The United States makes up for 5% of the world’s population, but accounted for 31% of mass shootings around the globe between the years of 1966 and 2012 (Christensen). In 2015 alone, there were 372 mass shootings in the United States, incidents in which four or more people were injured or killed. The number of gun murders per capita in the United States was 2.9 per 100,000 people in 2012, a rate nearly 30 times that of the United Kingdom (BBC). These kinds of statistics have escalated the debate of gun control – if it is the government’s duty to more strictly regulate firearms – throughout American politics. The United States Congress in 1994, in response to a school shooting that killed 5 children and injured dozens via AK-47 assault rifle, …show more content…
Since the days before the American Revolution, there has always been a mythical citizen armament mentality within the United States, in the idea that everyday people would confront Native Americans along with the British army (Spitzer 10). This is further outlined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows for the people to “keep and bear Arms” within “a well regulated Militia” (Spitzer 19). The amendment was originally meant to satisfy citizens who wanted to establish a state militia system separate from the federal standing army in the idea of having more individual power (Spitzer 29). Furthermore, in 2008, a conservative Supreme Court that had been mostly appointed by Republican Presidents ruled in this idea of individual power when it declared, for the first time, an individual right to own a gun. However, it is important to note that this 2008 Supreme Court decision, D.C. v. Heller, broke from precedent by moving away from the original meaning of the Amendment with the militia. The decision, by breaking from historical context, strongly fed the already existing myth that American citizens have always been heroes wielding guns, an ideological construct that is engrained within the society (Spitzer …show more content…
The three key traits that are discussed are competition, the “equality of ability (which) produces equality of hope for the attaining of our goals” (“Leviathan I” 3); distrust, the mentality of wanting to “increase . . . a man’s power over others . . . as it is necessary to his survival” (“Leviathan I” 4); and glory, that “every man wants his associates to value him as highly as he values himself” (“Leviathan I” 4). Hobbes very importantly establishes that men are created equal, and these traits inevitably exist in their natural states of nature (“Leviathan I” 3). These unavoidable qualities are “principal causes of discord” (“Leviathan I” 3) because they force men to invade for the respective reasons of gain, safety, and reputation on that basis of survival (“Leviathan I” 4). Therefore, Hobbes leads into the bigger argument for a larger entity or state to have sovereignty, because “for as long as men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in the condition known as ‘war’” (“Leviathan I”
Aroung the time of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the controversial and widely argued issue of gun control sparked and set fire across America. In the past decade however, it has become one of the hottest topics in the nation. Due to many recent shootings, including the well known Sandy Hook Elementary school, Columbine High School, Aurora movie theater, and Virginia Tech, together totaling 87 deaths, many people are beginning to push for nationwide gun control. An article published in the Chicago Tribune by Illinois State Senator Jacqueline Collins, entitled “Gun Control is Long Overdue” voiced the opinion that in order for America to remain the land of the free, we must take action in the form of stricter gun laws. On the contrary, Kathleen Parker, a member of the Washington Post Writers Group whose articles have appeared in the Weekly Standard, Time, Town & Country, Cosmopolitan, and Fortune Small Business, gives a different opinion on the subject. Her article in The Oregonian “Gun Control Conversation Keeps Repeating” urges Americans to look at the cultural factors that create ...
The second amendment grants all Americans the right to bear arms. The ability to hold a firearm at any time as long as the firearm is registered. In the United states, all it takes to hold a firearm is a background check and a safety class. In a short reading from the “American Now” book a short article By Christina Tenuta called Responsible gun ownership saves lives she asks “do Americans really need guns?”, but are the guns really the problem? Although the second amendment requires some decent documents , the qualifications to obtain a firearm needs to be revised to a mental check, a family history check , and also to make it a priority for reinforcement to check on the registered firearm every six to twelve months.
Eighty-nine people die from gun violence in the United States every day according to the Brady Campaign , from school children to victims of domestic violence to people going about their daily lives. As we mourn the lives of those killed in incidents of gun violence across the country, we need to take action. We should all do everything in our power to keep tragedies like this from happening again. When it comes to addressing mass shootings, we need new answers
America is the most well armed nation in the world, with American citizens owning about 270 million of the world’s 875 million firearms (Marshall). Indeed, this is more than a quarter of the world’s registered firearms. The reason why Americans own so many guns is because of the Second Amendment, which 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.” (Rauch) This amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to have firearms. Since this amendment is relatively vague, it is up for interpretation, and is often used by gun advocates to argue for lenient gun laws. Hence, gun control is a frequently discussed controversial topic in American politics.
Mass shootings have become a common occurrence in the United States society and have brought our society's safety debate to the attention of American politics. Both sides of the debate agree that we need more safety precautions but neither side can officially agree on what is to be done. What can we do about the raging number of mass shootings? There is no definite solution for mass shootings but there are precautions the United States can take to try to overcome the overwhelming number of mass shootings occurring. Gun Control is a major topic in the debate of how we can keep our society safer but how is what remains a mystery but we can start with altering the second amendment, and having stronger gun laws and background checks.
