Gun control is a highly engaged debated topic and always has been. Many people feel banning guns and creating gun free zones is the answer to stopping mass shooting and people being killed daily. Except they’re wrong. According to Freedom Outpost, 92 percent of mass shooting have occurred in gun free zones. Why? The answer is simple, bad guys know good people do not have guns to protect themselves. One argument that reoccurs is not the gun that kills, but the people who kill with a gun. "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."- James Earl Jones. The second amendment from the United States Constitution reads, …show more content…
They claim they care about well-being of the people. The people need their weapons to defend themselves. The government says the only want to ban “assault weapons”. The term means a weapon capable of firing fully, semi-automatic, or three-round burst. Now yes the other two are already illegal, but the semi-automatic gun is not, at least not yet. Semi-automatic weapons are modern day sporting rifles and we are allowed to own that type of gun because if the state needed a militia, that would be our weapon of choice. During the argument of Piers Morgan and Ben Shapiro, they discussed the banning of guns. Morgan wanted to ban assault rifles while Shapiro exclaimed that hand-guns have killed more people than any other gun. Morgan rebutted with the question, “Which gun has been used in the mass shootings?” The answer is obviously the rifle. Once the rifle is banned, just like drugs, weapons will be smuggled in and still used. Serial numbers on the gun will be filed off and untraceable. At least with the rifles, someone can still prevent a mass shooting. Now if the rifle was banned, shot guns or hand guns will be used.
During the Columbine school massacre, two of the weapons used were an Intratec TEC-DC9 9-mm semi-automatic pistol and a sawed off 12gauge double barreled shotgun by Dylan Klebold. Both a hand gun and a pistol were used for a school shooting. Eric Harris used 10-shot
…show more content…
The left claims they respect the second Amendment and civilians can own a handgun to protect themselves. This is contradictory. Obviously a mass shooter will use a rifle with large capacity magazine. Handguns are also used to kill people also. So the left is in support of the second amendment, yet the only want so called, “military style assault rifles”. Once again, the gun is called “military style”, the gun is not a military grade weapon. It resembles a military gun, but it is not a military gun. The purpose is it is a modern day sporting rifle, and used for the security of a free state. Hand guns have claimed more lives than any other gun. So we should ban a gun that has killed more people in a instance versus the number killer? “Fact: A decade long study, covering 84 mass public shootings, found that pistols were used 60% of the time. Rifles were used 27%.” http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/assault-weapons/#note-531-14 The left wants to know why anyone would need a drum magazine (10+ bullets). There was man in Greenwich Village, Massachusetts. He was beaten by a gang of seven with bats and tire irons. Not saying the man should’ve have shot the gangs, but let’s use a stepped up scenario. If the gang members all hand guns on them. This not hard to believe because this has happened. Then the man would need a more than a small capacity clip to defend himself. There are
The federal government should not ban the usage of guns because we need them to hunt and able to protect ourselves. People need to learn to be able to be around gun without the worry but those who use gun inappropriately shouldn’t have the guns.
Eliot Spitzer once said, “Yes people pull the trigger-but guns are the instrument of death. Gun control is necessary and delay means more death and horror.” Guns are the reason shooters become mass shooters or murderers. High-capacity magazines need to be banned because they were used in 50% of the 62 mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%, and gang members use high-capacity magazines to compensate for lack of accuracy and to maximize their chance to hitting the their target.
McMahan, 3) So, McMahan’s main premises come 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.
The liberal side of the debate says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns, that more gun control would reduce gun deaths.
The 2013 gun ban legislation will not solve the problem of violence, but instead will gradually promote it. The writers of the legislation did not appropriately use the correct firearm terminology, which caused the ban to be too broad and generated confusion. In addition, the constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms for self-defense against criminals and if necessary, an overextending, dictatorial government. Therefore, this recent gun ban is not helpful for the general public because the ban is too broad and removes the right we have as U.S. citizens to keep any type of firearm.
