The crashing of glass awoke young, twenty-year-old gun owner in the middle of the night. He hurdled out of bed and went for his automatic rifle. As he opened his bedroom door, a man with bloodshot eyes stood in his hall barreling toward him. The homeowner puts the sights on the man and fires once with no effect. The homeowner then fires twelve more times before the colossal, bloodshot eyes burglar goes down. The man, shaking in his shoes, calls the police knowing that if he didn’t have that rifle and the hasty shots, the burglar would have probably hurt him. Or worse, murdered him, Thus justifying that owning an automatic firearm should be legal to own because, like the story, it protects you from attackers and burglars, government takeover, and the fact that no one else has the right to know what you own.
Possessing automatic firearms can protect you even better than any other firearms in history. First of all, many people will say that an uncomplicated, single shot rifle will do the trick with providing protection. While a single shot rifle is better than nothing, an automatic weapon can give you an advantage. I believe that acquiring an automatic firearm can save your life for the self-evident reason of putting more rounds on target expeditiously. Doing this allows you to impede
…show more content…
In contrast people go as far as to say that if you own an automatic rifle, you should register it and tell everyone you own it. Well, I believe that if you want to own a car, then you should have to register it. Sounds ridiculous right? As a matter of fact it is the same with automatic firearms. Why should I register something that you just don’t lucidly understand because people say it’s bad? Well, the feeling is mutual between many Americans. Just think, would it make sense to register all your food, water, clothes, and animals because I wanted to know your
"Battleground America," written by Jill Lepore, provides a strong history of guns and the way they have changed in the eyes of the American through the years. She proves her point with strong evidence throughout her article, sprinkling it with opinion and argument that is strongly supported. She presents her argument to convince her audience that the open availability of guns allows citizens to undeservingly purchase them by displaying the credibility in her sources, using negative connotations in her speech, and the strength and objectivity only a strong logos appeal can provide.
USA has divided into two separated nations because of gun ownership. This issue has been questioned in terms of people’s freedom to buy guns and an indiscriminate use of them. In addition, Americans have claimed that they’ve got strong reasons, which allow them be armed as a matter of civic duty. For ...
U.S congress woman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head. This happened in Arizona, a state where guns are allowed in open carry meaning everyone has option to carry a gun as long as it is not concealed. When this congress woman was shot, the shooter became enraged. After shooting 3 more people his gun got jammed, this is when a civilian jumped him and stopped his irrational behavior. This brings up many different opinions on whether guns should be allowed or taken away. 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.
As McMahan points out, “When more citizens get guns, further problems arise: people who would have once got in a fistfight instead shoot the person who provoked them; people are shot by mistake or accident.” (McMahan, 1) One of McMahan’s premises wraps around the analogy of comparing private gun possession to the nuclear arms race. Throughout this article, McMahan shows that either everyone will have guns (criminals and private citizens), or nobody will have guns. He demonstrates that when guns are found in every household, gun control can do little to restrict access to guns from potential criminals.
Tom is running full speed, maybe even for his life. It is a perfect summer night in San Jose, and Tom and his work partner just left work minutes before. They were walking through a “bad neighborhood” when some thugs started hassling them, and yelling obscenities at them. Tom and his friend walked by them quickly soon to be chased by the thugs. The thugs were threatening Tom and his friend’s life. Tom and his friend continue to run till the reach a busy intersection where Tom pulls out a semi-automatic handgun from his backpack and points it towards the thugs. As soon as the gun is leveled the thugs retreat leaving the two men alone. If there had been no gun Tom and his friend would have been seriously beaten or even killed. Tom did not have a permit for the gun, and might have not been able to get one without a special reason (Rauch 731). People like Tom need to be able to get gun permits, but it is so difficult because of all the criminal activity in America. Gun control laws are pointless and are only binding on the law-abiding citizens.
This essay will discuss the pros and cons of gun control. Some U.S. States have already adopted some of these gun control laws. I will be talking about the 2nd amendment, public safety, home safety, and do gun control laws really control guns. I hope after you have read this you will be more educated, and can pick your side of the gun control debate. So keep reading and find out more about the gun control laws that the federal and some state governments want to enforce on U.S. Citizens.
Is it any coincidence that the states with the loosest gun laws in America tend to contribute to the highest amount of national gun deaths and injuries? This is one of the main questions we should be asking when deciding what is best for our country and its citizens. Although gun control has been an ongoing issue, certain events like the Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and the Aurora, Colorado mass shootings have increased our attention to this topic. Although I believe that Americans possess the right to own a firearm, I believe there should be detailed screening and control systems to keep guns out of the wrong hands, to prevent more gun violence from happening in the future.
“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns. (Obama)” This said prior to Obama’s presidency, in the 1990’s, is still a topic that is constantly questioned today. Many American’s feel the need to seek ownership of weapons as a source of protection; While others believe that private ownership of guns will do nothing more but heighten the rate of violence due to people taking matters into his or her own hands. Philosophy professor Jeff McMahan agrees with Obama’s statement in regard to the ownership of guns. In his New York Times editorial titled “When Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” McMahan provides evidence to support his theory of the dangers that quickly follow when allowing the community to own guns legally. McMahan, throughout the text, shows responsible reasoning and allows the reader the opportunity to obtain full understanding and justifies his beliefs properly.
