In the world there are many countries in which the possession of firearms without a permit is considered as a legal activity. However, there are also many countries in which citizens are not allowed to own, nor to carry guns. Nowadays, the issue of private gun ownership is one of controversy, for some people believe it should be banned and some others consider that it is a citizen’s right to own a gun.
On the one hand, those who consider private gun ownership should be banned believe that having a gun in a house might be dangerous, because, statistically speaking, an individual is more likely to shoot another by accident, because of an unintentional shooting, than they are to shoot a home invader. Also, and because of that, having a gun in the house also increases the person’s own chances of becoming the victim of an unintentional shooting. Furthermore, those who think it is better to forbid private gun ownership claim that the lack of control and tracking of gun owners may result in firearms falling into the wrong hands. This means that, if its purchase is not monitored, and anyone can have access to it, there is a possibility that a gun can end up in the hands of a citizen that is not
…show more content…
In fact, some of them claim that citizens holding weapons can protect themselves and their houses, and that, in the right circumstances, a gun can be the first and most effective line of defense against intruders, because carrying one can give them at least a fighting chance if a burglar manages to get in. In addition, those who believe that private gun ownership should not be banned, allege that gun control is not the solution to the problem, because, from their point of view, guns do not kill people, people do. This means that if a criminal cannot get a gun, they will be able to find other ways to commit their crimes, whether it is with a hammer or a
Joseph Sobran argues that, “there are solid constitutional arguments against gun control. For one thing, nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right to limit an individual's right to own firearms”. He states that the government has no right to limit guns. Even though he has a point there is a limit to that statement such as serious criminals and mentally unstable people. Likewise Sharon Harris states that guns protect people against criminals, “the right to bear arms protects the individual from violent aggressors and from the ineffective protection state and federal government is offering its citizens … criminals benefit from gun control laws that make it more difficult for ordinary citizens to protect themselves.” She believes that guns keep people safe and that regulating guns will only benefit criminals. This is not true because regulations help prevent criminals from getting guns. Having less regulations is a dangerous
Gun Control in America is seen as ineffective, citizens believe gun control laws in place are not protecting lives, but taking them away. In order to solve this problem, many think more laws should be put in place. By doing so, they believe guns would no longer be in the hands of criminals and lives would not be ended before their time. In Christine Watkins’s article, “Stronger Gun Control Will Save Lives” She explains that if guns were objects that truly kept us safe, America would be the safest country in the world. She also states that a gun in any home is more likely to be mistreated, causing an accidental shooting. She also hints that more common sense laws would greatly benefit gun owners (Stronger Gun Control). One of her points is quite agreeable, more common sense gun laws would be entirely useful in the long run. By having more safety guidelines, such as; trigger locks, which make it so the gun cannot be used, keeping the ammunition and the gun separated, never pointing a gun at another person, unless your life is in life threatening danger, making sure the weapon is properly cleaned on a regular basis, and even teaching children how to properly handle weapons. By taking these common sense precautions to use, it would prevent innumerable accidental misfires in homes. On the other hand, laws put in place to simply make it more difficult to obtain a weapon is not the answer. By keeping guns out of the lawful citizen’s hands, only the lawbreakers will benefit. Author John R. Lott, Jr. wrote the book entitled More Guns Less Crimes, informs readers that by having a concealed weapon, as opposed to carrying a weapon openly, carries more potential to reduce crime rates across America. By concealing a weapon, no one knows who is ...
Many gun control activists believe that the solution is simple; ban all guns and there won't be any crimes committed with guns. Obviously this is not the answer but there are people that believe this would work. There are also a lot of people that know this would never work. The main reason is because criminals are not going to care if the crime they are committing is with an illegal weapon or not. They are already committing a crime, what's one more going to hurt. A majority of crimes committed with guns are committed with illegally bought firearms. If you were to ban guns completely the only people that would not have guns are the laws abiding citizens who want to protect themselves.
Guns are not the trouble, people are. The United States is #1 in world gun ownership, and yet is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people. The number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58 percent between 1991 and 2011 Based on these facts, one can see the guns not the causes of gun violence. moreover, civilians who get permits take gun safety courses and have criminal background...
He demonstrates when guns are found in every household, gun control can do little to restrict access to guns from potential criminals. (McMahan, 3) So, McMahan’s main premises comes into play, either everyone has guns, including criminals, or nobody has guns. “Gun advocates prefer for both rather than neither to have them” McMahan remarks, but ultimately that will just leave the country open to more violence and tragedies. “As more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes a matter of self help, and the unarmed have an incentive to get guns.” (McMahan, 2) Now everyone is armed, and everyone has the ability to kill anyone in an instant, making everyone less secure. Just as all the states would be safer if nobody were to possess the nuclear weapons, our country would be safer if guns were banned from private individuals and criminals.
