite.com. 8 December 2002.
Halbrook, Stephen P. “An Individual Right” Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
Kopel, David B. “Guns Are Necessary for Self-Defense” Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
National Rifle Association. “Gun Control Violates the Constitution” Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
Schwerin, Ursula. “The More Guns, the More Violence” Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
Vaughn, Jerry. “Guns Difficult to Use” Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
Wright, James D. “Gun Control Would Not Reduce Crime” Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
Zimring, Franklin E. and Gordon Hawkins. “Guns Should Not Be Used for Self-Defense” Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.