In December of 2012, a devastating shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School created controversy across the country concerning gun control. The debate over gun control has strong supporters on both sides of the argument, one side in support of gun control and the other against gun control, making is difficult to come to a conclusion. When it comes down to the facts, America’s constitution states that the “right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon”. Also, a majority of the guns that were used in gun related crime were obtained illegally, meaning that gun control would not have prevented these tragedies. Gun control laws infringe upon the inalienable rights of Americans as stated in the constitution. As a solution to gun related crime, many facilities have been deemed as a “gun-free zone”. The concept of a “gun-free zone” takes away the rights of those who have gone through the process to carry and …show more content…
conceal.
In order to be qualified to carry and conceal a weapon, an applicant must submit their addresses for the last 10 years, firearm training information, a photo, and proof that they have been fingerprinted at an approved facility. (WTTW) An individual must also answer questions about their criminal history. This lengthy process makes sure that those who carry a weapon are qualified and will not be a threat to the public. Although a facility may be labeled as gun-free, a sign will not stop a criminal from performing an act of violence. By eliminating “gun-free zones”, the inhabitants of a facility will be protected and the rights of those who choose to carry and conceal a firearm will not be taken away. On the other hand, many promote the concept of “gun-free zones” as they feel more comfortable and reassured knowing that a firearm will not be in the same area as them. Moms Demand Action, a group that promotes stricter gun laws, believes that guns in America are attacking children. Similarly, many Americans believe that “gun-free zones” are the solution to gun
related crime. While the concept of a gun-free zone would promote the elimination of gun violence, it is not realistic to eliminate entirely. If a criminal were to attack an area labeled as gun-free, it would take, on average, 10 minutes for 9-1-1 responders to arrive at the scene therefore the concept would not prevent a gun related crime (WSTI). Many Americans choose to carry and conceal a firearm as an act of defense in a situation that may promote violence or cause harm to oneself or others. Gun-free zones are not the solution to reducing gun related crimes as they allow innocent citizens to be left helpless. Many Americans fear guns without fully understanding the requirements to carry or own a gun. While many Americans believe that guns are a threat, the concept of carrying or owning a gun was a major contribution to the founding of the United States. In December 2016, a man stabbed multiple people on Ohio State University’s campus only to be stopped by being shot and killed by a police officer (FOX news). The action of the police officer protected other people who may have been on campus at the time of the stabbing. Many major universities have been pushing for citizens that have their concealed carry to have the right to carry on campus. The Ohio State attacker may have been stopped sooner by one that has the right to carry a weapon. On the other hand, some Americans believe that more guns will promote more crime and therefore not protect the rights of Americans. Mother Jones, an independent news organization, reports that more than 70% of guns that were involved in a killing were obtained legally. While this statistic may seem shocking, this fact does not provide enough evidence to be deemed as reliable; A study was conducted in Cook County jail in Chicago over the inmates who had used a gun in a crime. Overall, about 2.9% of guns used in a gun related crime were obtained legally (MSNBC). This low percentage suggests that many of these crimes committed with a gun would have not been prevented with stricter gun control. While this study only reflects the crime in Chicago, Chicago has one of the highest number of gun related crimes (IJR) Overall, the second amendment guarantees American citizens the right to bear arms which recently has created controversy across the United States. Some Americans push for stricter gun control while others push for less gun control. Those who are pro-gun and those who do not believe in the use of guns can be connected to the common phrase as “fight or flight”; Meaning, some people act upon a threat and some choose to have others act upon a threat. Those who are pro-gun choose to “fight” whatever may attack themselves or others and those who call 9-1-1 in the case of endangerment choose “flight”. The argument over whether gun control will decrease or increase gun related crime may never have a right or wrong. Many people feel strongly on one side of the argument. All in all, the United States was founded on the idea of equal rights of citizens and government. A firearm protects innocent people from the threat of an act of violence and allows one to feel comfortable in any given situation.
With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.
Many Americans are now applying for a license to carry licensed concealed arms with them. The rate at which licenses are being approved is worrying. This development is concerning law enforcement authorities. Putting so many firearms at the disposal of the public is counterproductive to the gains that are being made on improving security and especially in the cities where incidences of gun crime and violence are on the rise.
