More handpicked essays just for you.
Conclucion essayon the second amendment
Second amendment and its impact on the issue of gun ownership
Conclucion essayon the second amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In “Get A Knife, Get A Dog, But Get Rid Of Guns,” Molly Ivins believes in strict gun control among citizens who are not armed forces or badged members of the society. Ivins supports the Second Amendment, but takes it literally and word for word. She believes that people can get killed easier cleaning guns than knives. The author compares gun killing to automobile killings and how you have to be licensed to drive them but we do not regulate guns. Ivins does not believe that people are using guns to hunt and put food on the table, instead they are using them for harmful reasons. She thinks that guns should be left to the people that have extensive training and discipline. Ivins’ thought is that a dog should be protection enough for everyone. …show more content…
The older generations really used hunting for putting food on the table for their families and still do today. The younger generations are still hunting to put food on the table but some have also turned it into a sport. The hunters that are “sports” hunting just to shoot a gun are the hunters that Ivins is referring to with a bad name. Fathers are teaching their sons and daughters to shoot guns for hunting at a younger age every year. With this this teaching some of the fathers are not teaching the responsibility though of the guns and this is where the issues lie with the gun safety. Guns should not be ban people just need to make sure that they are teaching safety when they are teaching their kids how to use a gun to …show more content…
Guns in the wrong hands can be bad just like a car in the wrong hands or a knife in the wrong hands. Everyone is not going to treat a gun with the same respect that it should be treated with but that does not mean that it should be taken away from everyone else. Guns continue to protect people whether they are in the hand of a badge officer or a regular civilian. Hunters are still using guns to teach lessons to upcoming generations about putting food on the table. Guns are a valuable part of life and always will
In the article “A peaceful Woman Explains Why She Carriers a Gun,” the author Linda M. Hasselstrom has a credible argument for carrying a gun. Hasselstrom has a solid ethical appeal and her argument had logic based on her many dangerous personal experiences. Although her article is credible, she uses many fallacies to make it seem that if women have a gun they can protect themselves from men.
Gun Control in America is seen as ineffective, citizens believe gun control laws in place are not protecting lives, but taking them away. In order to solve this problem, many think more laws should be put in place. By doing so, they believe guns would no longer be in the hands of criminals and lives would not be ended before their time. In Christine Watkins’s article, “Stronger Gun Control Will Save Lives” She explains that if guns were objects that truly kept us safe, America would be the safest country in the world. She also states that a gun in any home is more likely to be mistreated, causing an accidental shooting. She also hints that more common sense laws would greatly benefit gun owners (Stronger Gun Control). One of her points is quite agreeable, more common sense gun laws would be entirely useful in the long run. By having more safety guidelines, such as; trigger locks, which make it so the gun cannot be used, keeping the ammunition and the gun separated, never pointing a gun at another person, unless your life is in life threatening danger, making sure the weapon is properly cleaned on a regular basis, and even teaching children how to properly handle weapons. By taking these common sense precautions to use, it would prevent innumerable accidental misfires in homes. On the other hand, laws put in place to simply make it more difficult to obtain a weapon is not the answer. By keeping guns out of the lawful citizen’s hands, only the lawbreakers will benefit. Author John R. Lott, Jr. wrote the book entitled More Guns Less Crimes, informs readers that by having a concealed weapon, as opposed to carrying a weapon openly, carries more potential to reduce crime rates across America. By concealing a weapon, no one knows who is ...
He demonstrates when guns are found in every household, gun control can do little to restrict access to guns from potential criminals. (McMahan, 3) So, McMahan’s main premises comes 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.
The right to hunt is the law. The twenty-ninth Article states, "...securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others..." If this is the law then it can not be infringed. With this there really is no question of big game hunting. These rights are personal rights of the citizens of the United States. Parents can choose what they want for there own children and let them do what they desire, and if that desire is hunting then let it be. When other people who oppose hunting try and stop this freedom then they are the ones at fault and are doing wrong by infringing on the rights of others. These actions are illegal and should be taken care of. In C M Dixon's article, "The Banning of Hunting is an Affront to Freedom," he stated that, "He has never heard of hunters violating the just requirements of public order or general welfare" (2). From the hunting experiences that I have had I agree with this statement one hundred percent.
