Gun laws were very loose in Britain until the gun Licenses Act 1870 and the Pistols Act 1903 that served as an early model limits of gun ownerships. Later, in 1920, the Firearms Actwas passed, to stop firearms from being used by criminals and irresponsible persons. Notheless, the gun ownership laws were still vague. Howver, tragedies have shaped the legislation of this constitutional rights, making it hardert to get access to a certain type of fire arms in Britain. For instance, the Hungerford Massacre, where a young man named Michael Ryan shot and killed sixteen people and injured plenty others in 1987, shifted the legislation. This incident generated the Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1988 that banned the ownership of high-powered self-loading
"Being Prepared in Suburbia" is an essay by Roger Verhulst published in 1992. The purpose of this essay is to show how guns can change a person's mind and emotions. Throughout the essay, Verhulst shares personal examples of his beliefs of gun ownership and personal examples of how his life changed once he bought a Crossman Power Master 760 BB Repeater pump gun. After purchasing the gun, he believed that the reason people like guns so much is because of a passion that gun owners feel. He stated, "This is the feeling that explains their passion, their religious fervor, their refusal to yield. It's rooted in the gut, not in the head" (Verhulst 342). He also realized that personal thoughts and morals about gun ownership change for a gun owner, and, in a sense, how the gun has authority over an individual's life. For example, "But a roving opossum that took up residence in our garage for a few cold nights in January undermined my good intentions" (Verhulst 341). Honestly, those are only excuses and not legitimate reasons. A strong person would not go against his or her beliefs and would know that using a gun should only be for a specific and valid purpose. Throughout the essay, he believes the weak gun legislation and the problems with gun usage are because of a passion that you feel in your gut; in reality, it is a lack of self-control.
Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." For this reason, the gun lobby does not fight for its perceived constitutional right to keep and bear arms before the Supreme Court, but in Congress. Interestingly, even interpreting an individual right in the 2nd Amendment presents the gun lobby with some thorny problems, like the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
Gun Ownership and Gun Control in Canada The Oscar-won documentary ‘Bowling for Columbine’ has aroused people’s awareness of gun ownership and gun control issues. Should gun ownership be banned or should guns be controlled? Does gun ownership create a violent society? The answer is not measurable, however, from the firearm situation between America and Canada, the answer is more obvious.
Society’s concerns about protection from violent crimes involving firearms have encouraged Canadian Parliament to pass tougher gun control legislation. The Federal Government responded by passing Bill C-68 that created the Firearms Act, which came into effect in December of 1998. This is by far the strictest gun control law to date. Many Canadians objected to this legislation and wanted it repealed because they believe it is an unnecessary waste of tax dollars to further license and monitor law abiding gun owners. Firearm laws have become an extensive debate in society and also politics.
Since 1996 Australia’s number of gun related deaths has decreased from 634 people a year to 226, which is a drop of 63%. This huge drop in gun related deaths is due to new legislation which was put in place due to the Port Arthur massacre where Martin Bryant cruelly killed 35 people and injured 23. This new legislation involved a gun buy-back scheme where people who owned now illegal guns were paid compensation and their firearms were taken and destroyed. Over a period of 7 years, the government bought and destroyed 660,959 fire-arms. This legislation has proved to be highly successful as for the past two decades gun-related deaths in Australia have dropped by 63%.
To formulate an opinion on gun laws relating to places of employment the U.S. Constitution and Indiana Constitution must first be examined. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 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.” Simply proclaiming people of the U.S. have the preserved and irrevocable right to own and carry firearms to ensure safety and freedom of the people. The 14th Amendment extends these laws to the state by the “equal protection of the laws.” Written as “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” the amendment gives power to the U.S. Constitution over state when a matter of rights is concerned.
Comparing the United States’ homicidal statistics to England and Wales’, I’ve been moderately persuaded towards the opponent’s side of gun control. It’s difficult to dictate what’s morally acceptable in today’s society with the increasing amounts of controversy, but noticing the dramatic increases in crime rate due to the lack in supply of guns, versus the dramatic decreases in crime rate because of an increase in the supply of guns, definitely proves the consequences of gun control to a certain degree. I would also have to agree that ridding the public from their firearms does take away the privilege of defending ourselves from any sort of crime. With the given results, knowing that our American citizens defend themselves from
...form of mass shooting has occurred. At one point, guns were used as a means of protection, but as time went on, they fell into the hands of the wrong people who have used them for mob violence as well as plain random acts of violence against innocent people. For that, the Presidents have felt that we should all be placed on stricter gun laws.
Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing”. The United Kingdom tried a 15 year ban on guns and all it did was increase the rate of crimes. From 1990 until the ban was put into effect, the homicide rate went from 10.9 to 13 per million. After the ban was there for a while, the homicides reached 18.0 in 2003.
Firearms are a huge part of the American culture; guns are used for various tasks. These firearms have recently assumed a bad name due to the lawbreakers that have been doing horrible actions with them. However, anything can acquire a bad review or reputation due to incorrect usage. A pencil can receive the label a weapon if set in the wrong hands and participates in a horrific act. A pencil can be a weapon that states wrongful information or hurtful facts that can destroy people. There have been tragedies, which have given guns a nasty reputation, but shouldn’t the person have the awful reputation, the gun did not choose to take this action. I do agree that there should be stricter rules, and some banning of certain models would be good but not every gun should have to recompense for these acts. Not all Americans should have to suffer because of criminal deeds; numerous American citizens by means of hunting, self-defense or safety, and sporting events use firearms responsibly.
There are gun control laws to try and reduce the number of violent shootings that occur. They are trying to put limits on weapons that Americans can own. The government is trying to take our guns away mainly because of people that are criminally insane. Most of the people who commit crimes don’t even have the weapons legally. If the government takes away the rights of people who are allowed to have firearms in their possession, it will most definitely cause an outrage. Most people believe that the people should be more capable of maintain proper use of the firearms instead of having them all taken away. Taking the firearms from Americans away would cause a lot more problems than there actually are. The people will be upset with the government taking firearms away because of the horrible people who harm innocent people using them. So they will do anything to their capabilities to keep them.
Over the past few years, the debate over guns has been an issue of major importance. Should there even be gun control laws, is the question. Guns are dangerous, and they can kill but are the only weapons that can cause death. The reason why many people today are for gun control is due to the recent mass shootings taking place in the country, such as Sandy Hook school shooting in NewtonConnecticut. Also the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado in 2012; the shooting at the Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon that happened this year. Politicians have made many efforts to try to counteract the recent waves of gun violence, by creating gun control laws. One such politician is former Massachusetts
Gun control has been a big debate across America due to the high crimes that involves a gun. Oklahoma has nearly half of the states citizen owning a gun, due to Oklahoma laws are so lay back on their citizens owning a gun. Crimes in this state is are near the top half of the United States that involve some sort of firearm. Today there are more tragic mass shootings that are occurring in the United States, in which some are involving small children. This is why the state of Oklahoma needs to put a stricter gun policy to the citizens of this state, so that the crime rates that involve a gun will go down.
According to “Capital Punishment, Gun Ownership, and “Homicide”, it is attempting to answer “two controversial questions, both related to the problem of interpersonal violence in America.” One of the questions asks if “the use of the death penalty exert any measurable influence on the rate of homicide in the U.S.?” and the other asks “what relationship, if any, exists between the level of gun ownership and the level of homicidal violence?” (G. Kleck, 1979)
43 of 50 states do not require permits in order for individuals to purchase guns. However, statistics show that these states have higher rates of firearm assaults (Pappas). In addition, proper background checks are not conducted on those making the purchase (Teen Vogue). This is significant because perpetrators look for the easiest way to let out their aggression, and complete the task efficiently. With a majority of states providing such easy access to this weapon, the main method of attack can easily be established. If the American Government improves this single factor, it is guaranteed that there will be improvement. In fact, this adjustment has been proved successful in Australia. In the 18 years before the Port Arthur tragedy of 1996, there were 13 gun massacres that occurred (Datz). The Government recognized that there was a fault in the system, and so, a mandatory buyback of all semi-automatic long guns was ordered. Alongside, laws regarding purchase of firearms were modified to be more effective (Datz). In the 20 years since then, there have been zero mass shootings. However, this is an action the American Government is unable to perform, resulting in more frequent reoccurrences. In conclusion, mass murders are rising, and will continue to rise, because of insufficient implementation of gun safety