In the past years, and currently now, there has been an ongoing debate on gun control. Mass Shootings have become a compulsive routine in this country and the lives of many Americans have been taken away. In the minds of gun owners, the hearing of gun control means that the government is infringing their right to conceal a weapon. The purpose of gun control is to restrict guns from those who are mentally ill, and a series of background checks are initiated. Many advocators of gun rights support the second amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Some argue that the gun control law is not going to do any good for society and say that banning handguns is not the solution. …show more content…
In the article “A Ban on Assault Weapon Would Not Reduce Crime” argues that banning assault weapons will conflict with the second amendment. The article goes on and states “semi-automatic firearms are not fully- automatic military machine guns. The difference is that a fully-automatic firearm can fire repeatedly and quickly as long as you hold down the trigger, but a semiautomatic, like any firearm other than a fully-automatic, fires only ones when you pull the trigger” (A Ban on Assault Weapon Would Bot Reduce Crime). The article states that the semiautomatic weapons are not as powerful as fully-automatic firearm. The above information the article presented lacks reasonable information. A Ban on semiautomatic riffles should be put in place because common sense tells an individual that no sportsman or hunter should own a semiautomatic rifle. According to Feinstein’s article “Banning Semiautomatic Rifles Reduces Crime” feinstein is stating that “in 1994 when the ban was not in effect for most of the year, a study by Handgun Control Inc. found that assault weapons and guns with high-capacity magazines accounted for 41 percent for police gun deaths where the make and model of the weapon” (Feinstein). Assault weapons are built to murder and if these weapons are on the streets the crime rate would …show more content…
The objections such as gun control laws will not save lives is an argument that most opponents will stick to. However, the opponent’s viewpoint is not accurate and can be easily criticized because we know from the facts that having common sense gun laws can help stop individuals with criminal records and those suffering from mental illness from purchasing a firearm. What I feel plays a big role is lack of knowledge because misunderstanding can be caused by not having the right facts or information. It will be unreasonable to jump to the conclusion and state that gun control laws will not save lives when we know by looking at statistics that it does save
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
Opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. For the purposes of this paper "Gun Control" is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and the like. So defined, gun control understandably brings favorable responses from some, and angry objections from others. The gun control debate is generally publicized because of the efforts of the Pro-Gun Lobby or the Anti-Gun Lobby.
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.
The Benefits of the Second Amendment In a tragic event such as a mass shooting, a large population of Americans are quick to draw the conclusion that the right to own a gun is harmful to society; however, the second amendment is what allows the American people to protect themselves from such shooting instances. The privilege of owning a concealed firearm is beneficial to the American population when well-regulated for reasons such as self-defense and expressing freedoms which U.S. citizens are privileged enough to receive through the Second Amendment given they pass a background check. The second amendment is what makes the privilege of owning a gun legal. This thesis paper will highlight the benefits of the right to own a gun under the Second Amendment, as well as look at why gun control activists think differently about this highly controversial topic of gun control. As stated by the second amendment, “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” (Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute, Second Amendment).
An estimated 30,000 people are killed each year by guns in the United States alone according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s). Though there have been some restrictions and laws placed, both the conservative and liberal sides are not pleased with either the lack of action or the fact that there has been too much action that has taken place. “About 38% of U.S. households and 26% of individuals owned at least one gun, with about half of the individuals having 4 or more guns, according to a 2004 survey by the Harvard School of Public Health (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s).” Both sides turn to the one document centered on the argument for evidence to support their side: the Second Amendment.
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...
“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.
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.
Over the past year, the United States has been plagued with controversy in regards to gun control legislation. On January 24, 2013, Senator Feinstein introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. The Assault Weapons Ban was a bill written to stop the acts of sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of military styled weapons. The NRA-ILA website quotes an excerpt of Feinstein’s bill, which states, “Feinstein’s new bill are as follows: Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.” (NRA-ILA) Wayne Lapierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, said in 2009, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the guns you want to ban and you don’t want to ban. You’re going to ban these semi-autos, and then it’s going to be handguns, and then it’s going to be pump shotguns.” Lapierre’s statement supports the fact that the recent gun ban legislation across the United States will not solve the problem of increased violence.
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.
Central in the arguments against gun control is its ability to restrict any citizen of the United States the right to own guns which is protected under the constitution. Specifically, due recognition is made to its connection to the 2nd Amendment wherein it seeks to protect the individual liberties of people. This facet also applies to gun ownership regardless of the original objective and intention. “The second amendment from the Bill of Rights grants private citizens the right to bear arms. Thus, people who stand firmly against gun control insist that no legislation, technically, should have the right to take away a citizen’s guns without first repealing the amendment in question” (Groberman 1). A good approach to consider in highlighting this part comes from depriving the citizen of his basic right on the basis of specific presumption that it would be used for violence or crim...
Gun control in general has been and still is a controversial issue in our world today. People see violence from gun usage on the news, in their neighborhoods and unfortunately sometimes they are the victims of it. Although these things are true and that violent crime does in fact involve the use or firearms, it is the people that use them to harm other people. Guns don’t kill people; People kill people.