Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Crime scene process
Pros and cons of assault weapons
Crime scene examination
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Is ten rounds enough for self defense? Americans own an estimated 265 million guns – more than one gun for every American adult. In 1992, there was an outburst of violence, which was later called The LA Riots. During this period of violence, there were acts of breaking and entering businesses, assaults, arsons, and murder. Business owners looked up to the police for help, but shockingly, the police were nowhere to be found. Since these actions were too dangerous and outnumbered, police officers had no other choice but to pull back. Having no other option, business owners were left alone to defend themselves and their businesses. They shot unlimited rounds of ammunition into the air with their assault rifles sending a message that they will …show more content…
If this Proposition takes place, then the government is going to ban high capacity magazines which would be necessary for self-defense and defense against tyranny scenarios. In an article titled, Do People Need Assault Weapons?, researchers examined the event of the North Hollywood shoot out. “With the rise of mass shootings and terrorism, people need to be prepared for the unexpected. During the North Hollywood shootout, many died because they did not have higher firepower to deal with and armored man with an AK style rifle”(Do People Need Assault Weapons). This quote is very meaningful because these are the types of situations where you need more than ten rounds of ammo. Why do Civilians Need Assault Weapons, an article written by Mark Almonte, sponsors the idea of having ammunition and assault weapons. “One self-defense situation that comes to mind is the L.A. riots [where] thugs hurled rocks at passing cars, buildings on fire, and looters smashing storefront windows”(Almonte). These are the type of situations where citizens need more than ten rounds of ammunition. Massad Ayoob, from GUNS Magazines, wrote in, Do Civilians Need More Spare Ammo, that criminals are getting smarter and smarter each day when they go out to kill. “More criminals are wearing bulletproof vests. By the time you realize your shots to the chest are having no effect, a goodly amount of your ammo supply may be gone”(Ayoob). You can go through ten rounds and still have the active shooter make an impact on others and yourself. Anyone can have access to obtain and wear bulletproof vests and there isn’t any requirements to purchase one. Aside from all the new stipulations, getting ammunition and firearms would become
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).
Assault weapon control is becoming an unavoidable topic in the United States. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation more than nine hundred people have died from mass shootings in the past seven years and an assault rifle was used in twelve of the forty-three mass shootings in the past four years. The U.S. Department of Defense has long defined assault rifles as fully automatic rifles used for military purposes. The National Firearm Act of 1934 prohibited fully automatic weapons in the United States. The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban prohibited semi and fully automatic weapons and any weapon with military style characteristics. California Senator, Dianne Feinstein, is leading the charge in the American government to pass a bill that will limit the capacity of ammunition in a magazine and ban assault weapons that are too dangerous for public use. It is time for the American government to act swiftly and acknowledge the dangers assault rifles pose.
Some people believe that extremely tight gun control laws will eliminate crime, but gun control laws only prevent the 'good guys' from obtaining firearms. Criminals will always have ways of getting weapons, whether it be from the black market, cross borders, or illegal street sales. New gun control laws will not stop them. Since the shootings of Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook, the frequency of mass shootings has increased greatly. Gun control is not effective as it has not been shown to actually reduce the number of gun-related crimes. Instead of considering a ban of private firearm possession, and violating individual ownership rights, it may be more practical to consider the option of partially restricting firearm access.
The word assault means to make a physical attack on someone, but how does a weapon with the purpose to provide food for your family become classified as an assault weapon? If a weapon is used to assault another person is it then classified as an assault weapon, or is it still just a weapon used to bring harm to someone? The classification of an assault gun should be changed.
‘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!
The high-capacity magazines law should be enforced. For instance, “High-capacity magazines — or assault weapons likely equipped with them — were used in at least 15 of the incidents (11%).” (Analysis of Mass Shootings). Due to high-capacity
In Colorado where twelve people where killed legislature has combated this with tougher background checks and limiting all magazines soled to a ten round capacity limit.according to politics/policy after Colorado enforc...
