This will be VERY long, but please read:
Gun control, in and of itself, is not evil or even a bad idea. The biggest issue is that, for the most part, it is not particularly successful.
Obama said several things in his speech that were inaccurate while completely missing the mark on "Gun Show Loopholes". However, he does kind of have the right idea. There is not a gun show in the country that doesn't do background checks for all "dealer sales". If a gun is part of a store or dealers stock inventory, then a background check is already done. The problem that was missed is that, for some reason, it is legal for a dealer to sell an apparently unlimited number of guns to himself, making him their legal owner, and then selling them to whomever he
…show more content…
wants without a background check. This is the "loophole" that needs closed. Also, rules and limits need to be established for all private individuals to sell guns. IE; can you sell a rifle to a family member or friend, or even just give it to them? Does this need a background check? How many guns can you buy family and friends as gifts? What constitutes "friends"? This is the area that needs addressing. I see nothing wrong with selling a gun to a friend or relative (provided they are not criminals or felons) I see nothing wrong with giving a gun to a family member as a gift. I do have a problem when the same person has sold 100 guns to various "friends" throughout the year, that is or isn't dealer, with no impunity what so ever. This is, more or less, "trafficking". In my state (Pennsylvania) it is illegal to give a HANDGUN away or to sell it anyone without a background check, no matter who you are. We can still sell rifles with just a bill of sale. Having said that, there is no system in place to make sure any of this happens. Since the handgun proviso is relatively new, few people even know about it. In the end, its a measure that doesn't really work. And, as to the issue of "Gun Nuts" that I have seen in several previous posts, I submit that human beings should have guns, and that having them is actually a good thing. Here's why: Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized
act. With this comes responsibility. While I believe owning guns is a good thing, I also believe one should have means to secure them. And, putting them in a drawer, under a pillow, behind a curtain, in a shoebox in the closet and behind the couch is NOT securing them...even in a locked house. Buy a safe. Buy a secure metal locker....and not something that can be carried off or stolen. Gun cabinets with glass doors or racks hanging on the wall is simply asking for problems....just my humble opinion. Thank you for reading.
Gun control will be beneficial to our society because it will provide an opportunity to make our neighborhood and communities more safe. In addition, it will help in decreasing the crime rate, help in keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable as well as criminals. It is most American's dream to live life, be successful, and be safe; containing guns provide the key to do that.
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.
Left, right, Liberal, Conservative, Democratic, Republican. There are a lot of synonyms for the sides of our nation divided. Divided on many things: religion, political views, morals, etc.. For a nation that prides ourselves on extraordinary security and unity, it is quite ironic that so many issues can cause such distress and uproar within communities. One such issue is gun control. As a white male in a middle-lower class family that has never owned a gun, I may be somewhat biased. Objectively as I can, I am going to report the facts and more importantly, try to find the core issues at play.
Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate firearms by selecting who can sell, buy and possess certain guns. Criminals do not obey laws and stricter gun control laws or banning guns will have little effect on reducing crimes. There are many myths about gun control reducing acts of gun violence, which are simply not true according to research. People are responsible for the crimes, not the guns themselves. Taking guns away from United States citizens that use them for many reasons, shooting practice, competition, hunting and self-defense, should not be punished for the acts of criminals. As stated by Mytheos Holt, “Guns in the right hands help public safety. Guns in the wrong hands harm public safety”. Research shows that defensive use of guns discourages criminals and reduces crime (Holt 2). Not only is it wrong to penalize law-abiding citizens, it is against the Second Amendment. It is unconstitutional to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
“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.
Gun control does not only take guns away from criminals, gun control also limits law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families when necessary. Those who argue for gun control usually state guns are a part of most violent crimes. However, this is not always true. While it is true that limiting gun ownership with laws could prevent individuals from possessing guns, it does not prevent people from illegally having or using guns. Those who carry guns legally are not the problem.
Gun control is both a crime issue, as well as a safety issue. It can range from moderate to extreme. Gun control goes as back as the 17th century where Japan was using guns for war making as to current tragedies occurring in schools. Guns have never disappeared, they have only multiplied in numbers to numerous amount of guns, ranging from small to big. Gun control isn't only a problem but it can also be solution depending on how it is being used and the person using it. Gun control can be controlled with many methods but in the end it matters how the person is going to use the weaponry.