A man by the name of Sean Faircloth, who is an author, an attorney, and a five-term state legislator from Maine; went against Sam Harris to give his own beliefs on the ordeal. Faircloth also wrote an article for The Week in response to Harris titled, “Why more guns won’t make us safer” in which he claims that Harris neglected the two largest problems involving gun-violence. Faircloth believes that Harris failed to acknowledge the substantial issue of gun-related domestic violence against women, and the success of gun-control legislation in foreign countries. Utilizing statistics, real world examples, and his own logic; Faircloth goes in depth with his core arguments. He wrote his article to dissuade the readers of Sam Harris’s article that “Why I own guns” lacks
In the United States of America, there is much debate about the effectiveness and practicality of concealed firearms. Many citizens today are trying to support their claim with old, outdated evidence and targeted research to attempt to prove a point, but can not escape the truth. Although Concealed firearms may sound appealing to reduce crime rates and stop violence, new evidence suggests otherwise. Recently there has been trends of certain lunatics who own guns that decide to shoot innocent people, justifying the need for more strict gun control laws. The purpose of this paper is to educate and inform about the immensely important topic of concealed firearms, with focus on what effect it has on society and crime rates. We will go over modern
Supporters of gun control state that to decrease crimes committed with fire arms (which amass a high majority of crimes) guns should be banned from private ownership. This removes guns from the public, therefore taking away the instrument of easily accomplishing crimes. Arthur Kellermann and Donald T. Raey, two gun control advocates, did their own research into the issue and published a discovery of their own; the 43-1 Statistic. In this statistic, Kellerman and Raey state that a gun will be used in a justified shooting one time, while forty three other people are killed by a gun unjustly, either by suicide, accident, or criminal (Heumer 9). According to these two researchers, gun ownership is not worth it. Private ownership of guns saved one life wh...
The controversy over assault rifles is one of the most problematic issues related to the contributions of gangs, drug traffickers, and most criminal activity. More often than not, criminals have access to the weapons of their choice more easily than it should be. Getting them from licensed dealers, black markets, and family members’ homes, the availability of these militia weapons has become to effortless to obtain. The rise of criminal activity is part of the reason more than one-third of high school students have easy access to a weapon or gun. “Four out of five guns brought to school are actually brought from their own homes” (Page par 2). This is one of the biggest problems when faced with where criminals get their guns. They either steal them from relative’s homes, ask to borrow them, or steal them from licensed sellers. There are a lot of ways people can get guns. People who should not be able to purchase a firearm are allowed to, and illegal transactions are also a huge issue with criminals getting their guns. For all these reasons that is why Government should require restricted gun ownership to protect society, prevent crime, and allow for recreational use.
Guns, Crime, and Freedom states that, no gun law which restricts the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns has been proven to reduce crime or homicides, not even the Brady Law and the “Clinton Crime Bill.” These two laws st...
The right to bear arms has been an important conversation in America for decades. As of recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting and the Aurora Colorado Theater shooting, the debate is more heated than ever. From large-scale massacres to single fatality shootings, gun violence is unwarranted and heartbreaking. However, the Second Amendment protects individual citizens’ right to own firearms: “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,” it states (Bill of Rights). Although this part of the Bill of Rights has not been changed in United States’ history, some citizens argue that, because the Constitution is a working document, this should be adapted to fit current needs and protect communities. Citizens who wish tip the scale in favor of the community’s protection argue that guns are dangerous, easy to access, popular weapons that allow disgruntled or mentally unstable citizens to “inflict mass causalities” and were originally only intended for use in a militia (Joe Messerli). On the other hand, those who wish to benefit civilians argue that taking away guns restrains individual liberty and that gun control would prove futile because criminals would find ways such as the black market to obtain guns, weapons can serve as self-defense prevent crimes, and reasonable restrictions would be more effective than an outright ban (Joe Messerli). Both arguments have valid, well developed ideas, and both sides tend to be passionate in debate.
In 1968 Congress passed the Gun Control Act. This act regulates interstate commerce in firearms, making it so that you must be a licensed manufacturer, dealer, or importer. The Gun Control Act was the first attempt at restricting easy access to a firearm. In 1976 the District of Columbia City Council prohibited it’s residents from owning a handgun. Dick Anthony Heller sued the district in 2007 for denying him the right to keep his handgun in his home on Capitol Hill. In June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled the District of Columbia’s handgun ban was unconstitutional. The people of this country believe in their reserved rights, Mr. Heller’s fought for his second amendment right and won, showing the spirit of democracy. Since the Columbine High School shootings in 1999, 27 separate mass shootings have left five or more people dead each time. These randoms acts of violence have taken place in schools (Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech), the workplace (Fort Hood), movie theaters(Aurora, CO) , and even in the church (Charleston, S.C.). Everyday seems to bring new tragedy involving guns, but is it the gun that is killing people or the operator? As with anything, there are pro and cons to the right of own a firearm. With a firearm in your possession, you can protect yourself and your family from just about any threat. Having a gun gives you power over your own life, but this power also extends over someone else life