Americans today tend to believe that guns are dangerous and they should not be in the place of anyone’s hands. There is much debate over who should have one and who should not. What is not commonly conversed is how to properly use one. David Shipley, the author of the article The Rare ‘Good Guy with a Gun’, acknowledges this understated issue. Being a “good guy with a gun” is not enough to stop a bad guy with a gun. You do not only need a gun but also experience, knowledge, and adequacy. In the editorial from the Bloomberg View called “The Rare Good Guy with a Gun” by David Shipley, he acknowledges that yes, indeed, a good person with a gun can surely stop an evil person of convicting a crime. He wrote about a specific event that occurred …show more content…
The NRA is an association ran by Wayne LaPierre, the organization strongly protects the second amendment; the right to bear arms. Much of what Shipley has to say is bashing their organization, such evidence as to what Shipley wrote; “The NRA is not suggesting that every gunslinger become an expert. Quite the contrary.” He goes on to say that the NRA has a lot of training programs but it’s “priorities lie elsewhere”. On one hand, Shipley argues that the NRA demands every American has access to firearms, with no training or background check. On the other hand, many blogs, Twitter feed, and much of the NRA’s website completely prove Shipley wrong. In a public announcement that the president of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, wrote he stated that, “We think it is reasonable to provide mandatory, instant criminal background checks for every sale, at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere, for anyone.” Although Shipley makes valid points, I am assuming he is trying to point fingers at where the overall problem of gun violence started. Shipley seems to be blaming the “countless cases of accidental shootings, rage-induced homicides, and alcohol-fueled attacks” (Shipley) on the NRA. Shipley also mentions a lot about how the NRA provides gun-safety and programs for training, but once again, “their priorities lie …show more content…
While the NRA is a very big organization that is continually growing, there are problems outside of their program they cannot handle. One thing that LaPierre mentioned was the absence of attention to those with metal health issues. He believes that the “lack of mental health reforms can lead to the tragedies.” Stewart House, wrote the short article “So, About That ‘Good Guy’ with a Gun” also mentioned “another mentally ill person who felt like she had no other option” could have been prevented with plausible attention to both gun laws and metal health awareness. I think Shipley is mistaken because he overlooks the other possible outcomes for violent shootings. He needs to look at the people themselves, the issues they have, why they want the gun, etc. Although I agree with Shipley to a point, I cannot accept his overall assumption that the NRA is the probable cause to all the terrible, reckless shootings because the NRA has proven they are not being sloppy and letting horrible things
Guns have possessed the spotlight of almost every news station. From the latest tragedy of a shooting killing innocent men, women and children to the arguments centering around if our gun laws possess strict enough qualities to keep our country safe. Charles C. W. Cooke, the author of “Gun-Control Dishonesty”, spreads his conservative view on the topic by ripping away any hope for a brighter day. Cooke’s main idea states that if nothing has happened to make gun law more strict even after the lives of innocent children were mercilessly ripped away from their young bodies than nothing should or could ever change. On the other hand, Adam Gopnik wrote his article, “Shooting”, uses a more liberal approach and inspires his audience to act upon the much needed change in our society
A growing number of publicized tragedies caused by gun violence have caused a great stir in the American community. Recently, President Barack Obama has made proposals to tighten the regulation of and the restrictions on the possession of weapons in America to lessen these tragedies. Should the legislative branch decide in favor of his proposals, all American citizens who do or wish to own the type of weapons in question or who use current loopholes in existing policy would be directly affected. His proposals, which are to “require background checks for all gun sales, strengthen the background check system for gun sales, pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons, limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets, give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime, end the freeze on gun violence research, make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates, [and] ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people,” have been cause for a large amount of recent debate (whitehouse.gov).
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.
On December 14, 2012 Alex Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15, he killed twenty, first graders and six adults. (Fired Up) Alex Lanza did not have a permit to carry a concealed handgun; there is no knowledge if he had proper training. (Clint Best) After Lanza committed this horrible act of violence people started to push the gun control laws more furiously. Lanza was thought to have asperger’s syndrome but this was never confirmed. Lanza opened the door for many gun lobbyists and vice versa for the gun control advocates.
Lott, Jr. John R. More Gun Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Print.
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.
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...
