Pros And Cons Of David Grazia

David DeGrazia brings to light some intriguing points in relation to gun control. He is pro-gun control and, even though he believes in a gun ban, is willing to compromise with republicans by adding stricter controls around guns instead of abolishing them. David aggressively stated, “My thesis is that, assuming there is a right to bear arms, the most defensible policy approach in the United States would feature moderate gun control.” He goes on in his article stating what he believes are the best ways to limit guns and furthermore goes in depth by defining his reasoning.

The first point DeGrazia makes is that a universal background check would ensure that people who ought to be ineligible to buy guns—including felons, fugitives from justice, and the seriously mentally ill—cannot purchase them from friends, associates, or non-licensed dealers at gun shows or online. According to David, “successful exclusion of these individuals from gun purchases obviously promotes safety in exactly the same way that currently mandatory background checks (for sales by licensed dealers) do.” It’s easy to understand what DeGrazia is stating, that if you can seize criminals and mentally ill individuals from

He states firmly. “These weapons and this ammunition are extremely dangerous and unnecessary for the legitimate purposes of household defense and hunting. They have enabled some of the worst rampages in recent American history.” David then goes further by giving examples of instances that these “Assault weapons” have been used in mass murders. Such as at the Columbine High School, the Aurora, Colorado, and the Connecticut elementary school. David also suggests a buyback program for those that are already in possession of “Assault weapons”. All in all, David would like to get rid of what he believes to be unnecessary weapons out of fear that they will be used for