Gun control and gun banning have been a highly controversial issue since all the gun crimes hitting the news in America. Crimes like Sandy-Hook , Aurora , San Berdindno , and Oregon have lawmakers thinking about banning guns by enacting laws that allows them to. Lawmakers believe guns are the prime suspect in all these gun violence crimes and they believe it well reduce murder and violence. Banning guns well do nothing to reduce the mass killings. If a criminal has the intent to commit a crime nothing can stop them. Also a criminal doesn’t abide by the law that is why they are criminals. Gun banning would only disarm the legal law abiding citizen leaving them defenseless. Also the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constution and the Bill of Rights. If lawmakers have the courage take away one Constutional right they will have the courage to keep going, I have three logical reasons why gun banning well not work.
Having a gun is a guaranteed law according the the Constion. The Constution states in the Second
…show more content…
Amendment “A regulated militia , necessary for the protection of the free state , the right of the people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed.” The National Rifle Association states “that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. “ And that banning guns would impeded people from protecting themselves. If Second Amedment is taken away this will only beginning of the taking away of all of our rights. So we cant let them start or else it will be a domino effect on the taking away of our rights. Some countries have taken away the right to bear arms. Countries like the United Kingdom have laws the taken away the right to bear arms. The United Kingdom put them in place Firearms Act of 1997 after the Dunblane Massacre. The first part of the Firearms Act of 1997 stated that “high caliber “weapons were banned. The second part of the act banned act further banned the private possession of all cartridge ammunition handguns, regardless of caliber. According to (Blank)The United Kingdoms murder rate was 1.12 per 100,000 when the Firearms Act was first put into place. In 2002 the murder rate was a staggering 2.10 per 100,000. Obviously gun homicides were lower but murder rates in general kept going up regardless of the Firearms Act. The only thing that changed was the type of weapons used during the homicides instead of guns they used knives and other weapons. According to (blank )in 2005, there were 765 intentional murders in the UK and most of these were committed with knives. Blunt objects follow then strangulation, fire, and poison. Banning guns has of course halted rampage shootings, but it does not address the issue of people killing each other. In the US, according to (blank) the number of intentional homicides in 2004 was 10,654—a number that would have been much lower without access to guns, but still terribly high. I always ask the question how many victims of knives, clubs, and strangulation would be alive if they had had a gun. Mass shootings occur at so called “Gun Free Zones”. Some examples of “gun free zones “ the Sandyhook Elementary, and the shooting at the college in Oregon. Gunman targets these areas because they know they most likely won’t encounter resistance because they know guns are “banned”. My point is that taken the weapon away from a law abiding citizen is just taking away the right to defend them with a weapon. But laws against murder and violence do not apply to criminals who have given up on life and intend to die while killing as many people as they can. Most of us obey such laws. The sale of guns is forbidden within the city limits of Chicago because of an ordinance that went into effect in 2010. For the year 2013, the city’s murder count is 374. There were 432 in 2010 and 500 in 2012. The FBI has named Chicago the nation’s murder capital. Thus, the city ordinance did nothing to reduce its murder rate. Some of the counter arguments the opposition say is that it will decrease the gun homicide rate. That is the most obvious fact if guns are banned obviously will decrease. But other weapons like knives and other blunt weapons. Another counter argument people say is that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution was only targeted towards militia. But if you read the Consution correctly it says “A regulated militia, necessary for the protection of the Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It does state the militia but also includes the “right of the people to keep and bear arms. “ Another argument is that legal guns have higher chances of falling into kids hands accidently. Nothing with firearms happens on accident it is usually a lack of exposure to guns. Guns are no more than tools and with proper training can be used safely. Another argument they have is that crimes without guns would be less severe. A crime is still a crime though just because there is the absence of a gun doesn’t mean the crime is less. You wouldn’t want the punishment to be less just because there is no gun right? That having gun control will not have the effect we think it will have.
Murder will still occur even though guns are not present. The murder rate will stay the same only thing that will change is the type of weapon that is used. And these so called “gun free zones become places of the most horrific mass killings because law-abiding citizens follow the law. Gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens leaving them defenseless. A criminal will not comply with gun control laws. Gun banning l will not reduce the murder rate, won’t stop criminals from committing these crimes, it will only leave law-abiding citizens at the will of the criminals. Also gun banning would take away from our Conustional guaranteed right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. If lawmakers take away our right to bear arms what makes you think that will stop. They will start taking away all of our rights. That is why I am against gun
banning.
I am writing on behalf of my thoughts and myself about gun control laws. My position on this topic is neutral leaning towards the "No Gun" law. The idea of a federal law to ban these guns is a good idea, but it could be better. I believe strongly that guns should be banned from our country in some kind of way, but there are exceptions like for law enforcement and hunters. This law could lower the murder and death rates drastically. The US would be a whole different and safer country to live in. No one should live in a society where they are afraid of being killed by a gun, we should try harder to make this society in the US a better place. I have many reasons to back my views on this topic, and here are some main reasons that you should really think about.
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.
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.
The 2013 gun ban legislation will not solve the problem of violence, but instead will gradually promote it. The writers of the legislation did not appropriately use the correct firearm terminology, which caused the ban to be too broad and generated confusion. In addition, the constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms for self-defense against criminals and if necessary, an overextending, dictatorial government. Therefore, this recent gun ban is not helpful for the general public because the ban is too broad and removes the right we have as U.S. citizens to keep any type of firearm.
First of all, banning guns will not stop criminals from having them, and there are so many ways that these people can obtain guns. It is pretty plain and simple; if you ban guns from everyone crimes will still be committed. Gun control “…ignores the reality that even if guns disappear, bad people will find ways to do bad things” (Wil...
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.
Right now the government has limited firearm purchasing only to people who pass certain steps. Gun control has risen as a controversial subject in the United States today. Many say gun control or banning of all firearms will help protect and make our country a better place. Reasons many are wanting to ban firearms are that the 2nd amendment is out dated and unjustified in this date and time. Writer Eugene Robinson states that “farmers wrote of “arms,” thinking about muskets and single shot pistols. They could not have foreseen modern rifles or high-capacity magazines.” Many agree with Mr. Robinson saying that back when the constitution was written they couldn’t have understood what was going to come in the future. Citizens also believe people have no reason to fight against intruders that come in their home that’s what the authorities are for. If people what to defend themselves why waste the money and time on having police? In this day and age why have weapons why not cut out all firearms and just be one happy country, it’s that simple, but is it really that simple? (“Assault Weapons Must Be Banned in
The Reasons for the government attempting to ban the vast majority of firearms comes from all the violence that is caused using them. The government’s aim is to make a safer environment for the people. That is a reasonable goal, but most crimes are dealt using illegal firearms. Banning firearms most likely wouldn't cause much of a decline in gun related crime. Majority of the crimes are done by people who have had a prior past of criminal activity. Guns are not the reason for the violent crimes. The crimes are caused by the typical person with a violent past with them. Most people would agree that the firearms they have are used either for recreational activities or home protection in times of need. So they believe that without firearms, they are defenseless. Most will also tell anybody that the weapons aren't the ones causing the harm.
... can be put into place so that gun control does not limit law-abiding citizens from keeping guns on their property or person and protecting themselves or others when necessary.
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...
Gun control is a highly controversial topic in today’s world where the fight is between the liberal and the conservatives. Many people believe that guns should be banned due to many recent massacres that have happened whereas others are wanting people to have background checks done before owning a gun. I am against gun control because banning handguns in the United States should not be allowed because handguns fail to protect the people and it is ineffective.
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.