Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Controversy over the second amendment
Gun control negative effects
Gun control negative effects
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Controversy over the second amendment
A controversial topic that has been an issue in the United States for years since the enactment of the Second Amendment is the issue of gun control. In the past, the United States have had numerous issues with gun control; as a result, the Second Amendment was added to resolve this issue. Before the creation of the Second Amendment the main purpose of guns were for self protection, hunting, and territorial expansion. The first pioneers to arrive in America had to use guns to protect themselves from animals and the Native Americans. The use of guns also helped the pioneers to hunt for food and to expand their territories. During the years of 1880-1920 the prohibition era started in the United States, which led to an increase in gangsters and …show more content…
The first reason why they support gun control is because all types of firearms result in accidental shootings. The evidence they provide is that in the year of 2010 alone, firearms have taken the lives of 31,076 people. The next reason is that firearms cause an increase in emotional killings. Emotional killings can happen at anytime, especially if an individual owns or carries a gun at all times. This is dangerous because if one is suffering from a recent loss of a loved one, lost their job, or a disease they will release their anger on people they do not know. The final reason is that guns create an increased risk to public safety. Public safety is one of the most crucial departments that protect the society from crimes and disasters. Public safety personnel already put their lives on the line to protect and rescue civilians, and guns in the possession of unauthorized civilians will worsen the situation due to their inability to use a …show more content…
As it is stated in the second paragraph, having guns can result in accidental shootings. There have been stories about children injuring themselves with a gun because it was loaded and was not properly kept hidden away by the family. Another example is that there would be an increase in emotional killings. Emotional killings is also another important reason why people should not own a firearm. There are many families that go through tough times and if they have in their possession a firearm there is a high chance it will be used harm
Then those who oppose gun control argue guns are a necessity: 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 affects socially, physically and mentally.
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
The two sides of this argument are the pro and anti gun groups. The anti-gun groups main goals range from more stringent gun control laws to a total ban on handguns. The political supporters of this group are susally liberal democrats and a few other small independedt groups such as Handgun Control Inc. Their main arguments are questionin gth eoriginal intent of the framers of the constituion adn the way of life in the time it was written, and also the purpose of guns in modern siciety. For thte most part, their claims are mainly emotional and use popular incidences adn the high number of people killed annually from firearms and, gun saftey in households. On the other side of the fence is the pro-gun grouuups who lobby to support law abiding citizens' second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Their suporters tend to be conservative republicans and pro-gun groups. The most popular of these groups is the NRA(National Rifle Association) which is a strong political group consisting of over three million members. Theses groups tend to use statistics and sases wehre lives have been saved by the use of firearms while strongly stressing gun saftey and training programs. They favor strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights. INthsi paper I am taking a stand against gun control. I feel that law abiding citizens should be entitled to their second ammendment rights to keep and bear arms for the purposes of protection of home, property, and person.
“Prohibition did not achieve its goals. Instead, it added to the problems it was intended to solve.” On 16th January 1920, one of the most common personal habits and customs of American society came to a halt. The eighteenth amendment was implemented, making all importing, exporting, transporting, selling and manufacturing of intoxicating liquors absolutely prohibited. This law was created in the hope of achieving the reduction of alcohol consumption, which in turn would reduce: crime, poverty, death rates, and improve both the economy, and the quality of life for all Americans. These goals were far from achieved. The prohibition amendment of the 1920's was ineffective because it was unenforceable. Instead, it caused various social problems such as: the explosive growth of organized crime, increased liquor consumption, massive murder rates and corruption among city officials. Prohibition also hurt the economy because the government wasn’t collecting taxes on the multi-billion dollar a year industry.
B) Thesis statement: Gun control is a huge epidemic for the United States of America. The second amendment. The second amendment states "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." Which states that American citizens can be able to carry firearms. I am against gun control because they are too many instincts when a mass shooting will happen and it could have been promoted with strict gun control laws. For example on July 20, 2012 a mass shooting happened at the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. It occurred at a midnight premiere for The Dark Knight Rises a gunman named James Eagan Holmes through tear gas in the crowd and shot
Gun control is a highly controversial topic in today’s world where the fight is between the liberal and the conservatives. Many people believe that guns should be banned due to many recent massacres that have happened whereas others are wanting people to have background checks done before owning a gun. I am against gun control because banning handguns in the United States should not be allowed because handguns fail to protect the people and it is ineffective.
