In today 's world, there are so many controversies surrounding the social well being of people and their political lifestyle. Controversy can be referred to serious arguments that relate a certain topic or something. Such issues involve many people and do continue for long periods. The controversies that surround politics and social life can be concerned with control of the guns laws, the rights of abortion, issues surrounding the health care and the problems of immigration. Gun control can be associated with the policies and legislations that are put in place by the state of a given country to monitor the production process of guns. The laws also monitor and control the selling and transfer of weapons, the rate of gun possession, the modification …show more content…
The first argument for gun control is that the increase in the number of guns will mean an increase in homicides cases. It is an assumption that when people are armed with guns, the cases of killings are likely to reduce in the country (Lott, 2003). On the contrary, the research shows that the weapon ownership increase in the state has gone out of control with the number of homicide cases growing rapidly. Therefore, the best way to ensure safety is to do complete and a lot of check about the person before giving him or her license to own a gun. When the access to guns increase their usage is high especial when the person is angry; this is thus a genuine reason to implement gun control laws (Lott, 2003). Secondly, more gun ownership means exceptional cases of suicide. The argument on death is based on the lifestyle that people live today full of challenges (Spitzer, 2015). Many people have depressed life, and most of them will contemplate to committee suicide as a way of solving the problem. The gun will probably be used to do this act of suicide. People will feel that it is much simple to kill herself and end life using a gun instead of getting help. States that have more gun ownership experience high suicide …show more content…
The people who support the strict laws on gun ownership view that it will reduce the crimes of violence (McGinty, et al. 2013). Murder will also reduce. On the contrary, some people support the right to guns but are against the gun control measure. The main reason is that gun control will not only reduce the cases of murder and crime but will also stimulate these cases and make them frequently occur (McGinty, et al. 2013). It 's hard to determine the validity of this argument because the measuring of murder and crime and the effects on controlling guns are hard to calculate. The information that relates to the weapon control and the consequences of gun control are in most cases bias. They are only available to particular people who seek them. The public will only rely on the information presented by the media, which in most cases may not be complete. The people who are not for gun control argue that the firearms are not such big issue; the big problem is the access to guns by the children and the people who do not qualify to own them. These people end up breaking the law by misusing the firearms (McGinty, et al.
Gun control is an issue that is constantly being debated. There are people who are pro gun control and those who believe gun control is unconstitutional to the citizens. Many political leaders and organizations have strong opinions on gun control, which keeps the gun control debate publicized. Gun control is limiting or taking the right of citizens to carry or purchase a gun. Guns are used for protecting the citizens by police officers and the military, as well as for many personal reasons like hunting and self-defense. There are times that guns are used for the wrong reasons like murder, or put in the wrong hands which lead to accidental deaths. Choosing a stand on gun control can be hard, but hearing both sides can help a person make a decision.
The present essay aims to analyze the connection between American society and gun ownership. Also what this can provoke on the citizens. These issues have been highly debatable over the past fourteen years since the massacre on Columbine High School occurs on April 20, 1999. As gun ownership is closely related to availability of firearms, the people who are against this civil duty of bearing arms to defend themselves and theirs are terrified of being shot, so the fear has spread over the country. Another relevant aspect is the discrimination of students from Columbine School since the existing paranoia. Students are taken to court to declare about their ‘misbehavior’. Finally, all these negative feelings have increased within the country creating a division having ‘firearms’ as guilty.
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
Opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. For the purposes of this paper "Gun Control" is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and the like. So defined, gun control understandably brings favorable responses from some, and angry objections from others. The gun control debate is generally publicized because of the efforts of the Pro-Gun Lobby or the Anti-Gun Lobby.
Taking into account of the recent shooting sprees, the gun control debate has started again. However, people have contemplated: “Why does America need gun laws” and “Why are so many states disagreeing about the restrictions that need to be put in place for civilians looking to purchase firearms.” The reasoning for such contemplation is that the fluxuating strictness of gun laws have led to several incidences within states that have strict gun laws due to the fact that the perpetrators of these incidences have purchased their firearms either from black markets, or states where the severity of gun control is at minimal levels.
