More handpicked essays just for you.
Bibliography on gun control
Gun control can reduce crime essay
Does gun control reduce crime argumentatitive essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Bibliography on gun control
“People are four times likely to be killed with a knife or other cutting instrument than by an rifle or a shotgun” (Gun Control: Five reasons why it won’t work). Between, gun rights and gun control they are always an hot topic during political situations or an everyday conversation between society. There are many intriguing ideas to both sides of the argument but, this is why we should consider to not ban guns. The government and society should be for gun ownership because guns are in the second amendment, guns are necessary for self-defense, and guns do not kill, people kill each other. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (Gun Control: Five reasons why it won’t work). Throughout the years of history our
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
"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 Economist (2015) article also states that since Obama’s election into office, there has been 450% increace of American gun makers Smith & Wesson’s share price.
This essay will discuss the pros and cons of gun control. Some U.S. States have already adopted some of these gun control laws. I will be talking about the 2nd amendment, public safety, home safety, and do gun control laws really control guns. I hope after you have read this you will be more educated, and can pick your side of the gun control debate. So keep reading and find out more about the gun control laws that the federal and some state governments want to enforce on U.S. Citizens.
Is it any coincidence that the states with the loosest gun laws in America tend to contribute to the highest amount of national gun deaths and injuries? This is one of the main questions we should be asking when deciding what is best for our country and its citizens. Although gun control has been an ongoing issue, certain events like the Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and the Aurora, Colorado mass shootings have increased our attention to this topic. Although I believe that Americans possess the right to own a firearm, I believe there should be detailed screening and control systems to keep guns out of the wrong hands, to prevent more gun violence from happening in the future.
Due to recent shootings in four cities gun control legislation has become a big issue throughout the United States. Government officials have presented legislation for gun control to help reduce mass shootings; however, even with these suggestions for strict gun control twelve states have already passed laws that offer fewer limitations for gun possession. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, Connecticut passed a law to ban gun sales that hold large amounts of ammunition. According to McLeod “in Newtown, Connecticut, the families of ten out of twenty children killed in a December 2012 massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School have sued a North Carolina-based gun manufacturer, alleging Remington Outdoor Co.’s Bushmaster
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
Gun control and gun banning have been a highly controversial issue since all the gun crimes hitting the news in America. Crimes like Sandy-Hook , Aurora , San Berdindno , and Oregon have lawmakers thinking about banning guns by enacting laws that allows them to. Lawmakers believe guns are the prime suspect in all these gun violence crimes and they believe it well reduce murder and violence. Banning guns well do nothing to reduce the mass killings. If a criminal has the intent to commit a crime nothing can stop them. Also a criminal doesn’t abide by the law that is why they are criminals. Gun banning would only disarm the legal law abiding citizen leaving them defenseless. Also the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constution and the Bill of Rights. If lawmakers have the courage take away one Constutional right they will have the courage to keep going, I have three logical reasons why gun banning well not work.
While many people believe there should be more gun control and the possibility of banning guns all together, I believe the gun control laws should not be changed. Although there are many reasons that may persuade people to choose to ban guns, I believe that there are several other reasons that lead to all the tragedies with guns in America. Banning guns is not an answer the gun problem in America, there are a few other things that could be done to stop gun violence. In this essay I will tell about why I believe gun control laws should not be changed.
As violence and murder rates escalate in America so does the issue of gun control. The consequence of this tragedy births volatile political discourse about gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the question is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote, “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.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment the make and model of firearms has changed dramatically and so has the philosophies of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle-loading musket used to primarily protect families or solely for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the second amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of gun control articles having been written , still the gun control issue remains unresolved. History tells us gun control debates will be in a stalemate until our judicial system defines or rewrites the Second Amend. This paper will examine the history of the Second Amendment, and attempt to define the framers intent, gun control legislation and look at factors that affect Americans on this specific issue...
The right to bear arms has been an important conversation in America for decades. As of recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting and the Aurora Colorado Theater shooting, the debate is more heated than ever. From large-scale massacres to single fatality shootings, gun violence is unwarranted and heartbreaking. However, the Second Amendment protects individual citizens’ right to own firearms: “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,” it states (Bill of Rights). Although this part of the Bill of Rights has not been changed in United States’ history, some citizens argue that, because the Constitution is a working document, this should be adapted to fit current needs and protect communities. Citizens who wish tip the scale in favor of the community’s protection argue that guns are dangerous, easy to access, popular weapons that allow disgruntled or mentally unstable citizens to “inflict mass causalities” and were originally only intended for use in a militia (Joe Messerli). On the other hand, those who wish to benefit civilians argue that taking away guns restrains individual liberty and that gun control would prove futile because criminals would find ways such as the black market to obtain guns, weapons can serve as self-defense prevent crimes, and reasonable restrictions would be more effective than an outright ban (Joe Messerli). Both arguments have valid, well developed ideas, and both sides tend to be passionate in debate.
“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.”
“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.
For years proposals for gun control and the ownership of firearms have been among the most controversial issues in modern American politics. The public debate over guns in the United States is often seen as having two side. Some people passionately assert that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns while others assert that the Second Amendment does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. There are many people who insist that the Constitution is a "living document" and that circumstances have changed in regard to an individual’s right to bear arms that the Second Amendment upholds. The Constitution is not a document of total clarity and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its amendments and has left many Americans divided over the true intent.
Guns have been the weapon of choice for some of the most brutal massacres on America soil. Since early history guns have been used mainly for militia and defense purposes. But, the development of new gun technology has made firearms more accessible and deadly. Although the second amendment gives the right to bear arms, guns should be controlled and monitored by the government because guns have contributed to a lot of killings in America and will increase crime rates.