As the generations of America’s youth continue to grow, so does the increase in violent crimes associated with each generation. Over the last decade, studies have shown that school shootings have increased by an astonishing 13%. Although this figure as a percentage does not seem like much, it makes one stop and think. Parents blame the video games and their violent behaviors for the influence on their children’s daily lives. Grandparents blame the child’s parents for not showing them the right way to grow up in the world. And then we have that child’s friends who say that this child just was not respected by their classmates, or perhaps even bullied into this violent nature. Regardless of the cause to this violent increase, many Americans do believe in a solution: gun control. Gun control is the situation in which the federal government would put a ban on owning firearms. Contrary to what many “hard-core” Americans believe, gun control would not necessarily ban them from owning hunting rifles or even personal handguns. It would simply limit the ownership of semi-automatic assault rifles, and other rifles of this nature. This does not contradict the Second Amendment of the Constitution which states that American citizens have the Right to Bear Arms. I believe in the constitutional Right to Bear Arms, and I am against any attempt to eradicate that right for any American citizen: however, I am for gun control in the sense of lowering the possession of semi-automatic and fully-automatic rifles.
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 free zones without proper enforcement, such as enough trained personnel carrying arms and non-interruptive monitoring, are a threat to the citizens within them because they attract terrorists for the reason of mass murder with little resistance. Officer response time is a major issue in protecting an unarmed populous due to lack of officers to compensate for armed citizens. In addition gun free zones are too large to insure proper control points to stop guns from flowing through these areas and into the wrong hands. Gun free zones also bring attention to the area as a target by advertising citizens as fish in a barrel metaphorically speaking. To correct this problem there should be a higher presence of officers or trained personnel able
As violence and murder rates escalate in America so does the issue of gun control. The consequence of this tragedy births volatile political discourse about gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the question is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote, “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.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment the make and model of firearms has changed dramatically and so has the philosophies of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle-loading musket used to primarily protect families or solely for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the second amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of gun control articles having been written , still the gun control issue remains unresolved. History tells us gun control debates will be in a stalemate until our judicial system defines or rewrites the Second Amend. This paper will examine the history of the Second Amendment, and attempt to define the framers intent, gun control legislation and look at factors that affect Americans on this specific issue...
People have questioned gun control long time. Many people wonder if anyone, aside from those who join the law force, should be allowed to carry guns. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Wright 4). Franklin understood that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not uphold their liberty. Some people who argue for gun control state many violent crimes involve guns. Others believe a child could find the gun and something bad could happen to the child or others when a gun is unsafely stored. People who argue against gun control might say there is a huge psychological gap between citizens who shoot to protect themselves or their property and those who go into schools and shoot at others. Criminals will always find a way around gun control laws and will be able to obtain and use guns illegally. The second amendment protects gun rights for individual citizens. Reasonable gun control laws and educational steps can be taken to protect the majority of U.S. citizens. 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.
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.
Central in the arguments against gun control is its ability to restrict any citizen of the United States the right to own guns which is protected under the constitution. Specifically, due recognition is made to its connection to the 2nd Amendment wherein it seeks to protect the individual liberties of people. This facet also applies to gun ownership regardless of the original objective and intention. “The second amendment from the Bill of Rights grants private citizens the right to bear arms. Thus, people who stand firmly against gun control insist that no legislation, technically, should have the right to take away a citizen’s guns without first repealing the amendment in question” (Groberman 1). A good approach to consider in highlighting this part comes from depriving the citizen of his basic right on the basis of specific presumption that it would be used for violence or crim...
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.
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.
There’s a difference between safety and ignorance. True safety is doing everything in your power to protect the people of your country. Ignorance is thinking you have done something good for your country, even though after lots of recent events, there is evidence against that claim. After hundreds of killings, you would of thought that the government would have done something to protect the innocent people inside gun-free zones. But they haven’t. Don’t you think after multiple repetitions of the same event, that SOMEONE would have wanted to change something to try and stop mass shooters that target gun-free zones? Well, you are wrong. The government is OK with shooters walking with their guns into gun-free zones and killing innocent, unarmed
Listverse,. '10 Arguments For Gun Control - Listverse '. N.p., 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2014.
In the United States, from 2000 to 2015, 505,005 people have died from firearms; 297,042 of those deaths were suicides with another 193,867 deaths being from homicides (webappa.cdc.gov). More and more thought the US, problems are arising do to firearms. One of the greatest problems is the debate over firearms. Should they be banned? Should there be stricter background checks? What rights are covered by second amendment? Are guns actually the problem? And that’s just the start. To answer these questions, one must know more about guns and gun violence in America.
These negative endorsements to gun keeping should be stopped and instead the public should be encouraged to rely on other safety methods available to them for self-defense. There are also many policies and programs to support those who are victims of crime apart from protecting the rights of every citizen. Guns should have no place in people’s homes and especially around children. Instead, they should only be allowed to the law enforcing trained police officers.