The controversy of gun control has raged on in the United States for well over a century. Citizens, gun supporters, law makers and even presidents alike have participated in the debate. The debate has been fought for so long due to a number of reasons. The major reason, however, is because of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. The core motive for people against the ownership of firearms is the amount of violence that can be committed. So, it begs the question – would the banning of guns prevent violence?
The first step towards gun control in America started in 1837. Georgia attempted to pass a law that banned handguns, however, it was ruled unconstitutional and dismissed. In 1865, in response to emancipation, several southern states implemented “black codes,” which denied blacks from owning firearms. The year 1927 saw the first real restriction imposed on firearms, where concealable firearms could no longer be mailed. One of the major steps against gun control
…show more content…
Another report states that felons admit to avoiding houses in which the owner is home, in fear of being shot. There has been numerous cases where a firearm has prevented violence from escalating, or altogether. Innocent people have been able to defend themselves, and others, because of the right to bear arms.
One statistic mentions that about ninety percent of all violent crimes in the United States do not involve firearms. Multiple countries, including England, Ireland and Jamaica, have also had an increase in violence after a ban on firearms was implemented. Japan also has strict gun control, but have had a number of mass stabbing cases. One incident killing eight school children and another where seven were murdered. The Boston Marathon bombing is another incident, on a mass scale, that did not involve
At present there are numerous regulations and restrictions on firearms imposed by the government. However there are no national mandated requirements or all encompassing legislation. The laws in place vary from state to state and are in some cases are poorly enforced. Hard evidence as to the effectiveness of these present regulations is ambiguous. The question as to how the government and society deals with gun control is unique to the USA. In a complex issue such as gun control both sides of the equation have valid arguments to be h...
Gun violence in the United States is higher than ever, and criminals with guns will “…kill as many as 1000 people each day” (Alpers&Wilson). Taking this into perspective, it is only right to fight fire with fire or, in this case, use a gun to protect yourself and those around you. Gun control does not only decrease the ability for protection, it also decreases our rights as U.S citizens. The constitution clearly states that we are given the right to bear arms, meaning we may carry fire arms. Even if we have stricter laws for guns, it will not stop killers from shooting innocent people. These men and women causing damage to the lives of numerous individuals do not care if there is a law banning guns, because all they truly want to do is hurt others. The pain citizens endure every day from losing a family member, friend, or even just a colleague is repulsive. These permanent deaths continue to make people fearful and it causes damage in their lives; unless something is done. Most people agree that action needs to be taken to stop this inhumane cruelty, but the question is; what can be done? Americans need protection, rights, and power to break this inexcusable gun violence circling America. Gun restrictions for trustworthy and reliable gun owners have not been proven to weaken gun violence in the United States; therefore, gun control should be limited because it is only hurting America, not helping it.
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
Right now the government has limited firearm purchasing only to people who pass certain steps. Gun control has risen as a controversial subject in the United States today. Many say gun control or banning of all firearms will help protect and make our country a better place. Reasons many are wanting to ban firearms are that the 2nd amendment is out dated and unjustified in this date and time. Writer Eugene Robinson states that “farmers wrote of “arms,” thinking about muskets and single shot pistols. They could not have foreseen modern rifles or high-capacity magazines.” Many agree with Mr. Robinson saying that back when the constitution was written they couldn’t have understood what was going to come in the future. Citizens also believe people have no reason to fight against intruders that come in their home that’s what the authorities are for. If people what to defend themselves why waste the money and time on having police? In this day and age why have weapons why not cut out all firearms and just be one happy country, it’s that simple, but is it really that simple? (“Assault Weapons Must Be Banned in
It was after the civil war that the first gun control freaks came to be known. These were southerners who were worried the newly freed slaves would take advantage of the newly acquired right to keep and bear arms. However, over time, it became illegal for all blacks to own guns. But by their common nature they broke the law and owned guns anyways.