Crime has been the issue since the beginning of human government. The question, how does one reduce crime? - has pondered the thoughts of many. The solutions comes in all forms. One of these being gun control. However there is a problem with gun control. Whether it is a law abiding citizen or a criminal, they will end up with more guns. The British in 1776 lost a war against one of her colonies, now known as the United States of America. It started over the taking of arms and ended with men baring arms. The fact of matter is, gun control does not work.
Crime and guns. The two seem to go hand in hand with one another. But are the two really associated? Do guns necessarily lead to crime? And if so do laws placing restrictions on firearm ownership and use stop the crime or protect the citizens? These are the questions many citizens and lawmakers are asking themselves when setting about to create gun control laws. The debate over gun control, however, is nothing new. In 1924, Presidential Candidate, Robert La Follete said, “our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions.” Clearly this debate still goes on today and is the very reason for the formation of gun control laws.
Due to the recent disruption of violent crimes on campus, many citizens that are pro-gun activist have suggested that both the students and teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on school campuses. Those who are with guns allowed on school campuses claim that their rights have been violated for the reason that many college campuses refuse to allow weapons of any kind on their property. The Constitution of The United States of America already grants citizens the right to carry guns with them. It is not appropriate for guns to be in a vulnerable area such as a college campus or any University. There are already too many guns available to the public or easy to get any kind of gun, and allowing them on
The day our school had a mass shooting all they heard was gunshots, the teacher screaming at the kids to get down and under their desks as she ran out of the room soon to be back in a panic the kids looked up to the man with the gun. Then a few more shots go off and it was so silent for a second to only realize that the police had shot the man with the gun. Are guns really the cause of mass shootings, or is it the people who should never have been allowed a gun in their hands, in the first place. Therefore stricter gun control laws won't stop gun violence.
The problem with guns is fairly obvious: they decrease the difficulty of killing or injuring a person. In Jeffrey A. Roth's Firearms and Violence (NIJ Research in Brief, February 1994), he points out the obvious dangers. About 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. Firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985, the cost of shootings was an estimated $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed.
All of this talk about gun control is really getting on my nerves. Why does it really matter who owns a gun and who doesn’t? Why is it that you have to register the gun you bought in your name? That’s not really any one's business. Why is it that everyone must pass a background check to be able to purchase a gun? Who cares if the buyer is a prison escapee? That’s a little too personal if you ask me.This is America for goodness sake, land of the free! Everyone should be able to purchase their own gun and do as they please with it. It will make life a lot easier and a lot safer.
Many people will try to argue that the use of guns is dangerous, but it is the best source of protection in most cases. Without guns people are left helpless with no way to protect themselves. Without guns, criminals are more likely to break into houses,
Gun control is one of the most debatable topics today. Thirty-three million Americans own firearms for hunting (Aitkens 9). But hunting is not the sole reason for which many individuals buy firearms. Of all countries, the United States is the one which is troubled most by a large number of criminals who are in possession of guns. The U.S. has the highest firearm murder rate of any democracy in the world (Aitkens 5). Where is the country going wrong as far as gun control is concerned? An immense number of laws have been created by the legislature. All were made in order to be sure guns remain in control of the right hands, yet the problems seem to prevail. All three branches of government (judicial, legislative, and executive) are involved in desperate attempts to improve the situation. Getting rid of guns would not work; it would be an impossible task. But, if pressure was applied to all aspects of gun employment - production, ownership, and most importantly dealership - a majority of problems could be controlled.
Who will obey gun control laws? Will the criminals who routinely break the laws? Will the drug dealers? Will the mentally unbalanced who insist that the only way to alleviate their mental illness is to shoot someone? Will the school children be any safer if gun control laws are passed? Putting control on guns should not be enforced as a law because it won’t protect anyone and it can cause more harm than good. You can have your n the meantime colleges, theaters, high schools and worst of all, elementary children will all pay with deaths in their buildings..