Gun Control It seems that in today’s society, one of the many hot topics to talk about is gun control. As one hears news about mass shooting, hunting, homicides and terrorism, many believe that a stricter gun control law should be put into place, while others think that going against gun control is the best choice. All these things on guns that people here now a days impact the way they see others and society. Given this, gun control can be placed and explained in the three major theoretical perspectives in sociology: symbolic interactionism, functional analysis, and the conflict theory. One word can have multiple meanings. For instance, the word “gun” can signify protection or even a threat. For few, if someone has a gun they can view it …show more content…
If the government acts in a manifest function and decides to loosen gun laws in order to help people protect themselves, it can lead to a latent dysfunction where guns can be reachable to anyone and more accidents will be prone to occur. On the other hand, if the government decides to enforce strict gun control, people will then think of it as them being stripped of their American right to bare arms and hence protests will be made. Gun control can also be examined with the third perspective in sociology, the conflict theory. Since most of society’s problems are caused by the constant competition of two groups, many can be examined using this micro-level analysis. Even if gun control is enforced people will still continue to rebel and resent the law. With the conflict theory, individuals will always go against authority no matter what the case may be. Having said this, gun control, as well as other sociological problems, can be analyzed using the three major sociological theories. When discussing about guns, it can have numerous meanings and symbolism. Whether laws are put to control or go against laws, functional analysis and the conflict theory has it that its outcome will have consequences. To conclude sociology and each of its theories help one determine and understand the patterns of
"The Controversy of Gun Control." Open Discussion about Various Controversies. N.p.. Web. 3 Dec 2013. .
The present essay aims to analyze the connection between American society and gun ownership. Also what this can provoke on the citizens. These issues have been highly debatable over the past fourteen years since the massacre on Columbine High School occurs on April 20, 1999. As gun ownership is closely related to availability of firearms, the people who are against this civil duty of bearing arms to defend themselves and theirs are terrified of being shot, so the fear has spread over the country. Another relevant aspect is the discrimination of students from Columbine School since the existing paranoia. Students are taken to court to declare about their ‘misbehavior’. Finally, all these negative feelings have increased within the country creating a division having ‘firearms’ as guilty.
By looking at gun control through the functionalist perspective we are able to get a better understanding of how having stricter gun control can effect everyone. When looking at it from one point a view we can see that some people see having stricter gun laws is effecting their right to be able to own a gun, while others see it as a way to trying to make sure that the wrong people don’t get their hands on guns. While it makes since that people are going to be upset about having laws that prevent them from asserting their amendment right, it doesn’t make since for there to not be stricter gun laws. Just from looking at all of the recent shootings in the past few years, people should be able to tell that it is way to easy for people to get their hands on guns and these shootings are going to continue to happen as long as we don’t reassess our current gun
In this article the author Fawn Johnson gives us a brief look of what goes on during the great gun control debate. This article gives us a look at the gun control proposals, from American’s not bein...
Opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. For the purposes of this paper "Gun Control" is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and the like. So defined, gun control understandably brings favorable responses from some, and angry objections from others. The gun control debate is generally publicized because of the efforts of the Pro-Gun Lobby or the Anti-Gun Lobby.
“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.
Gun control in the United States has been a major debate for hundreds of years. Many people believe that guns should be highly regulated while others believe that anyone should have the ability to own one. Each side has a plausible argument. Throughout this essay it will be show how not having gun control can increase violence and death rates, the right for everyone to own a gun is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and how over usage of guns has played a role in the diminishing populations of animals.
America is the most well armed nation in the world, with American citizens owning about 270 million of the world’s 875 million firearms (Marshall). Indeed, this is more than a quarter of the world’s registered firearms. The reason why Americans own so many guns is because of the Second Amendment, which states, “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.” (Rauch) This amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to have firearms. Since this amendment is relatively vague, it is up for interpretation, and is often used by gun advocates to argue for lenient gun laws. Hence, gun control is a frequently discussed controversial topic in American politics.
“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.
B) Thesis statement: Gun control is a huge epidemic for the United States of America. The second amendment. The second amendment states "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." Which states that American citizens can be able to carry firearms. I am against gun control because they are too many instincts when a mass shooting will happen and it could have been promoted with strict gun control laws. For example on July 20, 2012 a mass shooting happened at the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. It occurred at a midnight premiere for The Dark Knight Rises a gunman named James Eagan Holmes through tear gas in the crowd and shot
There are gun control laws to try and reduce the number of violent shootings that occur. They are trying to put limits on weapons that Americans can own. The government is trying to take our guns away mainly because of people that are criminally insane. Most of the people who commit crimes don’t even have the weapons legally. If the government takes away the rights of people who are allowed to have firearms in their possession, it will most definitely cause an outrage. Most people believe that the people should be more capable of maintain proper use of the firearms instead of having them all taken away. Taking the firearms from Americans away would cause a lot more problems than there actually are. The people will be upset with the government taking firearms away because of the horrible people who harm innocent people using them. So they will do anything to their capabilities to keep them.
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
The development of arguments surrounding gun control corresponds to the increased violence and problems related to weapons and firearms use. This then prompted the expansion of gun control initiatives and has shapes public opinion particularly in the promotion of increased regulation to banning. Due to this, it became controversial as it split the opinions of the citizenry particularly in their stance to advance different objectives. Arguably, the process of developing gun control remains to be detrimental due to its capacity to challenge individual rights and liberty, undermine the value of guns and firearms in the promotion of deterrence and self-defense and inability to recognize the commitment of existing reasonable gun management and control initiatives already in place.
The conversation of gun control and gun regulation has been a great debate over the decades. NRA Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, in his speech on Newtown Shooting that occurred on December 21st, 2012, addresses the topic of gun control and argues that guns are not the cause of gun violence. LaPierre's project is to instead of gun control and decreasing the numbers of guns, increase the numbers of guns to solve the problem of gun violence. On the other side of debate, an American journalist, Nicholas Kristof, in his journal, "Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" argues that guns are the cause of gun violence, but they should not be banned. Kristof's project is to regulate guns with many cautions. While these two authors have different arguments and projects, they use similar strategies to advance their claims. This paper will focus on the way each author strategically uses compare and contrast, cause and effect, and problem-solution to advance their claims and how effective these strategies are used.
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.