Many people claim a utopian society is one in which the citizens are unarmed. Aside from the fact that human nature has not proven itself inherently peaceful, this is far from a utopia given everyday threats to public safety. A gun is the perfect equalizer in any unsafe situation. A 90 pound woman cannot take on a 300 pound man with her bare hands, but with a gun, she can neutralize the threat. According to Gary
Besides, more people use their guns in self defense every day than to take the life of another fellow man. the ratio to people using guns for defense to that of killing is 80 to 2. That should prove that guns help more than they are a bad thing. The constitution says that we as americans can own guns no matter what. It is unconstitutional to take away that right without voting for it first. Most people only use their guns for fun or for self defense. But all the pro-gun rights think that people only use guns for malice and hate.Over 2.5 million americans use their guns for self defense every 6 months. If we had no guns what's to stop people with a knife or a pipe trying to rob or even kill us? america has a right to own guns and as loyal americans we s...
Today in the United States there has much debate over the countries current standing on Gun Control. Some Americans lean more towards supporting the bans, simply due to what people have seen with the mentally ill in the media today, these are often the indviduals who support restrictions that have been made on the purchasing of firearms. Others highly oppose gun control, standing firm by the belief that any form of suppression towards firearm ownership, is a clear violation of anyone 's constitutional rights. "In 1990, the Violence Policy Center announced that the debate must be switched from small handguns to large “assault rifles.” This led to states like California starting bans themselves on, "assault weapon magazines holding more than
Gun control only takes guns away from law-abiding people and it does nothing to stop criminals from buying illegal guns, who are unlikely to obey the law and register their guns at all. Most of the time the term gun control is improperly used. The definition of gun control is the government regulation of possession and use of firearms by private citizens. The government is using it as way to take our right to bear arms away from us.
Gun violence in America is a public health crisis, which needs to be recognized and changed by legislatures, and the voting American. As conscious Americans, we need to vote for changes to gun laws that would improve background checks nation-wide, make firearm registration mandatory, restrict the sale of assault weapons and weapon modifications that give the shooter military-grade fire power, and invest in gun-safe technology and safe firearms storage designs. This type of technology will help prevent criminally oriented people from accessing guns, and will help prevent the accidental deaths of many children by guns. This essay will explain the reforms needed to help ensure Americans can still exercise their 2nd amendment right of owning firearms, and preventing the unnecessary deaths of many Americans at the same time.
The debate over gun control in America has constantly brought up over the years due to gunmen killing large amounts of civilizations in shootings. From Columbine to Sandy Hook or the shootings of the two reporters in West Virginia, these public shootings are occurring everywhere. Lawmakers and civilians alike are pushing for increased gun control in hopes of preventing the same tragedies. Anybody that has been affected by the shootings have been pushing Congress and state governments to force new sanctions on government. With the past three years, Congress has shot down all the laws despite the large amounts of public support. Adding more gun control isn’t going to stop the mass shootings from happening.
“Their best defense against injury is to put no defense and give them what they want” (Kates). Critics may argue that concealed handguns are not an effective form of self defense. To the contrary, robbery and assault victims who used a gun were less likely to be attacked or suffer injury, “Neither a martial art skills nor chemical sprays provide a real option for victims faced by attackers who are stronger or armed” (Kates). People feel safer when they carry a concealed weapon because they feel that criminals will avoid attacking them. Citizens want to conceal carry a handgun because every day there are dangerous individuals who prey on the weak. In addition to that, concealed handguns are an effective non-lethal form of self defense a majority of the time. Gary Kleck from the Federal Bureau of Investigation “estimated that, 2 million to 2.5 million victims annually use handguns to repel criminal attackers” (Kates). The surprise of being armed is the advantage for the victim, which the victim has the disadvantage of knowing the time and place of being attacked. Concealed carry actually provides protection to citizens that do not carry because the criminals are not sure who is able to defend themsel...
Listverse,. '10 Arguments For Gun Control - Listverse '. N.p., 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2014.