Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Constitutional interpretation critique essay
Gun culture in the united states paper
Public opinion on guns
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Constitutional interpretation critique essay
A culture of violence affects America. The neoliberal logic of a gun culture atomizes individuals, and has historically led to people abrogating their roles as common citizens. The gun rights lobby has perpetuated an ableist discourse to shift responsibility away from the gun culture. It is not “crazy” people that will kill with guns, but a cultural system that tells people to deal with their own problems that kills people. It is a gun culture that perpetuates the pick yourself up by the bootstraps logic, that praised people for using guns violently. Moreover, the common tagline from gun’s right lobbyists usually goes something like, "pick up your guns and serve your country. These types of ideas are part of a culture of violence that seeps …show more content…
The biggest problem with banning an item only in a single city or a state is that cities do not have borders. It could be the case that banning guns might be an action in good faith [source 6] but, banning guns in one state is not an effective way of trying to exercise a law. Banning a gun in one city is only going to cause people to buy guns in different locations. Although, it may be the case that the level of crime may go down in certain areas, that fact is entirely circumstantial. Tamir Rice and many similar examples of gun violence prove that the culture that the United States has created through the perpetuation of guns needs to be stopped. It is not possible to stop a culture with such an inertial movement as the gun culture simply by banning guns in a city. In particular, the legalization of the gun culture has continued to skew the culture throughout America [source 13]. There are times when the constitution does not provide a complete analysis of a problem today. While the constitution is the backbone of the American government, it is essential that the constitution is interpreted as a living document so it does not become dispensable because of the nature of time. The constitution needs to be changed to reflect the needs of a current society, or face becoming unessential to
Mark Twain told us in his speech on October 17, 1907 "We build a fire in a powder magazine, then double the fire department to put it out. We inflame wild beasts with the smell of blood, and then innocently wonder at the wave of brutal appetite that sweeps the land as a consequence." Twain’s word convey the fact that as society we build an environment that enrages these wild or “insane” people then we call To fix the people that we have made into a certain way……... Twain's quote both ties into gun violence and us as Americans it's our responsibility to look out for one another be each others backbones and hold each other up when times are hard.
”(Gopinak, 2007, p. 458 ). This demonstrates that United States is just not inclined to take any action on gun control which is leading to deaths of children and adults. Some individuals believe handguns are not needed in American 's society. Then those who oppose gun control argue guns are a necessity to: hunting in the wild, self-defense, and it is part of the American culture. Furthermore, gun violence is having a vast impact on loved ones; losing a family member can have enormous affect socially, physical and mentally.
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.
‘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 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 violence in the United States is higher than ever, and criminals with guns will “…kill as many as 1000 people each day” (Alpers&Wilson). Taking this into perspective, it is only right to fight fire with fire or, in this case, use a gun to protect yourself and those around you. Gun control does not only decrease the ability for protection, it also decreases our rights as U.S citizens. The constitution clearly states that we are given the right to bear arms, meaning we may carry fire arms. Even if we have stricter laws for guns, it will not stop killers from shooting innocent people. These men and women causing damage to the lives of numerous individuals do not care if there is a law banning guns, because all they truly want to do is hurt others. The pain citizens endure every day from losing a family member, friend, or even just a colleague is repulsive. These permanent deaths continue to make people fearful and it causes damage in their lives; unless something is done. Most people agree that action needs to be taken to stop this inhumane cruelty, but the question is; what can be done? Americans need protection, rights, and power to break this inexcusable gun violence circling America. Gun restrictions for trustworthy and reliable gun owners have not been proven to weaken gun violence in the United States; therefore, gun control should be limited because it is only hurting America, not helping it.
Each person has a different view on the world. If a person is asked about their view on a certain subject, they will likely show support or disdain for the subject. For example, some people believe abortion is morally wrong. Others view abortion as the mother’s choice since she is carrying the child. On the issue of gun control, people are usually either for or against stricter gun laws. Why do people view the world in the way they do? How do people decide what stance to take on an issue? To answer these questions, sociologists look at the sociological perspective which “stresses the social contexts in which people live” and “examines how these contexts influence people’s lives” (Henslin, 2013, p. 4). Furthermore, the sociological perspective
“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.
The first reason handguns should be outlawed for ordinary citizens is because their main purpose is simply to kill other human beings. Why would our country allow us to have the right to own an object that is deadly? Our government seems to want to protect us. For example, seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws were created to protect our lives. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces pollution laws to keep us safe and healthy. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects food and tests drugs to make sure American citizens are not harmed by nasty food and dangerous drugs. Yet, our government allows just about anybody to own and walk around with guns. It does not appear our government really cares about our safety. If it did, handguns would be outlawed for the general public, because their only purpose is to kill people.
