Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Bibliography on gun control
Bibliography on gun control
Essay gun control history united states mla
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Our Gun Rights Gun control has been a problem for many years. A vast majority of citizens believe that if guns were taken away it would quickly reduce the threat of a crime. People that are innocent feel like they have the right to bear arms for protection, or even for the thrill of hunting. People are penalized for protecting their lives, or even for enjoying a sport. To have gun control throughout the nation means violating a person’s constitutional rights. Although people feel like taking away guns will limit crime, this issue should not exist due to the fact that guns are needed and necessary for self -defense against crime. Enforcing gun control is violating a citizen’s second amendment right to bear arms. This goes to show that throughout history governments have seemed to have sided with their citizens, although in reality the governments have seemed to have sided with their authority to remove liberties. The people’s right to bear arms is our only defense against the onslaught of oppressive government tyranny. Many people ask the question, will more gun control laws create less crime? That is what the entire issue is about. Since things happen, and people are murdered every day, the government thinks that taking away our guns will solve all of these problems when in reality it won’t. According to the United Stated Constitution; Bill of Rights; Amendment two, " A well -regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Many say that "well regulated" means we need to have strong laws in place to prevent people from having or owning guns. Others say "well regulated" means people are responsible for following laws created to keep ev... ... middle of paper ... ...eat example is Florida, specifically the Miami-Dade area. Miami-Dade police put together a program to keep track of all incidents involving conceal-carry licensees in 1987, which is when Florida passed a right to carry law. By 1992 the department did away with that program because there weren't enough crimes to justify supporting the program. The results and numbers showed that out of 221,443 licenses issued, they were only 18 crimes committed by people who were issued a license. All other gun crimes committed were by criminals who were able to get guns illegally. The overall rate of firearm homicide dropped by 41 percent between 1987 and 1994. It narrows down to we have the right to own gun and that should not be threatened. Plus, if the federal government does as good of a job outlawing guns as it has done outlawing illegal drugs, criminals will always have guns.
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
“Guns don’t kill, people kill people.” This is a popular saying heard in a number of R rated movies where gun violence is the predominate theme. One excellent illustration can be seen in the movie Romeo Must Die when the actor DMX said that phase as he was getting ready to shoot someone. The phase was first coined by Wayne LaPierre who is a long-time executive director of the National Rifle Association. From his words and from his job title, a person can correctly guess that he is a pro-gun activist. He is defending the notion that a gun is not required to kill someone. This is absolutely true. A person can kill another person with just their bare hands. However, guns provide people with the means to do so in an easier and faster manner. Without
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.
Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being committed with guns will be reduced and thus save lives. However while gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, the same laws restricts gun owning citizens who abide by the law; these citizens make up a great majority of the opposing side of this argument. These people argue that the law was made with the individual citizens in mind. This group believes that the Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. One major group that is in strong opposition of stricter gun control laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA argues that having stricter gun control laws will only hinder law-abiding citizens. The final outcome on this debate will mainly depend on how this Amendment is going to be interpreted.
The myth is that most Americans believe that a gun ban will protect their families and loved one from violence and other forms of danger but in actuality, most Americans are pro second amendment understanding a gun ban has the reverse effect. What gun ban advocates do not regularly acknowledge is that more restrictive gun laws do not incentivize criminals to give up their guns. Chicago & Washington are prime examples of highly restrictive gun zones with skyrocketing crime. The law abiding citizen is defenseless against a criminal who disregards the law. This issue is not only domestic; UK burglary, assault, and other crime are increasing with & without guns. A criminal who wants to commit a crime will commit a crime with whatever he can legally or illegally get his hands on. When a crime is committed with a knife, the media does not call it “knife crime”. That’s because in a court of law, each is held accountable for their actions, not the object. Why are guns any different? This is because there is a misunderstanding about guns, violence & the correlation. There are a plethora of attempted crimes not reported because of a second amendment wielding law abiding citizen protected themselves and deterred the would be criminal. Statistics are not usually discussed about the positive stories of the feared tool deterring violence on a daily basis. The solution to fluctuating violence is not a simple answer. Rampant, out of control government spending leads to inflation, while expensive over legislation drains and weakens the economy which causes weaker purchasing power and increa...