The debate over the right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment has been a hotly contested issue for many years in American history. The matter has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first; disputed between politicians on the liberal and conservative side along with issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage. The Supreme Court has officially defined the controversial Second Amendment by stating that states have the right to maintain a militia separate from a federally controlled army (Gale Encyclopedia, pg. 155-162). However, “Courts have consistently held that the state and federal governments may lawfully regulate the sale, transfer, receipt, possession, and use of certain categories of firearms, as well as mandate who may and may not own a gun (Gale Encyclopedia, pg. 155-162).” Therefore, the issue is one that is extremely hard to clarify. Which side is right?
Ultimately, it is a person’s choice to use firearms to commit violent crimes. So criminals should be controlled, not the guns which they share with millions of law-abiding citizens. Gun control supporters claim that gun control lowers crime rate. We as people need to take a stand and fight for our Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates need to realize that passing laws that honest gun owners will not obey is a self-defeating strategy. Gun owners are not about to surrender their liberties or their right to bear arms. The Federal Govement of the United States should not be able to take away the right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun.
The conversation of gun control and gun regulation has been a great debate over the decades. NRA Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, in his speech on Newtown Shooting that occurred on December 21st, 2012, addresses the topic of gun control and argues that guns are not the cause of gun violence. LaPierre's project is to instead of gun control and decreasing the numbers of guns, increase the numbers of guns to solve the problem of gun violence. On the other side of debate, an American journalist, Nicholas Kristof, in his journal, "Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" argues that guns are the cause of gun violence, but they should not be banned. Kristof's project is to regulate guns with many cautions. While these two authors have different arguments and projects, they use similar strategies to advance their claims. This paper will focus on the way each author strategically uses compare and contrast, cause and effect, and problem-solution to advance their claims and how effective these strategies are used.
John Luik author of the article “The Increased Availability of Guns Reduces Crime” and Sabina Thaler the author of the article “The Claim of Increased Gun Availability Reduces Crime is Unfounded” are two examples of people having different opinions on such a debatable topic. Both authors talk about guns taking people’s lives, Thalers article focuses on guns taking innocent people’s lives, and Luiks article focuses on guns being innocent people’s protection. Many gun supporters will say that more guns will bring down the crime rate. These same believers will give facts stating that the more guns in a state, the less likely gun owners will use them. “The chances of innocent people being the victims of violent crime, including murder, decrease—not increase—when access to guns is made easier” (Luik).
In this article the author talks about the relationship between gun control laws and gun ownership rates in relation to crime rates. He informs his readers of the studies to determine whether gun ownership rates have any effect on criminal activity being that firearms are the leading cause of murders; and if by making gun control laws stricter will it lower the violent crime rates, and overall homicide rates.
Having said this, gun control, as well as other sociological problems, can be analyzed using the three major sociological theories. When discussing about guns, it can have numerous meanings and symbolism. Whether laws are put to control or go against laws, functional analysis and the conflict theory has it that its outcome will have consequences. To conclude sociology and each of its theories help one determine and understand the patterns of
Gun control can be defined as “the use of law to limit people's access to handguns, shotguns, rifles, and other firearms” ("Gun Control"). In other words, the government initiates a set of new regulations that gives the government the right to strip and monitor the firearms owned by the gun owners. The new demand for legislators to acknowledge and reform the gun laws present today because statistics show how guns has contribution to killings in America and the horrific tragedies. Every year in the U.S., an average of 100,000 people are shot, according to GunPolicy. Out of that 100,000 people shot, some of those victims consist of children, bystanders, fathers and mothers. The lethality of guns in 2011 firearms was responsible for 32,163 deaths in America (Alpers). Firearms have been used recklessly and claimed thousands of lives of Americans, increasing the death rate. If gun control was in effect and passed by legislators the deaths in America from firearms would not be so large. What also contributes to these facts is the ability to obtain guns for violent acts of crime which why the government need to suppressed and monitored firearms.
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.
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.
The development of arguments surrounding gun control corresponds to the increased violence and problems related to weapons and firearms use. This then prompted the expansion of gun control initiatives and has shapes public opinion particularly in the promotion of increased regulation to banning. Due to this, it became controversial as it split the opinions of the citizenry particularly in their stance to advance different objectives. Arguably, the process of developing gun control remains to be detrimental due to its capacity to challenge individual rights and liberty, undermine the value of guns and firearms in the promotion of deterrence and self-defense and inability to recognize the commitment of existing reasonable gun management and control initiatives already in place.