Have you ever wondered why “fake news”, misinterpreted information, is spread around by the people? The problem can be seen through two scenarios, the peoples fault for misinterpreting information, or the articles fault for providing incorrect information. There is more evidence supporting the fact that it is the articles fault for making fake news. As the new generation acquires fake news, the population will believe in wrong information. The sources are feeding us wrong information, so when a source gives us the correct information we contradict the information and claim it to be false. This is all backed by three liberal sources that have been researched. “Vermont City takes step toward banning assault rifles”, from CNN, is all about …show more content…
22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women)” (Gun Control 1). This opening statement established a belief about the United States as a whole, making this argument addressed to the United States as a whole, and everyone living in the US. “The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own Guns” (Gun Control 1). The fact that they are including the second commandment makes the article more credible, and also the Domain is from a .org site. The .org cite is usually government run and is more credible. “Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety”(Gun Control 1). This con is the only biased information with the wrong information, and this leads to misinterpretation of information, again, proving that the articles are providing false information. The people are proud to own a gun, and they will own guns to feel powerful and strong about themselves. “Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime”(Gun Laws 3). This almost shows the article useless because the gun laws will not end crime, and this is true because by banning large weapons, …show more content…
Then the author just goes back and talks about gun law events that have occurred in many different places. The gun laws don’t ever work. Then they use political figures to show that they are a credible source. “But how such a ban would actually work — and which guns would be categorized as an assault weapon — remains unclear”(Weiss 3). This here shows that the image above of Trump speaking to other senators is useless. They are saying that the people don’t know how to define an assault rifle when it comes to guns. This is incorrect because the Assault rifle has a definition on google that can be defined. Feinstein's bill would outlaw the sale manufacture, transfer and importation. Yes, the article is mostly credible because all of its sources come from credible sources that do not slack on information. The document also sources all of its information and quotes, and uses powerful political figures in their writing. “The problem with Feinstein's bill, Rubio added, is that while it would ban more than 200 specific models of guns, thousands of others that are identical in the way that they function, in how fast they fire, in the type of caliber that they fire, [and] in the way they perform" would still be legal”(Weiss 4). The passage is not very biased because there is any mention of a quote,
As a result of several recent mass shootings, gun control has become a popular topic. Gun control refers to the laws, background checks, and more protections against mentally ill individuals purchasing firearms. Some of the population believes that gun control should be strengthened, while the others are against it. There have been many situations in which firearms were used to harm innocent people, but gun control is not the solution to the problem we face as a nation.
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.
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
In this article, the author, SE Cupp, addresses the issues of gun control and of the tragedy of the shooting in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. As of late, people have noted that these mass shootings in the United States have all become too common and are now vouching that gun control be tightened. But also, the author has addressed the issues of the Democrats constantly blaming the Republicans for all the wrong that has been occurring in US politics. They have recognized that also, news reporters have begun to also vouch for the Democrats and have become biased. The author accuses the Democrats of villainizing the Republicans and now accuses the Democrats that even though they have been loud in voicing opinions,
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.
One of the things that have become evident throughout the past is that gun control issues are being pushed through various conspiracy theories; for example, the shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. Skeptics believe that the massacre was a joint government and media operation to create support to repeal the second amendment (Stuart, 1). Logically, this actually makes sense. Although it is easier to believe that what happened on December 14, 2012 was legitimate, it is possible that America has been duped. What better way to rally support to ban federal assault weapons than to create a scenario or situation that enables guns to kill innocent children and pull an emotional heart string on millions world-wide? Therefore, if the said tragedy was actually an ingenious plan hatched by the people who lead the country of America, then it appears to have worked in their favor. Since the shooting, Congress has pushed for sweeping reforms. In addition to Congress actively making changes due to the shooting that very well may have been conjured up by their ow...
Sources from both CQ Researcher and Opposing Viewpoints inform the reader reasons why citizens think gun legislation should be active, what has been attempted, and what should be done without conflicting with the second amendment. The sources from EBSCO Academic Search and National Newspaper Core offers insight on how mass shootings reignite the gun legislation debate once again. Readers would find these sources very useful and informative. The authors do not offer a bias opinion; however, they do offer insights on both pros and cons to gun control. The article that stood out to me the most was in CQ Researcher when Ethan McLeod explained that since Barack Obama became president there has been fourteen mass shootings throughout the United States which is mainly why gun control still remains an issue till this
The second amendment to the US Constitution shows that it is unconstitutional to have complete and total gun control. The second amendment states that “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.” This means that it is the right of an American citizen, abiding by the constitution, has the right to bear arms. Currently, there are over three hundred and seven billion people residing as American citizens. Within the homes of these Americans, forty five percent have a registered gun in their household. As a diverse nation, there are many reasons why there are guns located within a household. Sixty percent stated the gun is used for protection against int...
Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being committed with guns will be reduced and thus save lives. However while gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, the same laws restricts gun owning citizens who abide by the law; these citizens make up a great majority of the opposing side of this argument. These people argue that the law was made with the individual citizens in mind. This group believes that the Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. One major group that is in strong opposition of stricter gun control laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA argues that having stricter gun control laws will only hinder law-abiding citizens. The final outcome on this debate will mainly depend on how this Amendment is going to be interpreted.
U.S congress woman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head. This happened in Arizona, a state where guns are allowed in open carry meaning everyone has option to carry a gun as long as it is not concealed. When this congress woman was shot, the shooter became enraged. After shooting 3 more people his gun got jammed, this is when a civilian jumped him and stopped his irrational behavior. This brings up many different opinions on whether guns should be allowed or taken away. John Luik author of the article “The Increased Availability of Guns Reduces Crime” and Sabina Thaler the author of the article “The Claim of Increased Gun Availability Reduces Crime is Unfounded” are two examples of people having different opinions on such a debatable topic. Both authors talk about guns taking people’s lives, Thalers article focuses on guns taking innocent people’s lives, and Luiks article focuses on guns being innocent people’s protection.
“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.
This also states that gun violence would be reduced and restrictions have already existed. It also states that the majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. However, some people affirm that the Second Amendment protects the individual(s) right to own a gun. They state guns are needed for self-defense from the threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders (gun-control.procon.org, 2016). Gun ownership deters crime rather than cause more crime.
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.
Gun control is an awfully big issue in the United States today. Many people in America don’t agree with the gun control laws that they have today. Gun control laws only take guns and freedom away from law-abiding citizens. Many citizens have their own reasons for owning a gun. Why would the government want to make it harder for people to own a gun? People that own guns aren’t very likely to be attacked by criminals. Owning a handgun is one of the best ways of protection when used correctly. The second amendment states “the right to bear arms”; does this grant everyone the right to own a gun? Gun control laws have not been proven to do anything for citizens. Gun control laws just make it harder for the good guy average Joe to own a gun. Gun control laws are not a good idea, and are taking part in the loss of our freedom that was given to us.