Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gun laws decrease crime
Gun control and the american constitution
Gun control laws do not reduce gun violence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gun laws decrease crime
Currently, The United States of America is at war against 27 words that were written by James Madison in 1789. The Bill of Rights is known as the first 10 amendments to The Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights states the rights of its citizens. The Second Amendment states: “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”(Madison). Many people have argued that “to keep and bear arms” is not very obvious. James Madison is not alive to clear up this misunderstanding that, for hundreds of years, has caused controversies. Some experts argue that, gun ownership laws should be relaxed because this country cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens. Others say that gun ownership laws should not be relaxed because it would increase the number of weapons and increase the availability of weapons for criminals. And thus, the debate over the right to bear arms continues, again. Gun ownership is a hot topic in this country. The United States has almost always been a country know for its’ lenient gun laws. “Gun Ownership is a civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment of The Constitution” (Roth 1). The Constitution says that we can “bear arms”, which in turn, makes it very complicated to make a simple change/addition of words. States can choose to make restrictions to state laws as long as it follows the amendments and the U.S. Constitution. For example, states can take different paths when it comes to the death penalty as long as it is constitutional. “Illinois is one of only two states—the other is Wisconsin—that does not allow some sort of concealed carry by its’ residents” (Brownfield). 48 other states allow concealed we... ... middle of paper ... ...eryone on the ‘lookout’, it is hard to just live your life. “None of these bills actually prevent violence. Rather, they help deteriorate the quality of life in our communities” (Roth 1). Guns are ruining our communities by showing the people that it is acceptable to take action if you are frightened. Sometimes, taking action can be the worst possible solution to a crisis. If a person takes action, it shows that you are brave, but, it also shows the criminal that you are actually a threat to them. This would raise the death toll significantly. As you now know, gun ownership is a very arguable topic. Countless people believe that guns will help citizens protect themselves when targeted for a crime, whereas, a large handful of citizens say that guns “help deteriorate the quality of life in our communities” (Roth 1). What if all the guns in the world just vanished?
During the problem definition stage, one must realize that “a condition is not a social problem unless it is seen as violating certain fundamental values and beliefs about how society should operate” (Gusfield, 2011). I have determined that there exists a problem concerning gun control, more specifically, concealed carry laws, as they are inconsistent throughout the states. While 48 states now have some form of concealed carry policy in place, the Illinois does not. Thus, the citizens’ rights are in violation of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
is the use of a Militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing
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.
It has been said by the former Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The United States was founded on the principle of limited government and the most freedom possible for citizens. This included the right to bear arms guaranteed in the Second Amendment. James Madison, one of the framers of the Constitution, wanted the Second Amendment to guarantee citizens the right t...
In current day society, it is frequently promoted as self-defense and our “duty” as Americans to own a gun of some sort. The second amendment to the constitution declares that “We the People” are allowed to bear arms because we live in a free State. Although these statements are true, at what cost? The question, “at what cost,” arises due to the recent push for an extension and enforcement of the second amendment. The people of the States have been pushing for desired concealed carry at public areas, such as schools. Statements and questions of concern have been on the as to whether or not this idea is “smart”. Contrary of it allowing some people to feel safe, the idea should be imposed. Guns are weapons and they have the history behind them
The United State of America, established by the Founding Father who lead the American Revolution, accomplished many hardship in order to construct what America is today. As history established America’s future, the suffering the United State encountered through history illustrate America’s ability to identify mistakes and make changes to prevent the predictable. The 2nd Amendment was written by the Founding Father who had their rights to bear arms revoked when they believe rising up to their government was appropriate. The Twentieth Century, American’s are divided on the 2nd Amendment rights, “The right to bear arms.” To understand why the Founding Father written this Amendment, investigating the histories and current measures may help the American people gain a better understanding of gun’s rights in today’s America.
In the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the increase of killing sprees involving firearms in the U.S. since the Columbine Massacre, the case against guns is emotionally charged and captivating. The use of these examples has been a powerful recruitment tool in the case against private gun ownership and the lobbying for stricter legislation governing the sale, and distribution of firearms within the U.S. and internationally. In addition to this, Pro-Control supporters most often use startling statistics in firearm-related deaths and homicides as contention that these incidents are reflections of an ongoing killing spree in the United States, whom remains among the top countries in the world for firearm related deaths, a...
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...
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.
The purpose of the book was to help people better understand the issue of gun control in the United States, and how the second amendment that was made when the country was first being built has now been translated to fit the ideas of different groups. The Author Saul Cornell is one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thoughts. Because of this his work has been cited by both the states supreme courts and United States Supreme Court this makes him the perfect author to discuss the second amendment.(1)
In his essay “Just Take Away Their Guns”, James Wilson presents to his readers the opinion that he holds about gun control laws, explaining why our aim as a society should be to get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals, rather than banning law abiding citizens from carrying them as well (Wilson 126). By explaining the problems that this issue brings to society, backed up with solid facts, he offers possible solutions to these problems to ultimately convince his audience that illegal guns must be removed from the streets.
By creating stricter gun laws we can truly assure that only people who are adequate will be able to handle such dangerous weapons. Although many believe that taking weapons away from society is like taking away the second amendment, or right to bear arms, statistics show most citizens do not even rely on weapons to protect their home. Handguns "which has inflicted pain and death in such disproportionate degree is owned by a distinct minority of Americans-only one out of six adults"(Media 18). In general, a gun might protect someone in their home, but it will harm the community anywhere else. Only by making certain changes through the reforming media and gun laws, can society truly see a change and decrease in the amount of
The second amendment has overall help the citizens throughout the last two century’s all around the United States of America. It has given people of America the sense of self-protection. It has helped achieve the founding fathers goals in securing life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. There are both pros and cons to the second amendment but this paper has shown that the pros outweigh the cons. Therefor the right to bear arms should be kept and defended. The right to bear arms is a good thing because it not only gives the feeling of protection to the people but it also helps build the militia to defend this great