Thesis: We should have Gun-control in laws because it will prevent a lot of problems . Gun control is a really good idea. Not only does it prevent all of the above but it also prevents a lot of accidents. Accidents from innocent people and especially children. As Norman L. Lunger explains in his book Big Bang: The Loud Debate over Gun Control. He writes, “Saving Lives With Gun Control. It's a common item on the evening news: A child picks up a loaded gun and it suddenly goes off, killing the child or a bystander. In Florida, two young boys found a shotgun under a bed in their grandparents' home. A six year old pulled the trigger, and a five year old fell dead. In Illinois, two teens found a handgun in their grandmother's apartment. The gun went off in the hands of a sixteen-year-old boy, killing his fifteen-year-old cousin. In Michigan, a six-year-old boy found a handgun in a shoebox at the house where he was staying with an uncle. He took the gun to school, pulled it out of his pocket, and shot a girl in his first-grade class. She died on the way to the hospital.” (Lunger, Big Bang: The Loud Debate over Gun Control) As he shows innocent children are being killed by other innocent children just because a gun was lying around. There is no way to go around it. Innocent children killed because there is no gun control. Not convincing enough? Lunger also says, “They note that firearms take the lives of some 30,000 people in the United States each year. About six hundred of the victims are under age fifteen, and about thirty-five hundred are aged fifteen to nineteen. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a federal agency, firearms take the lives of a far greater proportion of children in the United States than in other industr... ... middle of paper ... .... A three-day or five-day waiting period for gun purchases might prevent many suicides that occur during a period of deep but temporary depression. A waiting period might also deter people from buying a gun in a fit of anger and using it to shoot someone. And a waiting period would allow authorities to check to see if a gun buyer has a history of mental problems or is subject to a protection-from-abuse order-red flags that are often missed by the federal instant-check system. Another useful gun-control law would be one requiring first-time gun buyers to take a course in gun safety. States that have such laws have found that they help to make gun accidents less likely.” By implying these laws we can lower a lot of the kill rate. But if it doesn’t relate to you imagine if one of your loved ones killed. Now imagine if you could prevent that by gun control...would you?
The “waiting period” method of gun control is basically a two-step process. The first step in the procedure is that the person wanting a gun goes to the gun shop to buy a gun. Then, he/she must wait one to two weeks while the government performs a small background check for past criminal activities, disorderly conduct, or lack of mental/emotional stability. During this time, if the purchaser of the gun wanted the gun for a “quick crime” it is hoped that they will not still want to cause bodily harm after a few weeks of waiting around. Another dumb law is that is in effect in California is that if you want to carry a concealed handgun, “you have to prove that you have some special reason to carry”(Rauch 731).
The second amendment grants all Americans the right to bear arms. The ability to hold a firearm at any time as long as the firearm is registered. In the United states, all it takes to hold a firearm is a background check and a safety class. In a short reading from the “American Now” book a short article By Christina Tenuta called Responsible gun ownership saves lives she asks “do Americans really need guns?”, but are the guns really the problem? Although the second amendment requires some decent documents , the qualifications to obtain a firearm needs to be revised to a mental check, a family history check , and also to make it a priority for reinforcement to check on the registered firearm every six to twelve months.
The Federal Government today is putting forth much effort in order to control the purchase and registration of handguns. In 1993, Congress approved the Brady Bill that requires a mandatory five-day waiting period when buying a gun. The recent school shootings have pushed Congress to pass a bill requiring approximately 80% of handguns to be produced with child safety locks. The ultimate goal of the government is to ban the sale of firearms to the public. By starting out small, and having big goals, later generations will enjoy peaceful lives.
In conclusion, enabling stricter gun control laws will help to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, criminals, and children and teens. With these laws put into place there will be more assurance of the safety of American citizens. It is not necessary to strip citizens of their right to own a gun, but we should be able to make it harder to get guns. If you are someone with a clear record and using a gun for recreation use, you will have no trouble obtaining a gun. In the long run increase the laws on gun control hurts nobody. Despite historic events where governments seized firearms and killed millions of citizens, today we have a different problem, which is making sure guns are in the right hands.
Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate firearms by selecting who can sell, buy and possess certain guns. Criminals do not obey laws and stricter gun control laws or banning guns will have little effect on reducing crimes. There are many myths about gun control reducing acts of gun violence, which are simply not true according to research. People are responsible for the crimes, not the guns themselves. Taking guns away from United States citizens that use them for many reasons, shooting practice, competition, hunting and self-defense, should not be punished for the acts of criminals. As stated by Mytheos Holt, “Guns in the right hands help public safety. Guns in the wrong hands harm public safety”. Research shows that defensive use of guns discourages criminals and reduces crime (Holt 2). Not only is it wrong to penalize law-abiding citizens, it is against the Second Amendment. It is unconstitutional to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
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.
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.
Should the 2nd amendment be revoked or changed? Many Americans would say “No,” stating that guns are dangerous and times have changed. Others might argue that having the right to bear arms keeps people safe and less threated by the outside world. In this debate, both sides of the 2nd amendments constitutional rights will be argued. The upcoming presidential election has been influencing voters to revoke our 2nd amendment rights which could change the democracy on which our country was founded.
Taking into account of the recent shooting sprees, the gun control debate has started again. However, people have contemplated: “Why does America need gun laws” and “Why are so many states disagreeing about the restrictions that need to be put in place for civilians looking to purchase firearms.” The reasoning for such contemplation is that the fluxuating strictness of gun laws have led to several incidences within states that have strict gun laws due to the fact that the perpetrators of these incidences have purchased their firearms either from black markets, or states where the severity of gun control is at minimal levels.
Some people suggest making a longer waiting-period and deeper background check to purchase a gun would reduce the amount of violence with guns. While once again that wo...
From a consensus from 2008, there were over 16,000 murders in the United States, and from these 16,000 murders, 10,000 were from firearms alone (Gun Control – Just Facts). Some of these murders happen over unnecessary arguments. It’s impossible to confiscate every single gun from every American that owns one. The true fact behind that is it will only leave guns in the hands of criminals. Then the average citizen can’t defend him/or her when there is a home invasion. But if the United States makes it so that it’s harder to get a license and gun, these tools of destruction will be in the hands of less people.
From Columbine to Blacksburg and Aurora, gun control has become quite the controversial issue in the United States. As such, sides have been made on the proper means not only to regulate weapons, but also in how it has reshaped America as a whole. Within two articles and an procedure image set around the campus of Virginia Tech, they persuade and reinforce potential readers with the issues surrounding gun control. From the on-campus’ procedures in what to do if caught in such a dire situation and the split message it can give off, the NRA’s outlandish and aggressive stance against President Obama, and President Obama’s vivid, somber statement about the need for change at Umpqua Community College, these are multiple portrayals bearing the same
While we look at the way gun control advocates are trying to enforcing gun control, you may begin to even question why we would even attempt to use such methods. The idea that limiting the size of a person’s magazine or regulating the style of gun you can purchase or even doing something as simple as a performing background check on potential buyers will stop murders like the Connecticut shooting from happening is ridiculous. It takes brains to live the l...
As actor Vince Vaughn once said, “I support people having a gun in public full stop, not just in your home. We don 't have the right to bear arms because of burglars; we have the right to bear arms to resist the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government. It 's not about duck hunting; it 's about the ability of the individual. It 's the same reason we have freedom of speech. It 's well known that the greatest defence against an intruder is the sound of a gun hammer being pulled back. All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones. Take mass shootings. They 've only happened in places that don 't allow guns. These people are sick in the head and
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.