“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.
Imagine being forced to crawl and hide with gunshots near your ears. Imagine seeing people shot to death in front of you. Believe it or not, scenes like these occur on a daily basis in America. In the first 320 days of this year there were 325 mass shootings in the nation, defined as where there were more than four victims at each shooting. (Mass Shooting Tracker). This egregious level of violence is unacceptable in a developed country and major reform in gun legislation to improve the tragic state of public safety in the United States today. Although critics of expanded gun legislation incorrectly argue that easier access to guns increases safety and that gun laws are unconstitutional, it is imperative that America adopts stronger gun control legislation because heightened regulations reduce crime rates and have successfully improved public safety in other developed countries. In a country like the United States, no one
Americans are faced with a huge problem of violence in the streets, these streets have become a place where old people are beaten for their social security checks, where little women are attacked and raped, where teen aged thugs shoot it out for some turf to sell their illegal drugs, and finally where small children everyday are caught in the way of bullets during drive by shootings. We try to ignore the criminals in our society and how they hurt it, but we shouldn’t. We should take actions to stop these acts of crazy people. And people try, but the hard work of some misguided individuals to stop the legal ownership of guns doesn’t really affect the problem at all, and takes the guns from the innocent citizens, who simply want means of self defense.
They say more murders will be committed, but the gun rate is the highest it has ever been in 1991 and since then in 2012 murder rate has decreased to 49%, a 52% drop(Ten Reasons Why States Should Reject “Assault Rifle” and “Large” Magazine Bans). Statistics say that even though bans are put in place to reduce crime it doesn’t. In another article it states that California banned assault rifles in 1989 and the murder rate increased every year and over the course of five years it increased 26%. Two-thirds of the murders today committed with firearms, but of those two-thirds, 69% are committed with handguns not rifles(Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ Is Not the Answer).
Being a young American I have witnessed many problems with growing up in this great country of ours. We have homeless people who can't find work, rising inflation rates, an unbalanced budget, and more importantly, a problem with guns.
Guns and crime seem to fit together like peanut butter and jelly, but is that really the case? There are two ways to look at gun control, but one realization that needs to be made and that’s that guns are powerful. Guns can either be used for defending and protecting people or they can be used to harm and kill people. People have different views on whether guns are being used for protection or being used to harm and kill others. The majority of people that think guns are being used for safety and defense oppose gun control laws. On the other hand the majority of people who think guns are being used to heartlessly slaughtered people are for stricter gun control laws. People opposed to gun control thinking it will be taking away some of their rights; whereas, those in favor of gun control thinking it will help protect people.
Crime rate in the United States has been at an all-time high in the past few years. According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, there have been 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870. According to the gun violence archive, 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, and 26,819 people were injured. As you can see, 2015 was a big year with gun violence in the United States and since then nothing has changed, to this day we are still seeing these statistics for death by guns in the United States. Instead of the government focusing on gun control laws, I believe that they should look at different alternatives. Some of these alternatives could be to register citizens with aggressive mental disabilities and emotional instabilities and increase research for effective treatments and cures because in most of these cases the shooters have been found to have a mental disability. We can also abolish gun-free zones apart from schools, banks, mass transit hubs, hospitals, and government buildings so that concealed carry is legal in these zones. The government can enforce stricter punishments for crimes committed with a deadly weapon and more laws protecting citizens who are forced to use a firearm in self-defense. So, in the case of a civilian using
Being that this paper has objectively presented argument for both banning and not banning assault weapons, it will now proceed to briefly further develop the idea of less stringent gun control laws on the premise that until a “bullet”-proof definition can be agreed upon and a law that would not allow for any type of loopholes, banning assault weapons will do little to truly protect the American Public. The main support for this claim can be supported by the fact that the ban of 1994 was not effective, and in reality, did not protect the average American any more than before it was passed into law. Assault weapons are undoubtedly dangerous, but until their can be more effective assault weapon definition, America should not be subjected to a ban on assault weapons