Given the statistics of vicious crimes committed in the United States versus the amount of firearms privately owned, guns are not the problem in our country and should not be banned. A great deal of society believes gun-free zones will help lower the amount of violent crimes committed in the United States. In reality a great deal of cities and countries that have strict gun-free zones report the opposite results. A British CNN reporter known as Piers Morgan is one of the biggest advocates for banning guns. In the United Kingdom there was a shooting spree in Scotland that resulted in a law banning private ownership of firearms.
Why Gun Control is better than No Gun Control Consequently, a strong need for gun control exists in the United States. Given the evidence of civilian deaths is a convincing way of saying the government needs to limit who is able to purchase a gun. A society overly protected by gun ownership will eventually result in civilian deaths due to the irresponsibility of gun owners, the access of guns to children, and the uncontrolled anger with the ability to use a weapon. Today there exist much blameless and irresponsible ownership of guns. “Nowadays an adult can murder his parents with a shotgun while they are relaxing in the den and then put Mom and Dad on trial for all the lousy stuff they did to him.
Along with the fact, Obama’s gun control plan is to also ban the use of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Yet, these ideas pose a threat to the second amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control laws don’t need to be put into action, no matter how well the laws are assumed to be protecting. Although the abolition of gun control has its perks, some may argue that keeping and implementing gun control has advantages, too. For example, gun control protects: law-abiding citizens, children, and any other type of citizen from other harmful citizens, such as criminals.
When he was finished six were dead and 19 were injured. 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.
Other people suggest that handguns be left the way they are, which would just be ignoring the problem. I feel, along with sixty percent of the population, that the only way to stop handgun violence is to put safety devices and new safety laws on guns ("Americans want Firearms"). Twenty five percent of the American population believes that the way to handle handgun violence is to completely outlaw handguns ("Handguns in America"). Their argument is not compelling. People in this group believe that if the government outlaws handguns, then citizens will simply hand their handguns over.
Guns should only be able to be purchased in stores and not locally because they cannot be given to irresponsible or dangerous people, easier to enforce background checks, and this would be a great substitute instead of banning guns. Guns should only be able to be purchased in stores and not locally because they cannot be given to dangerous or irresponsible people. The national rifle association (NRA) only suggests severe punishments after a criminal has already committed a gun crime, without considering or attempting to prevent criminals or children from obtaining them in the first place. Preventing criminals and children from having these weapons are vital when trying to hone safety skills. It would be more rationale to stop gun distribution to recently incarcerated people then punishing them for obtaining these weapons (Ed.
The continuing Mass Shootings in the United States has caused the gun control debate to intensify. While anti-gun control advocates say the Second Amendment guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, the pro-gun control group reads the Second Amendment as a collective right to bear arms; meaning organized militia are the only ones with that right. This essay will analyse the effectiveness of several different articles which present arguments for and against gun control. Charles W. Collier’s article, “Gun Control in America: An Autopsy Report”, dives into the controversial topic of gun ownership and gun control in the United States. He uses recent shootings, including the George Zimmerman case and the Connecticut elementary school shooting, to present his case that gun violence will remain in the United States as long as guns remain high in number and low in regulation.
In other words, just because a great number of people own guns legally for private use, this does not stop criminals from obtaining guns. Second, the proponents of gun gun control say self defense is not a good enough reason for not regulating firearms. Studies on gun control have shown that family members were more likely to be wounded or even killed by other family members than by a potential attacker or intruder. In addition, gun control advocates point out the fact that the firearms owned by licensed people are more likely to cause them harm than protection. The two sides have found themselves in a heated debate over this issue.
The idea that poorly trained, self-appointed vigilantes are running through our streets looking to become heroes, should not make any of us feel safer. Arming a society does not create civility nor does it produce solutions to gun violence. We cannot solve our society’s disease of violence by arming ourselves with the epidemic. Work Sited Fisherman, Steve (1993, October). “What You Know About Guns Can Kill You,” Vogue, 32-38.
Why Gun Owners Are Right to Fight Against Gun Control. Reason.com. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/18/why-second-amendment-supporters-are-righ M, M. (2013, April 21). 10 Arguments for Gun Control. Listverse.