Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Should the united states pass strict gun control laws
Influence of mass shootings on gun control
Gun ownership should be restricted
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Does Obama Really Want to Take Our Guns?
Our country has always believed in a citizens right to own a gun. It is a principle that is so important to our country, that it is listed as the second of twenty-seven constitutional amendments. Gun control is a subject of great controversy that carries many true and false claims. Many people believe our second amendment rights are being attacked, and that the government wants to take our guns away. It is my belief that Obama does not want to take our guns, but future administrations may use laws made today to do just that in the future. As more gun related tragedies occur in our country, the question has become "How can we reduce gun violence in our county?", as opposed to "How can we take the peoples' guns away?", but are the laws that the Obama administration are attempting to make paving the way for Americans being disarmed in the future? In this paper, I hope to help the reader realize that Obama does not want to take our guns, but the actions we are taking now may not be the best decisions for the present or the future.
The majority of the time that gun control is discussed, you will hear points made such as "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Anti-gun-control lobbyists argue that Obama blames mass shootings, homicides, and suicides on guns. Is Obama placing blame in the wrong place? Those opposed to gun control argue that it is the mentally ill and insane killing people, and they question why is Obama placing gun restrictions, when it is not the guns fault? Ultimately, it is people that kill people, and the Obama administration agrees. This is why President Obama's plan includes research for the mentally ill, funding for treatment of the mentally ill, an...
... middle of paper ...
...
The Obama administration is making valiant efforts to reduce gun violence in our country, and protect American citizens, but they need to re-evaluate some of their efforts. Both advocates of gun control and groups that oppose gun control were stricken with heartbreak over the massive shootings. Both parties want to help reduce gun violence, but is the Obama administration taking the right steps? Even though Obama and his administration have good intentions, they do not have the most efficient approach to reduction of gun violence. They are so worried about the safety of our people, that they are creating laws from a knee jerk reaction. As a country, we need to realize that these laws are the starting points of losing our 2nd amendment freedoms, and we to acknowledge that these restrictions are not the best way to prevent further violence in the future.
Efforts to promote gun control date back to the 1960s. For instance, The Gun Control Act of 1968 attempted to keep firearms away from people not of age, and holding a criminal background. Even though these laws exist, people wanting to harm still find ways of legally obtaining firearms. Sick people will go out of their ways to get what they want; the only thing we could do is make it harder for them to obtain weapons by making background checks more complex. I personally believe that it is President Barack Obama 's job to address these issues and bring about reforms for he is the highest official of this national. Furthermore, according to Infoplease, Obama is trying to address gun control: “...His plan includes universal background checks for gun sales, the reinstatement and strengthening of the assault weapons ban, limiting ammunition magazines to a 10-round capacity, and other measures” (Gettings). Things need to be done to reduce the number of tragedies. As stated, “Close to 33,000 Americans were victims of gun-related deaths in 2011 and an average of 268 citizens are shot every day” (Daily Record Staff).The chart on the right shows that only a few states have current laws designed to protect citizens. One could infer that the death rate in the United States is awfully high. Specifically, California 's current gun control legislation is said to be one of the best. Many bills have passed in an
A growing number of publicized tragedies caused by gun violence have caused a great stir in the American community. Recently, President Barack Obama has made proposals to tighten the regulation of and the restrictions on the possession of weapons in America to lessen these tragedies. Should the legislative branch decide in favor of his proposals, all American citizens who do or wish to own the type of weapons in question or who use current loopholes in existing policy would be directly affected. His proposals, which are to “require background checks for all gun sales, strengthen the background check system for gun sales, pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons, limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets, give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime, end the freeze on gun violence research, make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates, [and] ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people,” have been cause for a large amount of recent debate (whitehouse.gov).
“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.
With all the shootings and random acts of violence, such as the shooting at the movie theatre in Colorado, or the Sandy Hook shootings, stricter gun control laws have been a hot topic in politics and the national mainstream media. The government thinks that gun control being stricter would help to make less of these tragic incidences occur. I am against this thought because I believe that the law-abiding citizens will be the only ones to give up their guns and criminals will then have an upper hand on the innocent. Even though banning guns is supposed to save lives, cities such as Chicago have already shown that stricter gun laws should not be passed because violent murders are still prevalent in these types of cities and strict gun laws have not worked like they were supposed to.
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.
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...
The crime control policy that President Obama has focused heavily on has been the political agenda to try and stop gun induced violence. In January of this year President Obama introduced six proposals to address federal gun laws, requiring licensing and background checks for gun sellers, hiring more FBI personnel for background checks, hiring more agents for enforcement, more funding for the treatment for the mentally ill, requiring gun dealers to report lost or stolen guns, and additional research regarding gun violence and safety (Obama’s Gun Proposal, 2016). President Obama’s Gun control policies were influenced by mass shootings that have taken place throughout cities all over America and his stance has been to improve safety and reduce gun induced
“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.
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.
In 1982, a survey of male inmates from eleven different penitentiaries, stated that sixty-nine percent of the prisoners knew another criminal that had been scared off, wounded, or decided not to commit a crime because they thought the victim had a gun (Agresti and Smith). As The United States heads to the end of 2013, current gun control debates are striking the nation, leaving everyone to develop their own positions on which side of the debate they want to be on. Gun control is defined as efforts to regulate or control sales of guns; however, most of what we hear from other people is that Obama wants to take away every gun in the nation. That’s not entirely true. Obama’s proposal to Congress is a law that would increase background check protocols, ban assault weapons, high-capacity ammunition, and armor-piercing bullets. The proposal also provides more funding for additional police officers on the streets, first response training, mental health programs, and school emergency plans.
On Friday morning, November 6th, a man in New York city woke up and watched the news. There he saw former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, announcing his ideas for gun control. The news stated that after spending millions of dollars to spread his “Everytown for Gun Safety” across the country, United States citizens were still not impressed. Bloomberg’s main goals are to enforce stricter background checks, remove guns from domestic abusers, and give families the right to remove guns from people they believe are dangerous. According to the “Gun Control Overview,” pro-gun control advocates only focus on a select few gun violence issues, and they tend to repeat the same examples in their rhetoric. The gun control is one of the most debated
Crime rate in the United States has been at an all-time high in the past few years. According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, there have been 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870. According to the gun violence archive, 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, and 26,819 people were injured. As you can see, 2015 was a big year with gun violence in the United States and since then nothing has changed, to this day we are still seeing these statistics for death by guns in the United States. Instead of the government focusing on gun control laws, I believe that they should look at different alternatives. Some of these alternatives could be to register citizens with aggressive mental disabilities and emotional instabilities and increase research for effective treatments and cures because in most of these cases the shooters have been found to have a mental disability. We can also abolish gun-free zones apart from schools, banks, mass transit hubs, hospitals, and government buildings so that concealed carry is legal in these zones. The government can enforce stricter punishments for crimes committed with a deadly weapon and more laws protecting citizens who are forced to use a firearm in self-defense. So, in the case of a civilian using
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.
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.