Gun Control has both advantage and disadvantage sides. One of the pro side of the gun control law is that The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Meaning people have right to own a gun, however that does not mean the right is unlimited. People have to follow the rules in order to possess a gun. The con side of the gun control law is The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "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." According to this amendment, it gives people a right to own the gun which does not help with the gun control laws. If an individual carries a gun, then, it would not count as a violence against others because amendment gave right to the people of the United States. Second pro side of the gun control law is, More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths. Between 1999 and 2013, there were total of 464,033 gun deaths. 270,237 people did suicides which is 58.2% of total deaths, 174,773 people were murdered, which is 37.7% of total death and 9,983 people were unintentionally deaths which is 2.2% of the total death. Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide and suicide. Con side of the following pro side is Gun control laws do not deter crime, gun ownership deters crime. A Nov 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled during the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. It is true that gun control laws do not discourage crime because many people do not obey the laws which is why more people Since people think gun ownership discourage crime then that is it. They think if they have guns with them then, they are more safe. It may sound like it is the truth, it may save yourself, however, people with not a gun is not going to be safe because of the gun ownership people. Third pro side of the gun control is High-capacity magazines should be banned because they too often turn murder into mass murder. According to the Mother Jones investigation, high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012. When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%. If the constitution passes laws on high capacity magazines guns, then it will reduce the gun ownership. It proves that these guns are making people from killer into a massive killer. People are inspired by others. When an individual sees other people using a gun, then, they become interested to use that machine too because that is the nature of human. Con side of the third gun control law is Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for
Gun control is an issue that is constantly being debated. There are people who are pro gun control and those who believe gun control is unconstitutional to the citizens. Many political leaders and organizations have strong opinions on gun control, which keeps the gun control debate publicized. Gun control is limiting or taking the right of citizens to carry or purchase a gun. Guns are used for protecting the citizens by police officers and the military, as well as for many personal reasons like hunting and self-defense. There are times that guns are used for the wrong reasons like murder, or put in the wrong hands which lead to accidental deaths. Choosing a stand on gun control can be hard, but hearing both sides can help a person make a decision.
In conclusion, enabling stricter gun control laws will help to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, criminals, and children and teens. With these laws put into place there will be more assurance of the safety of American citizens. It is not necessary to strip citizens of their right to own a gun, but we should be able to make it harder to get guns. If you are someone with a clear record and using a gun for recreation use, you will have no trouble obtaining a gun. In the long run increase the laws on gun control hurts nobody. Despite historic events where governments seized firearms and killed millions of citizens, today we have a different problem, which is making sure guns are in the right hands.
Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate firearms by selecting who can sell, buy and possess certain guns. Criminals do not obey laws and stricter gun control laws or banning guns will have little effect on reducing crimes. There are many myths about gun control reducing acts of gun violence, which are simply not true according to research. People are responsible for the crimes, not the guns themselves. Taking guns away from United States citizens that use them for many reasons, shooting practice, competition, hunting and self-defense, should not be punished for the acts of criminals. As stated by Mytheos Holt, “Guns in the right hands help public safety. Guns in the wrong hands harm public safety”. Research shows that defensive use of guns discourages criminals and reduces crime (Holt 2). Not only is it wrong to penalize law-abiding citizens, it is against the Second Amendment. It is unconstitutional to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
A counter to the argument in the pros paragraph would be "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders" (Should, 1). Basically the pro side says that gun control will reduce gun deaths, the con side says the opposite that the even if gun control laws are put into play the number of deaths will actually increase. Another con the is presented is a counter to gun control laws helping make sure guns are used for self-defense. The con says that gun control laws will not prevent from criminals getting a hold of guns and using them to break laws. Research shows that “Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally” (Should, 1). Essentially statistics for gun control and against gun control go head to head from what has been
Gun control is a highly controversial topic in today’s world where the fight is between the liberal and the conservatives. Many people believe that guns should be banned due to many recent massacres that have happened whereas others are wanting people to have background checks done before owning a gun. I am against gun control because banning handguns in the United States should not be allowed because handguns fail to protect the people and it is ineffective.
Proponents of gun control generally argue that widespread gun ownership increases the danger of gun-related crime, homicide, and suicide. Opponents argue that gun control does not reduce gun-related injuries, murder, or suicide, and some argue that certain regulations violate individual liberties.
People who do not research the owning of handguns and form their opinion off of what they see on the news are left in the dark. One of the most misunderstood concepts is that more guns cause more violence. This is false more guns do not mean more homicides. In 1973, the handgun stock was 36.9 million and the homicide rate was 9.4 per 100,000. In 1992, the handgun stock was 77.6 million but the homicide rate dropped 8.5 percent. In 1994, the U.S. bureau of justice static's made a survey that stated 100,000 lives are saved by handguns. According to criminologist Gary Kleck, guns are fired in only about 24 percent of cases in which they are used for self-defense.
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. Many gun supporters will say that more guns will bring down the crime rate. These same believers will give facts stating that the more guns in a state, the less likely gun owners will use them. “The chances of innocent people being the victims of violent crime, including murder, decrease—not increase—when access to guns is made easier” (Luik).
“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.
Gun control will be beneficial to our society because it will provide an opportunity to make our neighborhood and communities more safe. In addition, it will help in decreasing the crime rate, help in keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable as well as criminals. It is most American's dream to live life, be successful, and be safe; containing guns provide the key to do that.
Well gun control, otherwise known as the firearms set of laws refers to the laws and/or policies that regulate the manufacture of sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms. The Second Amendment of the Constitution is the heart of this wonderful nation we live in. This amendment states that the citizens of the United States have the right to possess and bear arm. Gun control has been a hard-hitting issue for the last couple of years. Guns are one of the most powerful weapons. They can cause destruction, harm, or even death. However, guns can also defend, protect, threat, and kill.
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. Those who argue for gun control usually state guns are a part of most violent crimes. However, this is not always true. While it is true that limiting gun ownership with laws could prevent individuals from possessing guns, it does not prevent people from illegally having or using guns. Those who carry guns legally are not the problem.
The Second Amendment of the United States protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The United States Government should not infringe on those rights by the enforcement of gun control against law-abiding citizens. Gun control does not reduce crime, does not stop criminals from obtaining guns, and does not address the real issue of violent crime. There is no evidence that gun control affects the crime rate. The United States government is attempting to reduce violent crime by controlling the amount of guns on the market, who is allowed to purchase a gun, and what type of gun a person is allowed to purchase. The only people affected by gun control laws are the law-abiding citizen that should be allowed to purchase firearms without the government’s interjection.
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...