The National Rifle Association (NRA), recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of 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.” The NRA adheres to the belief that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms. Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have confirmed those beliefs. In spite of whether one personally adheres to these interpretations of the amendment or not, the fact is there are over two hundred million guns in this country. Moreover, there are over seventy-five million firearm owners. In addition to the NRA’s political activity for second amendment rights, it has fulfilled a service, as since its inception, it had been the premier firearms education organization in the world by providing firearms safety and training.
Despite Norway’s strict requirements in order to own a gun, they couldn’t prevent a mass shooting that took the lives of 77 people in 2011 (Masters). One thing you don’t hear very often from the leaders of our country, is the idea that more guns could prevent shootings. In the United States, we have “gun free zones,” which include schools and other public places. In these areas, guns are strictly prohibited, and instead of preventing shootings have actually became a target for them.Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), “found that 92 percent of mass shootings since 2009 have taken place in designated gun-free zones” (Blackwell). The author of “Ban gun-free zones,” Ken Blackwell claims that those who commit mass shootings want the publicity, and will go where they know they can do the most damage, because the more serious the shooting is, the more publicity it will receive. Blackwell goes on to say, “most mass shootings don’t end until the police arrive. Killers typically have several minutes to slaughter as many victims as they can without fear of interference” (Blackwell). John Lott, the author of “A Look at the Facts on Gun-Free Zones,” backs up Blackwell’s claims of mass shooters targeting places where guns are prohibited. Lott uses evidence from mass shooters themselves as his evidence, and one very recent tragedy is the shooting in a Charleston, South Carolina church, in June 2015. According to the Crime Research Prevention Center, cited by Lott in his article, the shooter told those around him about his plans to carry out the shooting. His original plan was to go to the College of Charleston, but apparently veered away from the college when he realized that there was heavily armed security, obviously settling for the Church. Another example is James Holmes, who committed a mass shooting in a movie theatre. Holmes had what Lott referred to as a
“The latest tragedy at Virginia Tech [where a student shot and killed 32 people on April 16, 2007], one side argues, might have ended with only a few people dead if there had been an armed citizen on the scene to shoot it out with the killer” (Medred). While other people believe that the Virginia Tech tragedy could have been prevented if there was better gun control. “The latest tragedy at Virginia Tech, the other side argues, wouldn 't have happened at all if there was better gun control, if it was hard to get a gun, if guns were banned, etc” (Medred).Both arguments are as valid as they are invalid. No one can know what might have happened if there had been someone on the scene able and willing to stop the killer with a bullet. Likewise, no one can know if any gun law would have stopped, or even slowed, this killer 's commitment to his murderous
“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.
In light of recent tragic events, gun control is once again an important topic of conversation. Both left and right wing individuals attempt to sway society towards their sides of the argument. These debates almost always follow the occurrence of a major attack on innocent persons. The questions are always the same. How did the individual obtain a firearm? What measurements are in place to keep this from happening again? Why does the average person need to own an “assault rifle’’? Why don’t we just ban everyone in the country from owning guns? In order to get a better understanding of the topic of gun control, we will have to explore these major questions.
And television shows and even car commercials often come with a warning to “not try this at home.” Why? Because they know people will. What responsibility does the NRA have on gun control?The NRA supports and teaches responsible gun ownership to people of all ages. They teach classes on gun safety, self-defense, and proper gun usage techniques. They do not promote violence, in fact, they speak out against the modern society that regularly promotes guns and gun violence in a glorified way .Why does it seem the conservatives solution to every gun-related problem is more guns? No, they head to “gun-free zone” schools or movie theatres with “no firearms” signs posted everywhere. Criminals will always take the path of least resistance. And perhaps a school that not only drops the “gun-free” premise but teaches classes on gun safety and has a shooting range will not be high on a deranged person’s list to go to. Won 't criminals kill with other weapons if they don 't have guns? The essence of this question is whether most murders are planned, or whether killers more often confront their victims with no
There is nothing wrong about protecting yourself, but we have to make sure that the weapons we use to protect ourselves don 't get to the wrong people. " The debate about gun control is a global issue. However, it is more intense in the United States of America than any other region (‘Gun Control’ par 1). The groups against gun control show concern about violent crime and they don’t perceive gun control is the answer to violence committed using guns. However, they support strict laws against gun-related crimes and better enforcement of those laws. On the other hand, those who support gun control are of the opinion that background checks are
The National Rifle Association generally believes that if more ordinary, law-abiding citizens carried weapons, criminals would not have a safe place to commit mass murders and other violent crimes.