“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.
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...
Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. A vast majority of citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would quickly reduce the threat of crime. Many innocent people feel they have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting. Americans have a constitutional right to own hand guns and stricter laws and licensing will not affectively save lives.
The second amendment to the US Constitution shows that it is unconstitutional to have complete and total gun control. The second amendment 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.” This means that it is the right of an American citizen, abiding by the constitution, has the right to bear arms. Currently, there are over three hundred and seven billion people residing as American citizens. Within the homes of these Americans, forty five percent have a registered gun in their household. As a diverse nation, there are many reasons why there are guns located within a household. Sixty percent stated the gun is used for protection against int...
Guns and crime seem to fit together like peanut butter and jelly, but is that really the case? There are two ways to look at gun control, but one realization that needs to be made and that’s that guns are powerful. Guns can either be used for defending and protecting people or they can be used to harm and kill people. People have different views on whether guns are being used for protection or being used to harm and kill others. The majority of people that think guns are being used for safety and defense oppose gun control laws. On the other hand the majority of people who think guns are being used to heartlessly slaughtered people are for stricter gun control laws. People opposed to gun control thinking it will be taking away some of their rights; whereas, those in favor of gun control thinking it will help protect people.
Central in the arguments against gun control is its ability to restrict any citizen of the United States the right to own guns which is protected under the constitution. Specifically, due recognition is made to its connection to the 2nd Amendment wherein it seeks to protect the individual liberties of people. This facet also applies to gun ownership regardless of the original objective and intention. “The second amendment from the Bill of Rights grants private citizens the right to bear arms. Thus, people who stand firmly against gun control insist that no legislation, technically, should have the right to take away a citizen’s guns without first repealing the amendment in question” (Groberman 1). A good approach to consider in highlighting this part comes from depriving the citizen of his basic right on the basis of specific presumption that it would be used for violence or crim...
Ultimately, it is a person’s choice to use firearms to commit violent crimes. So criminals should be controlled, not the guns which they share with millions of law-abiding citizens. Gun control supporters claim that gun control lowers crime rate. We as people need to take a stand and fight for our Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates need to realize that passing laws that honest gun owners will not obey is a self-defeating strategy. Gun owners are not about to surrender their liberties or their right to bear arms. The Federal Govement of the United States should not be able to take away the right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun.
Gun control is an awfully big issue in the United States today. Many people in America don’t agree with the gun control laws that they have today. Gun control laws only take guns and freedom away from law-abiding citizens. Many citizens have their own reasons for owning a gun. Why would the government want to make it harder for people to own a gun? People that own guns aren’t very likely to be attacked by criminals. Owning a handgun is one of the best ways of protection when used correctly. The second amendment states “the right to bear arms”; does this grant everyone the right to own a gun? Gun control laws have not been proven to do anything for citizens. Gun control laws just make it harder for the good guy average Joe to own a gun. Gun control laws are not a good idea, and are taking part in the loss of our freedom that was given to us.
Something to also consider is although we have many gun laws, not all are enforced. For instance, the Brady Bill gets easily nullified. This bill enforces a waiting period and a background check to buy a firearm. One example of the bill being nullified is, some states nearly nullify the federal law by removing individuals from the NCIS list, which is a list that prohibits certain people from buying weapons if they have completed their sentence. Another way the law is nullified, is buying a firearm through an unregulated forum. Through an unregulated forum a person, like Adam Lanza, is able to avoid background checks, waiting periods, and other reasons. (Record, and Gostin 568)
The Second Amendment of the United States protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The United States Government should not infringe on those rights by the enforcement of gun control against law-abiding citizens. Gun control does not reduce crime, does not stop criminals from obtaining guns, and does not address the real issue of violent crime. There is no evidence that gun control affects the crime rate. The United States government is attempting to reduce violent crime by controlling the amount of guns on the market, who is allowed to purchase a gun, and what type of gun a person is allowed to purchase. The only people affected by gun control laws are the law-abiding citizen that should be allowed to purchase firearms without the government’s interjection.