Gun control and gun banning have been a highly controversial issue since all the gun crimes hitting the news in America. Crimes like Sandy-Hook , Aurora , San Berdindno , and Oregon have lawmakers thinking about banning guns by enacting laws that allows them to. Lawmakers believe guns are the prime suspect in all these gun violence crimes and they believe it well reduce murder and violence. Banning guns well do nothing to reduce the mass killings. If a criminal has the intent to commit a crime nothing can stop them. Also a criminal doesn’t abide by the law that is why they are criminals. Gun banning would only disarm the legal law abiding citizen leaving them defenseless. Also the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constution and the Bill of Rights. If lawmakers have the courage take away one Constutional right they will have the courage to keep going, I have three logical reasons why gun banning well not work.
The second 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.” This means that citizens have a right to bear arms, but since this amendment is not very clear there is some controversy. Many people argue that there shouldn’t be assault weapons because they are too powerful, or that this amendment was not intended to allow high powered assault weapons. There are many reasons on why assault rifles and large magazines should not be banned in the United States, including protection, defense, and past bans have not been effective.
Guns kill people. That is the way society thinks now-a-days. Everyone is now becoming an expert on all things guns just so they can have a say in how the United States should regulate gun usage. If half the people who want to ensure more restrictions are put on guns actually understood how to use them and understood the pros of concealed carry—or even open carry—they would stop being so anti-gun. Open and concealed carry could potentially be a problem solver in these mass shootings. A victim possessing a gun can create intimidation between shooter and victim, and the said victim could in turn use his weapon to stop the offender from killing.
Guns are always represented as a sigh of terror, violence and insecurity due to which, gun control is always being a significant and controversial issue from both political and self defense point of view. Guns and humans had a shared part of the past history, during that period guns were used for hunting and protection from the invaders. The second amendment of the U. S. constitution even made the guns/arms more debatable on the basis of keeping guns as their right. Their is a no harm keeping a gun for self protection under a proper law and order, which will be regulated by different background, physical check and the awareness of proper use of the guns. These checks will help lower down the statistical data of misuse of firearms and reduce
Over the past few decades gun control has come to the fore front of debate in politics and the mass media. It's no wonder that in the wake of the recent school shootings and attacks on churches that people are beginning to fear guns. People are beginning to see guns as an object of death and destruction and not as what they are meant to be. While guns are used in war they are not intended to kill innocent people, guns are intended to be used by experienced gun handlers for protection and hunting. When used properly a gun is no more dangerous than a car or a knife, all of these can be used in crime but none of them are intended to be.
Guns have been the weapon of choice for some of the most brutal massacres on America soil. Since early history guns have been used mainly for militia and defense purposes. But, the development of new gun technology has made firearms more accessible and deadly. Although the second amendment gives the right to bear arms, guns should be controlled and monitored by the government because guns have contributed to a lot of killings in America and will increase crime rates.
More and more frequently, we are saddened by the news of mass shootings. Whether it takes place in a school or public area, these shootings are both disastrous and mortifying. Families begin to feel anger and sadness, and demand immediate justice. Although these terrible events continue to happen, there have been no significant steps taken towards the reduction in the number of weapons; specifically assault rifles. This leads one to question do we need to ban the right to possess such weapons? If the possession of these weapons is not made illegal, we run the risk of another attack. While there is no questioning the severity of these mass shootings, a ban on assault rifles is not the answer because they are not the cause of such events, and it is a constitutional right to own them.
Assault weapons are dangerous for everyday people to just be carrying around (“ For Lives And Liberty”). According to Webster's Dictionaries, the term “assault weapon” is used in the United States to define specific types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud. Assault weapons have were banned in the year 1994 and brought back in the year 2004. Due to the danger they pose to public safety, assault weapons should be banned.
Semi-automatic weapons should be banned for civilians in the United States because they are designed primarily for killing a lot of people in a short time, because there are too many guns in this country, and because assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shootings of innocent bystanders. Assault weapons are military weapons, designed pretty much exclusively for killing people. Because of that, civilians should not own them. In the United States, the most common type of assault weapon owned by civilians is the semi-automatic weapon. Fully automatic weapons, which fire continuously when the trigger is held down, have been strictly regulated since 1934.
There has been a lot of crimes with guns. There have been mass murders, gun theft, and armed robberies. When guns fall into the wrong hands things can go bad. “There he shot six adults and pumped as many as eleven shots each into the heads of 20 children who were 6 and 7 years old.” (Jack Lessenberry)