Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Guns in usa introduction
Guns in usa introduction
Guns in usa introduction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Guns in usa introduction
Gun violence is a very big topic in the u.s.. some people support the idea of carrying a gun and some people are against it. In the past 5 years many schools have been attacked by criminals with guns and many children and teachers died. So the question is, is it right to carry a gun?
On October 1st, 2015 there was a shooting in Umpqua College, a 26 year old man went into a classroom and killed ten people, and seven were wounded. The killer died when he was fighting with the police. They shot him and he went back to the classroom and killed himself. Ten people died because of this man and it was all because he carried three guns with him. They searched his apartment and found more guns there. They were all purchased legally. Ever
…show more content…
Some people argue that it 's wrong either ways, and that no matter what the circumstance is you shouldn 't be carrying a gun. But according to our constitution, we have the right to carry a gun. A lot of people are trying to protest against Dwidari 2 that law because they think it 's wrong and that there are other ways to defend yourself. They say the police is a better option. Leave it to the police. Both sides have points to this topic.
At some points guns are useful, for example when my mom was younger she used to live in sierra leone, a small country in west africa. There are a lot of rebels there. My grandpa used to sell jewelry and a bunch of rebels came to his house to rob him and my grandpa ran inside and pulled out a gun and started shooting because they had guns and were shooting too. So my grandpa shot them while protecting my family, but did not kill any of them.They all got arrested. So my point is sometimes carrying a gun can be helpful but don 't abuse its power. People who say calling the police isn 't enough, and that guns are the answer, they have a point. If a man breaks in your house and has a gun, the police will not show up to your house right away.
…show more content…
He said that all guns should have background checks. Which is smart because you 'll know if the person is a criminal and what the criminal is most likely going to do with it. He also wants to ban the sale of military weapons, They shouldn 't be selling weapons like that because those are high grade and people can do serious damage with
One of the biggest debates in education is how to respond to gun violence in schools. According to BBC, “There were 64 school shootings in 2015” (BBC). One response to the rise in gun violence in schools is to arm teachers. Even our President has mentioned “giving a bonus” (Davis 2) to teachers that The fact that the idea of arming teachers is even being discussed is disappointing. Bringing more guns into a school is not the answer to gun violence. Most people that defend the idea that guns will “help” keep schools safe have basically three points: (1) teachers will be trained in gun safety, (2) it helps deter potential school shooters, and (3) it will make the students feel more safe. Even though there is some truth to those points, I think that the cons of arming teachers vastly outweigh the pros of arming teachers.
New York Times writer Jeff McMahan argues in his 2012 article, “Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough”, that the United States should ban gun ownership entirely, or almost entirely. (McMahan, 1) McMahan creates his main argument around the idea that when more and more citizens become armed, “criminals work to be better armed and more efficient in their use of guns.” (McMahan, 1) Ultimately, he argues that although some with guns may be safer than if they were without the guns, but the without guns become much more vulnerable. So why not just arm everyone with guns as gun activists would say, then wouldn't everyone be safer? No. As McMahan points out, “When more citizens get guns, further problems arise: people who would have once have got in a fistfight
This is called the right to bear arms and is guarantee under the U.S. Constitution. The second amendment clearly states that “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 first ten amendments are also known as the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the pro-gun activists are right. The right to bear arms like the right to free speech should be protected. However, the pro-gun activists do not the fully understand the reasons for this right. The right is for protection not from burglars but from Indians and the state. At the time the U.S. Constitution was written, many American families were living on the frontier lines where there would be a continual threat from Indians. The U.S. had a standing army but it was too far and is not readily available to protect these families when Indians would attack. This made it necessary for families to have guns in the home. The Indians were an external threat. An internal threat was the government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that if a government failed to protect its citizen and instead became the enemy, the citizens had the right to overthrow it. After the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers did not want to replace an oppressing army which was the British with one of their own. They felt that an armed citizen was the best type of army. This is what was meant by a well regulated militia. The militia would consist of every able-bodied man who was trained using their own arms for purposes of local defense and in actual military events. This local well regulated militia is the equivalent of the National Guard. In present times, we no longer have the need to protect ourselves from Indians. As for an oppressed government, we have our National Guard. The original intent of the right to bear arms does not apply to modern
In current day society, it is frequently promoted as self-defense and our “duty” as Americans to own a gun of some sort. The second amendment to the constitution declares that “We the People” are allowed to bear arms because we live in a free State. Although these statements are true, at what cost? The question, “at what cost,” arises due to the recent push for an extension and enforcement of the second amendment. The people of the States have been pushing for desired concealed carry at public areas, such as schools. Statements and questions of concern have been on the as to whether or not this idea is “smart”. Contrary of it allowing some people to feel safe, the idea should be imposed. Guns are weapons and they have the history behind them
Take a look at the history of our country and the role guns have played in it. According to the second amendment gun ownership is perfectly legal and guaranteed as a right. There were and are good reasons for this, luckily they are still practiced today. Back in the day guns used to be for hunting and, on the occasion self defense. But when the colonists of this country had enough of British rule, they picked up there own personal guns and went to war and the British saw first hand how powerful the rough band of average American gun owners were. Our forefathers knew that the general population if armed would be key in winning the war. And it was.