This debate has produced two familiar interpretations of the Second Amendment. Advocates of stricter gun control laws have tended to stress that the amendment’s militia clause guarantees nothing to the individual and that it only protects the states’ rights to be able to maintain organized military units. These people argue that the Second Amendment was merely used to place the states’ organized military forces beyond the federal government’s power to be able to disarm them. This would guarantee that the states would always have sufficient force at their command to abolish federal restraints on their rights and to resist by arms if necessary. T...
There is one reaction that is always to be expected after a mass shooting, and that is the call for an increase in control. This can be defined in numerous different ways, and can include a great deal of different aspects. People who call for an increase gun control in the wake of mass shootings are, in general, people who believe that more guns means more crimes. Gun control advocates cite studies that state, “Higher gun prevalence is associated with an increase in homicides, and suicides, and possibly even more residential burglaries” (Ludwig 17). Often times, after mass shootings, those in favor of more gun control look to countries like Australia, Canada, Great Britain and Japan, and their strict gun policy and cite this as the direction
The gun control is a problem of not support in the state a should stop with people use it. When someone has children is dangerous for people to have guns in their homes. Also, children should be out of reach from firearms precautions sign. Then now to see have a gun own with people in the state will get laws about hands can afford it. The most population people always to buy for guns in the hunting from animals makes a change is mind are misuse want to killing people. That 's why to happen is wrong get the facts on support gun control laws would against: The state should ban a gun because guns are dangerous when children are around, Gun owner takes the law into their own hands, and People buy guns for hunting, but misuse them by killing people.
by President Reagan). This banned automatic weapons with magazines for 10 years but that expired in 2004 and was never put back into action(Gun Control Laws). Though many attempts of gun control have failed there is even more of a push for a reform now. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a major foundation that supports the second amendment and has a lot of pull when it comes to political parties. The NRA is wealthy and has overturn and won many cases against guns. According to Megan Cassella “Fifty percent of those surveyed said they supported Obama 's executive actions”(Cassella). Almost all that were supporting the democratic party supported this idea of tightening gun laws, while nearly seventy-two percent of republicans opposed stricter gun laws. There is .
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.
Firearm safety is a controversial topic in America attributable to the several accidents that involve firearms. The main cause of an accident or death when operating a firearm is a accidental discharge. Several safety procedures and courses may prevent this from happening. Firearm safety and the education behind it is important and necessary in decreasing the several accidents and deaths in America. Guns are not toys and everyone should have proper gun safety before handling or possessing a firearm.
After carefully looking over the numerous topics of current events, I have discovered one that I have the strongest tie to. I have chosen to write my persuasive/argumentative essay over the “Gun Control Debate.” Many people ask, “what are the two differences amongst the gun control debate?” That is simple, you are either for gun control, or against it. What is gun control you may ask? Gun control (or regulation of firearms) is the government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms in order to control crime and reduce harmful effects on violence.
����������� Thomas Hobbes is an important political and social philosopher. He shares his political philosophy in his work Leviathan. Hobbes begins by describing the state of nature, which is how humans coped with one another prior to the existence of government. He explains that without government, �the weakest has the strength to kill the strongest� (Hobbes 507). People will do whatever it takes to further their own interests and protect their selves; thus, creating a constant war of �every man against every man� (Hobbes 508). His three reasons for people fighting amongst each other prior to government include �competition,� �diffidence,� and �glory� (Hobbes 508). He explains how men fight to take power over other people�s property, to protect them selves, and to achieve fame. He describes life in the state of nature as being �solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short� (Hobbes 508). Hobbes goes on to say that if men can go on to do as they please, there will always be war. To get out of this state of nature, individuals created contracts with each other and began to form a government.
Hobbes believes that all men are equal insofar as that the weakest man has the power to kill the strongest man. Thus given that every man is vulnerable to any other man, all men have a very strong desire to escape the state where killing each other is acceptable, escape the state of nature. This can be done, simply put by endeavoring peace which coupled with not making war except to defend oneself, is the first law of nature (Leviathan 1, 14).
Hobbes believed that human beings naturally desire the power to live well and that they will never be satisfied with the power they have without acquiring more power. After this, he believes, there usually succeeds a new desire such as fame and glory, ease and sensual pleasure or admiration from others. He also believed that all people are created equally. That everyone is equally capable of killing each other because although one man may be stronger than another, the weaker may be compensated for by his intellect or some other individual aspect. Hobbes believed that the nature of humanity leads people to seek power. He said that when two or more people want the same thing, they become enemies and attempt to destroy each other. He called this time when men oppose each other war. He said that there were three basic causes for war, competition, distrust and glory. In each of these cases, men use violence to invade their enemies territory either for their personal gain, their safety or for glory. He said that without a common power to unite the people, they would be in a war of every man against every man as long as the will to fight is known. He believed that this state of war was the natural state of human beings and that harmony among human beings is artificial because it is based on an agreement. If a group of people had something in common such as a common interest or a common goal, they would not be at war and united they would be more powerful against those who would seek to destroy them. One thing he noted that was consistent in all men was their interest in self-preservation.