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to
“I believe in 2nd Amendment, but not war weapons on streets”, quoted President Barack Obama ("Barack Obama on Gun Control", n.d., para. 3). The debate on whether stricter gun laws will help deter crime has gained much attention since crime rates started to increase. Many research studies show that stricter gun laws are very effective at inhibiting crime. Arguing on the affirmative side, stricter gun laws will help deter crime by banning ownership of military-style assault weapons, by banning weapons with high-capacity magazines, and by creating new gun regulations that delays the process of gun ownership while significantly limiting weapon access at the same time. If stricter gun laws are incorporated into the system, we will be able to envision a bright and crime-free future ahead of us.
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.
Crime and guns. The two seem to go hand in hand with one another. But are the two really associated? Do guns necessarily lead to crime? And if so do laws placing restrictions on firearm ownership and use stop the crime or protect the citizens? These are the questions many citizens and lawmakers are asking themselves when setting about to create gun control laws. The debate over gun control, however, is nothing new. In 1924, Presidential Candidate, Robert La Follete said, “our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions.” Clearly this debate still goes on today and is the very reason for the formation of gun control laws.
Gun control is one of the most debatable topics today. Thirty-three million Americans own firearms for hunting (Aitkens 9). But hunting is not the sole reason for which many individuals buy firearms. Of all countries, the United States is the one which is troubled most by a large number of criminals who are in possession of guns. The U.S. has the highest firearm murder rate of any democracy in the world (Aitkens 5). Where is the country going wrong as far as gun control is concerned? An immense number of laws have been created by the legislature. All were made in order to be sure guns remain in control of the right hands, yet the problems seem to prevail. All three branches of government (judicial, legislative, and executive) are involved in desperate attempts to improve the situation. Getting rid of guns would not work; it would be an impossible task. But, if pressure was applied to all aspects of gun employment - production, ownership, and most importantly dealership - a majority of problems could be controlled.
Violence has been connected with guns in today’s society. For this reason a lot of cases have ended up in courts to try to decide what the truth about the second amendment is. As the U.S. Constitution guarantees people the right to bear arms. Not only is this but there debates about this amendment, that look to strike down the law in effect. There have been laws banning the ownership of handguns, which has been an attempt to stop the violence in districts. Many are searching for the correct way to regulate dangerous or potentially dangerous weapons, by doing this they would make the ownership of them illegal (Hoxie 474). But is the...
Guns are not all bad they provide protection and have recreational benefits. When guns get in the wrong hands is when violence occurs. Keeping them out of the wrong hands is more difficult than you would think; “30 to 40 Percent of all guns in circulation were purchased without a licensed firearm dealer.” Many stolen guns are used in crimes with 500,000 guns stolen on average each year (Ludwig, Cook 4). People argue that if you take away guns you can reduce violence but, violence can occur without guns. If you take away a childs toy are they going to stop having fun or find another thing to play with? Although guns make for more lethal crime they can also be used to fend off crimes(Ludwig, Cook 3). Guns are a necessity for many families in the United States, especially in the south. Many people believe that the number of guns affect violent crime rates. In the 1960s and 1970s the United states had an increase in violent crime rates; in the 1990s violent rates dropped substantially. The amount of guns owned by Americans increased every year(Burger, Warren 13). The amount of guns in circulation will keep increasing and the violent crime rates will fluctuate with other variables if this stays true. The Kansas City Gun Experiment, a test where poli...
“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.
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.
There is no single answer to end the debate on gun control. Many variables must be examined but the evidence presented cannot be ignored. Gun control does not end violence, but makes the law-abiding citizens more vulnerable. In the 1878 Arkansas case of Wilson v. State, a judge stated, “Common sense dictates that inanimate objects, such as guns, are not responsible for human behavior. We don’t hold a match responsible for arson or a camera responsible for pornography. We rightly hold the people who misuse these tools liable. The same should be true for guns.”