Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gun control analyses of public policy
Effect of gun control
Effects of gun violence in the usa
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gun control analyses of public policy
“If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns”. This argument has been tried throughout the years, as tragedies from assassinations to school shootings have become the focal point of national concern. The Constitution grants American’s the right to bear arms, but over the years these rights have become infringed as new laws are passed in response to specific acts that call for new safety measures. But at this point in time, because of the already instated acts, enough measures have been taken to legally prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Further laws being enacted by the states are simply making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase guns for legitimate reasons. Guns rights are a constitutional privilege that shouldn’t be any more regulated for unnecessary reasons because of inaccurate or misrepresented statistics about gun violence. As a country founded on the principles of liberty and the general welfare of the people, the U.S. stands out as being the most armed nation in the world. Among national anxiety over gun control, statistics still show that the 3/4 majority of Americans believe the 2nd amendment rights granted in the Constitution are still valid. The 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” The “militia”, regardless of it being comprised of individual citizens or an organized group, needs to function on the same grounds as the armed military forces. Additionally, hunting rifles, shotguns, and other small caliber firearms would be inadequate in securing the free State, be it defending each other in emergency or against the government itself. Since states still have more r... ... middle of paper ... ...nited States is by far not the first on the list. In fact, being a country with some of the leading strictness in gun control, the U.K. is ranked higher for crimes even though the U.S. has 5 times larger of a population . Nonetheless, the U.S. homicide rates are roughly 16,000 per year with more than half of all homicides are committed with a gun. However, 70% of those homicides are directly linked through gang involvement, leaving significantly smaller numbers of innocent victims in gun related violence. Guns are dangerous tools that require respect and thorough safety measures to be taken. It is our right as Americans to have these guns: for defense, hunting, and recreation. The guns need to be kept out of the hands of criminals, but creating laws and regulations only hurts the common citizen, not the criminals that these laws were specifically intended for.
Cress argues that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized militia groups. However, it was clear that the Founding Fathers made no distinction between the militia and the people. The Second Amendment allows individuals to own guns and to be able to protect themselves. If the Founding Fathers wanted gun ownership to be for militias only, they would have specifically stated that in the Second Amendment. Cress ineffectively argues that the militias were an important part of protecting the people when in reality they were not well-trained and may not have been committed to the cause which rendered them ineffective. Therefore, Cress’ argument is not reflective of the attitudes of the Founding
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.
Over all, A Well Regulated Militia is a book that provided us great details on how was the Second Amendment was influencing gun control early America. Our Founding Fathers made a right decision to create the Second Amendment to give more benefits for American citizens, but in the 21st century, many crimes abused the Second Amendment as a reason for them to break the laws. Congress needs to step up and take action on guns control to stop more tragedies that involves guns in the future like in The Dark Knight Rises movie massacre.
The United States being the leader in per-capita gun deaths among industrialized nations, massive shooting such as Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Virginia Tech, and an average of 33 people dying in the United States everyday due to gun related violence are all reasons that we not only should, but need to regulate gun laws.
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
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 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.
Is it right to guarantee 100% of your rights outlined in Constitution of the United States of America in one area, but only about 90% in another area? The Second Amendment allows citizens the right to bear arms.This topic is very important to every traditional and patriotic American that wants to provide and protect for their families. Americans need to see that guns are not the trouble for all the violence and crimes that are reported on the news. Guns are needed for protection and owning a gun is not unconstitutional.
‘Useless laws weaken necessary laws.’ --- Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1775) Importantly, gun ownership doesn’t create a violent society, but lenient gun control does. Nevertheless, bans do not make something disappear, rather harder to control! Therefore a strict, uniform federal gun control system is far more essential so as to ensure no collateral effects of any gun uses!
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
“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” is stated in the United States Constitution as the Second Amendment. Several Americans wish to rid of guns from citizens, disobeying and disrespecting the Constitution. I shot my first gun when I was young and have always been surrounded by them. My neighbor does not leave the house without carrying one, nor does my eighteen year old friend. Never once have I felt unsafe or uneasy knowing that there was a gun close to me. The right to bare arms has become a popular local battle in which some people want to reduce the freedom of one owning firearms while others wish for the
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. Amendment II
Although the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from completely banning guns in America, limited restrictions are allowed on the distribution and possession of firearms. Certain groups of people such as criminals, the mentally unstable, and soldiers dishonorably discharged from the military are prohibited from possessing or interacting with firearms (Flynn). These restrictions are enforced by background checks in some states on both a state and federal level. However, gun laws vary from state to state and are often not thorough enough; the background checks are flawed due to lack of information and misinformation, and guns can easily end up in the hands of criminals and malevolent individuals. The ease of obtaining a firearm in America fosters crime and a dangerous environment. Hence, the Second Amendment should be reinterpreted so that stricter gun laws can be implemented because modern citizens do not require guns, current background checks are flawed, gun...
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...
“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.