Gun violence has been and continues to be one of the major problems in American. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and consequently the highest rate of gun violence and fatalities compared to other developed countries. In a study by the University of Sydney it is estimated that there are 270,000,000 to 310,000,000 guns in the United States. According to the same study in 2010 there were 31,672 fatalities caused by firearms and on the following year the number went up to 32,163. Homicides resulting from guns are high in the United States and they are claiming more than eleven thousand lives every year (Guns in the United States: Firearms, Armed Violence and Gun Law). According to Vision for Humanity, an initiative for the Economics and Peace, the United States is ranked 99 out of 162 countries in the 2013 global peace index, homicide rates and violent crimes are among the various criteria used to determine the ranking (Vision of Humanity). Mass shootings at work places, schools, shopping malls and places of worship are happening in an a...
Author Asha Bendele talks about this subject in her article, “Loss & Hope.” She states that, “According to The U.S Census Bureau, it (Chicago) has the highest crime rate throughout the nation” (112). The average person in Chicago cannot legally get access to a firearm, but yet people still are able to get their hands on them. This significantly proves that a gun ban will do nothing but hurt this country and make criminal activity rise. Most of those against the Second Amendment, want other major cities to model what Chicago has done with gun laws. Once these other cities begin to model themselves after the city of Chicago, we would immediately start to see an increase of violence, drug use and firearm related crime. Schools have also become victim to the “gun free zone” curse. Serious criminals know that, in these areas, there is no one that can stand up to them, which gives them plenty of time to commit these evil acts and get away unharmed. Author Grant Arnold discusses this in, “Arming the Good Guys: School Zones and the Second Amendment.” He states, “Policies making areas ‘gun free’ provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren 't stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it 's the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law” (487). We need to realize that “gun free zones” are really just an area for the people there to be sitting ducks. The last thing we ever want to see on the news, is the death of a child who was unprotected due to these laws. The only way we can ever think to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a
Today in the United States many people argue over the fact of guns being legal or illegal. There are people using guns for personal safety and there are others who use them for crimes, as well as for other situations. Firearm deaths in the United States have slowly been decreasing from year to year with all these bills getting passed to promote a safer country than ever before. Guns are the main weapon for youth suicide, school shootings, and for committing murder. In 2010 there were 2,711 infants, child, and teenage firearm deaths. As in school shootings and in committing murder, studies show shooters often had multiple, non-automatic guns, shootings were planned, most youth tell before shooting, shooters have a history of being bullied or threatened, shooters have mental issues, and shooters have done suicidal gestures before (Gun Control with School Shootings). Although there are people who use guns for murdering, there are also those who oppose guns being used without the proper requirements. 85% of all respondents to the survey supporting requiring states to report people to national background-checks systems who are prohibited from owning gu...
What is the importance of the gun? The gun is one of the most important tools in the defense of our nation. Guns are responsible for a lot of death and injuries, but these things were going on before the existence of the gun. Guns aren't the reason for the death and injuries, they are just a means to it. They are tools and an engineering marvel of our age. The gun has evolved from a simple weapon that caused limited destruction to the modern gun that is so fast and powerful it is capable of mass destruction. Through the evolution of the gun, it has become a political tool.
The American Constitution is sacred in that it hasn’t changed for hundreds of years, but it has come to our attention that some of the amendments are outdated. The second amendment states that everyone has a right to bear arms which sounds righteous and fair, but we live in a far different time than our fathers that wrote the Constitution did. Today, we have real problems with guns because it is so easy to obtain and so many misuse the power of such a dangerous weapon. It has always been American culture that owning a gun as a household self defense tool is considered a norm. The many cases of mass shootings made some people demand stricter regulations on gun or even ban guns completely. However, it would be illegal for the US government to ban guns, as laid down in the Constitution. It would seem “unamerican” that a man doesn’t have the right to buy a gun if he wanted to. It is also difficult to make any changes on gun laws, because of the National Rifle Association. It is an incredibly powerful organisation that represents gun owners ' rights. It is also known as one of the most influential lobbying groups in Washington. In order to lay stricter laws on guns, the government would have to go through them first. “[The NRA] have the ability to recruit and fund competitors for politicians who don’t listen to them. Lawmakers like their jobs and most try to keep them for life” (Culhane, 2015, p.2). The NRA have many wealthy members, and it is corrupted. Whenever congress tries to restrict any gun rights, the NRA will help any campaign financially to defeat them. Even though majority of the people in America want to change the gun laws, they are not as strong as the NRA. The NRA is strongly supportive of the American gun culture. Therefore, any suggestions that disadvantage gun right will be drowned to
There are many advantages and disadvantages in living together before marriage. Today there are many couples living together before marriage. Sometimes these kinds of relationships 'living together before marriage' end up with success and sometimes they are unsuccessful. Some of the advantages of living together before marriage are such as getting to know your partner, learning about one's abilities if he/she can satisfy your expectations and more. Also, there are some disadvantages in living together before marriage and they are such as religious and family values, parenting problems and more. I think there are more advantages then disadvantages in living together before marriage, because sometimes disadvantages in this kind of relationship are avoidable.