In today’s world, guns used in the home for protection purposes are becoming more of a danger than an object of security. They have taken over the interest of everyone who thinks they are in danger. Even with the protection of a handgun, statistics show that crimes are still being committed. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics “an average of only about 65,000 defensive uses of guns each year compared to the more than 800,000 crimes committed with guns” (Mcdowell 1982-84). Guns are a danger in the household if marital disputes and domestic violence are present. If a gun is a readily available object then the chances of it being used to let out anger and frustration instead of self-protection is great. Mercy Saltzman reports that “having a gun in the home also increases the risk that incidents of domestic violence will result in homicide.” He goes on to point out “family and intimate assaults involving firearms are twelve times more likely to result in death than non-firearm related assaults” (Saltzman 3043-47). In lieu of these statements, one can see the present danger in keeping a firearm in a household.
“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 in the United States has been a major debate for hundreds of years. Many people believe that guns should be highly regulated while others believe that anyone should have the ability to own one. Each side has a plausible argument. Throughout this essay it will be show how not having gun control can increase violence and death rates, the right for everyone to own a gun is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and how over usage of guns has played a role in the diminishing populations of animals.
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.
Over the years some of the reasons to own guns have changed. As Americans moved west fulfilling Manifest Destiny, making new towns along the way which were far away from any established law. These people made laws through the barrel of a gun. Of course crime still happened, but not nearly as often, when the townspeople simply hunted down and shot the criminal. Eventually, police forces arose in the Midwest, and fewer people carried guns with them on the street but they were still there, visible or not.
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...
Most criminals are deterred to do crime when they realize someone is armed. No one smart, willingly wants to put themselves in a position to be shot. Wayne quoted “39 percent did not commit specific crime for the fear that the victim was armed.” A natural fear lies with the human being, he will take precautions to make sure he is safe. When the citizen is armed and one can see that. It is a deterrent for the criminal to pursue that being. Conceal carry is on the rise, now criminals must be extra cautious of their target, for it may lead to their demise. An argument from the opposite side on the matter is that the conceal carry community is a threat to law enforcement, however 57 percent of non-law abiding citizens have a worse fear of being stopped by the averaged armed citizen then by the police force. The people are not bounded to as much regulation as an officer. The only variable for a citizen’s permission to shoot is, is his life is in danger or someone else’s life is in danger, or if property is being taken or invaded. Police have more regulation for their reasons to shoot a
There is an American consensus for some form of gun control. “…[F]irearms were involved in two-thirds of all murders in the United States and [t]he United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths…murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology” (Lepore). There might be some far extreme people who think that all guns should be banned but most sane Americans do not think that gun rights should be abolished. Americans regard self-defense as the most compelling reason to have a gun and twenty-two percent of households have handguns in the United States. However many people do think that gun control laws must be enacted and enforced. Pro-gun extremists and the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) must understand that there is a real for many people at the uncontrolled s...
First, and foremost many handguns have claimed the lives of too many people. This is a very serious issue we must tackle globally not just in the United States. The same problem is killing our past, present, and future. Gun violence has claimed the lives of so many Americans that we are the leading country in crimes committed by guns. These guns are claiming the lives of people ranging from babies to adults to even the elderly. Handguns are just causing too many deaths.
Some Americans are convinced that more federal regulation of firearms is necessary to reduce the number of murders that are committed with guns and to ensure a safer, more civilized society. Others who support private ownership of guns insist that the right to bear arms is guaranteed by longstanding custom and by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and that no cyclical increase in crime, no mass killing, nor any political murders should lead the nation to violate the Constitution and the individual rights it guarantees. What’s more, they say, knives and other instruments are used to kill people, and there is no talk of regulating or banning them.
The Crux,. 'If You Believe In "Gun Control," This Is Probably Not For You... '. N.p., 2014. Web. 30 Oct.