“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 "Just Take Away Their Guns," author James Q. Wilson argues that "Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of guns will have little effect on the illegal use of guns" (Wilson 63). Wilson points out that it would be tough to remove all legally purchased guns from the streets and nearly impossible to confiscate illegally purchased guns. Gun advocate J. Warren Cassidy argues that "The American people have a right 'to keep and bear arms'. This right is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. . ." in an article titled "The Case for Firearms" (Cassidy 275). James B. Jacobs and Kimberly A. Potter wrote in an article called "Keeping guns out of the "wrong" hands: the Brady law and limits of regulations" that "US law enforcement should concentrate on stiff sentences for crimes committed with guns and recognize that gun control laws do not keep guns from the wrong people" (Jacobs and Potter 1 of 27). Daniel B. Polsby, author of "The false promise: gun control and crime," simply states, "Gun control laws don't work" (Polsby 1 of 11). Polsby feels that "gun control laws are ineffective because [they] have not been proven to be a deterrent to crime" (1 of 11). James D. Wright states, in his article "Second Thoughts about Gun Control," that "If there were fewer guns around, there would also be less crime and less violence" (Wright 93). More gun control laws will only make it a hassle for law abiding citizens to purchase guns. They will not keep guns out of the criminal's hands because they have other methods of obtaining guns, such as the secondary market which is the illegal sale of firearms. Another reason why more gun control legislation will backfire is that those who want to purchase guns to protect themselves a...
Taking into account of the recent shooting sprees, the gun control debate has started again. However, people have contemplated: “Why does America need gun laws” and “Why are so many states disagreeing about the restrictions that need to be put in place for civilians looking to purchase firearms.” The reasoning for such contemplation is that the fluxuating strictness of gun laws have led to several incidences within states that have strict gun laws due to the fact that the perpetrators of these incidences have purchased their firearms either from black markets, or states where the severity of gun control is at minimal levels.
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
“It is estimated that there are 310 million non – military guns in America” (O’Brien and Stanton). Many people that own a firearm usually have more than one gun. Also, a majority of gun owners feel that owning a firearm is the best way to protect themselves at home. With the large number of guns said to be in America, there needs to be a way to prevent the number of frequently occurring mass shootings. The solution to this issue is called gun control. Gun control needs to be implied more in our society because gun related crimes are mostly committed by those diagnosed with mental illnesses, there is no contradiction with the second amendment, it has the ability to lower the amount of mass shootings in the United States, and universal background checks help prevent mass shootings.
...he gun debate in America, has many people talking about how dangerous guns could be. Trying to avoid people to buy guns or eliminate guns would not help because guns could be brought illegally. Background checks would only work if the government makes the law stricter but since is not yet strict, then things will still remain the same. Instead, of making more laws, the government should let people carry guns with them because the gun could be used for protection. There could have been a possibility that in the San Bernardino shooting, the 14 individuals who died in the attack, could have survived if those individuals had a gun. Who knows where and when a shooting could happen? No one knows but the one who will commit the crime. That is why having more guns could reduce individuals to get injured or die in a shooting. Which means that more guns will equal more safety.
Ultimately, it is a person’s choice to use firearms to commit violent crimes. So criminals should be controlled, not the guns which they share with millions of law-abiding citizens. Gun control supporters claim that gun control lowers crime rate. We as people need to take a stand and fight for our Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates need to realize that passing laws that honest gun owners will not obey is a self-defeating strategy. Gun owners are not about to surrender their liberties or their right to bear arms. The Federal Govement of the United States should not be able to take away the right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun.
Supporters of gun control state that to decrease crimes committed with fire arms (which amass a high majority of crimes) guns should be banned from private ownership. This removes guns from the public, therefore taking away the instrument of easily accomplishing crimes. Arthur Kellermann and Donald T. Raey, two gun control advocates, did their own research into the issue and published a discovery of their own; the 43-1 Statistic. In this statistic, Kellerman and Raey state that a gun will be used in a justified shooting one time, while forty three other people are killed by a gun unjustly, either by suicide, accident, or criminal (Heumer 9). According to these two researchers, gun ownership is not worth it. Private ownership of guns saved one life wh...
People have questioned gun control long time. Many people wonder if anyone, aside from those who join the law force, should be allowed to carry guns. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Wright 4). Franklin understood that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not uphold their liberty. Some people who argue for gun control state many violent crimes involve guns. Others believe a child could find the gun and something bad could happen to the child or others when a gun is unsafely stored. People who argue against gun control might say there is a huge psychological gap between citizens who shoot to protect themselves or their property and those who go into schools and shoot at others. Criminals will always find a way around gun control laws and will be able to obtain and use guns illegally. The second amendment protects gun rights for individual citizens. Reasonable gun control laws and educational steps can be taken to protect the majority of U.S. citizens. Gun control does not only take guns away from criminals, gun control also limits law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families when necessary.
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.