If there was no gun control, then the rates of gun deaths might easily skyrocket. An example of why gun control is essential is when one considers the various instances of a mass shooting. Whenever gun related crimes happen, such as the shooting of cops, black people, or a mass shooting in schools, the country turns into national mourning, meaning that this has an effect on all Americans. The laws as they are now, and some of those that have been proposed, do not have sufficient guidelines in place to prevent such gun related deaths. Certainly, there is a need for more restrictive laws, and arguments for further restriction include societal needs, the increasing rates of the gun-related violence as well as death, questions of availability and
The United States is a free country, and people think the right to bear arms is a basic right that every American has. This second amendment adopted in the Bill of Rights since 1791, it gives every U.S. citizen the right to keep and bear arms. Since this right got adopted, there are a lot of controversies around it, about regarding how, where, when, and why people should have the right to bear arms. This is an issue that most Americans should care about because it is about everybody’s safety. Some people say that because of people can carry gun freely, the ratio of crime and violation keeps rising. People always think gun is an evil thing that is only hurting and killing, but people do not know that it is the people who control the gun is evil, not the gun. American citizens should continue to have the rights to bear arms, because its benefits are significant to everybody; people use gun for protection, defense themselves from other threats, and also for many recreational activities.
Like Mr. Cuellar said “ Being an US Customs I know any one with a gun in a shooting will help out to, there is more good people then bad and together we can take them down , that’s why I am with guns allowed in school campus , for the reason that I am also a father and care for the safety of my family members”. As he mentioned it can also be protection for oneself when you encounter a problematic situation. There are good reasons why we should allow them but there is more bad ones than good. Some people say that they’ll feel more protective if they have a gun with them , knowing someone you don’t know has one. If guns would be allowed under strictly rules and would have a lot of training and permissions / test people have to go through maybe like that I will be safe in school with guns
Gun rights are the source of much controversy in today’s society. People have been skeptic after the multiple shootings that happened in the past few years. Recently, the NRA has been under constant threat by Congress. Background checks are not effective as planned. In order to keep the gun rights, changes need to be made in order to prevent gun control from being created.
American citizens have the fundamental right to defend themselves. Americans also have the right to resist any crime that as the potential to cause great bodily harm or damage. To ignore these rights would be completely ignorant. Here in America, the right to carry weapons to defend oneself is a huge privilege that citizens of some other developed countries do not have. Healthy American citizens should rightfully carry weapons to defend themselves from any act of violence committed against or directed towards them.
Guns are always represented as a sigh of terror, violence and insecurity due to which, gun control is always being a significant and controversial issue from both political and self defense point of view. Guns and humans had a shared part of the past history, during that period guns were used for hunting and protection from the invaders. The second amendment of the U. S. constitution even made the guns/arms more debatable on the basis of keeping guns as their right. Their is a no harm keeping a gun for self protection under a proper law and order, which will be regulated by different background, physical check and the awareness of proper use of the guns. These checks will help lower down the statistical data of misuse of firearms and reduce
According to data gathered from many news outlets. Statistics show that there has been over 350 mass shooting in the United States alone and an estimate of 14,000 people who were killed by firearms in the past year. These incidents have opened the door for many citizens to question if having the rights to possess a firearm is a privilege that Americans are not yet ready to handle. While others believe there is no better time to own a gun than now in today's age.
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. Those who argue for gun control usually state guns are a part of most violent crimes. However, this is not always true. While it is true that limiting gun ownership with laws could prevent individuals from possessing guns, it does not prevent people from illegally having or using guns. Those who carry guns legally are not the problem.
Law-abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves against danger. One way citizens can protect themselves is through concealed carry permits. A concealed carry permit allows the permit holder to carry a gun (concealed) in most public places. If an applicant meets a set of requirements, a concealed carry permit is issued. These requirements may consist of a licensing fee, safety training course, fingerprinting, a clean record and no history of mental illness. This is also known as “shall-issue” laws. Thirty-two states have enacted "shall-issue" concealed carry laws (New Mexico being the most recent in April 2001), and one state, Vermont, does not require any permit of its residents....
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.