Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
2nd Amendment and the debate surrounding gun control
Gun rights vs gun violence
Mental illness as a factor influencing crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: 2nd Amendment and the debate surrounding gun control
Gun Control 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 …show more content…
In Brazil there are various gun bans in place, and there is almost three times as many violent crimes such as murder, assault, and robbery. However in Switzerland, they have virtually the lowest amount of gun restrictions, and also have the third lowest amount of gun related crimes. It just goes to show that the more restrictions are in place, the more violence. An example of this is Chicago. In Chicago, there had been a handgun and concealed carry permit ban in the city since 1982. Chicago had one of the worst murder rates in the country, and eventually surpassed New York in having the most violence. December of 2012 changed all that, a court of appeals overruled the gun ban, and the city implemented a concealed carry program. People were finally able to arm and protect themselves. Within six months after the concealed carry permits were issued, Chicago’s murder rate hit a 56 year low. Two years after the citizens were able to own firearms, burglaries are down by 20%, auto theft rates have dropped by 26%, and robberies leading to arrests are down by …show more content…
Why do some people believe that it is the guns doing all the killing? Are they able to magically come to life, load themselves, and go on a shooting spree all on their own? If so, all my guns must be defective because that’s never occurred in my home. If someone fires a gun at a human being will it kill that person? It surely will, but it isn’t the gun’s decision: it is the operator’s. It is all about the operator’s state of mind. If I were out doing recreational shooting at a target, having fun, with a benevolent frame of mind then I’m not going to deliberately kill anyone. On the contrary, if I am a nut job out to kill people for whatever sick, sadistic reason then that gun is in the wrong hands and is just as dangerous as the person wielding it. Even if you take away the firearms, murders still occur. Take for example a story my teacher, Laura Gelwicks, told the class. She told us that she lived in Missouri for a short while, and in the time she lived there that there were seven murders, and none of them were with a firearm. One of them was when four people were bludgeoned to death with a hammer over a mere 30 dollars. It just goes to show that if a human being has the motive to kill someone so badly, they will find a way. Personally, I believe a gunshot would be a much more pleasant way to die than being bludgeoned to death with a
John Luik author of the article “The Increased Availability of Guns Reduces Crime” and Sabina Thaler the author of the article “The Claim of Increased Gun Availability Reduces Crime is Unfounded” are two examples of people having different opinions on such a debatable topic. Both authors talk about guns taking people’s lives, Thalers article focuses on guns taking innocent people’s lives, and Luiks article focuses on guns being innocent people’s protection. Many gun supporters will say that more guns will bring down the crime rate. These same believers will give facts stating that the more guns in a state, the less likely gun owners will use them. “The chances of innocent people being the victims of violent crime, including murder, decrease—not increase—when access to guns is made easier” (Luik).
The Ethics of Gun Control The phrase "Gun Control" means different things to different people. One bumper sticker states that "Gun Control means hitting your target." However one defines gun control, the mere mention of it brings controversy.
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.
In addition, there is a total of 381.9 million people in the United States now there are 325 million people left. On “worldmeter.info” it shows how many people are left in 2017. An opposing viewer would say that “Guns should be allowed because it can protect people who intrude on your house.” The reason why Guns should not be allowed is because let's say an intruder enters your house and you do shoot him, but when the police come they are going to want the evidence that he intruded your house you are stuck with the police. In other words, unsecured guns have turned toddlers into killers - and many more into vitamins. There are innocent kids out there who shot their friend by accident without knowing what the gun does. On thetrace.org it shows us how many people have died in the world. On the other hand, Guns don't kill, but we kill and that is what the opposing viewpoint would say. Even though we are the ones who kill is still not good and I say that because we are killing because we are angry or depressed. We are killing because of something dumb there are too many deaths so far, and people don't realize they are killing God’s creation and God did not teach us to do
Public policies are developed in response to the existence of a perceived problem or an opportunity. The analysis delves into a public issue or problem and assesses a set of proposed government action for addressing the issue. The job of the analyst is to describe the background and status of an issue and then, using research and analysis, determine a proper government action to resolve the issue. By comparing options and weighing their expected benefits, the analyst should conclude with a recommended course of action or inaction to addressing the issue.
Each person has a different view on the world. If a person is asked about their view on a certain subject, they will likely show support or disdain for the subject. For example, some people believe abortion is morally wrong. Others view abortion as the mother’s choice since she is carrying the child. On the issue of gun control, people are usually either for or against stricter gun laws. Why do people view the world in the way they do? How do people decide what stance to take on an issue? To answer these questions, sociologists look at the sociological perspective which “stresses the social contexts in which people live” and “examines how these contexts influence people’s lives” (Henslin, 2013, p. 4). Furthermore, the sociological perspective
“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.
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.
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. According to Mark Gius, the author of “Gun Ownership and the Gun Control Index”, “…only about 25% of total violent crime is committed by a person using a gun, no inferences...
The issues of gun control are the subject of much controversy. In the article “The Killer Who Supports Gun Control” by Nicholas D. Kristof (2013), he argues that a strong gun control will yield fewer deaths. Kristof summarizes how the gun itself and the person are responsible for deaths, in order to show how dangerous the combination of the two is.
“A handgun ban is not realistically enforceable. Confiscating guns would require house-to-house searches and alienate the very individuals whose compliances is essential to the success of any regulation. If gun ownership were prohibited, organized crime would step in to provide the firearms that will continue to be procured with criminal intent” (Done Kates). Over the past decade, the media has reported an increase in the severity of violent crimes as individuals have killed and hurt many others, including kids. Since 2006 there have been over 200 mass murders in the United States. Between 2006 and 2011 alone, the FBI has counted over 172 cases of mass killings, not including those unreported from different police agencies to the FBI (“Murders
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.
by President Reagan). This banned automatic weapons with magazines for 10 years but that expired in 2004 and was never put back into action(Gun Control Laws). Though many attempts of gun control have failed there is even more of a push for a reform now. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a major foundation that supports the second amendment and has a lot of pull when it comes to political parties. The NRA is wealthy and has overturn and won many cases against guns. According to Megan Cassella “Fifty percent of those surveyed said they supported Obama 's executive actions”(Cassella). Almost all that were supporting the democratic party supported this idea of tightening gun laws, while nearly seventy-two percent of republicans opposed stricter gun laws. There is .
Gun control is a serious topic in the United States at this moment. Record number of Americas are purchasing firearms for either protection or recreational use. The increase in guns across the country has led to a substantial increase in the number homicides and public shootings. Although the second amendment to the United States Constitution allows American citizens the right to bear arms, what can the federal government and citizens do better for protection from gun violence? Currently, many states and cities have certain regulations on gun possession; however, there has yet to be a federal stance on how to control and curb gun violence. Also, there are numerous countries that have strict laws that either limit or restrict access to guns. These countries usually tend to have lower rates of gun related injuries or crimes.
Growing up in Brooklyn, NY I keenly became aware that in my own neighborhood there were educational disparities, street violence, and police brutality. Due to the widespread presence of these issues while walking home from school or going grocery shopping with my mother, I also learned there was internal conflict between the people that lived in the community and those who were appointed to represent them- the congressional representative of my district. My premature awareness of these issues caused me to question who had the ability to solve the problems of my community? I discovered that the television show “Law and Order” offered a possible answer. As the youngest child of my household, my older siblings affinity for the show naturally steered