The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Courts have universally agreed, however, that the right provided by the Second Amendment is not absolute and that many kinds of gun legislation designed to protect public safety remain valid ("Gun Safety & Public Health," 2013). The ongoing debate between the gun rights versus gun control has caught more attention as number of cases involving gun violence increased significantly. In one study, it stated that major mental illnesses are associated with increased risk of violent act. In recent years, there were several news headlines on

“Gun are designed to kill. They have no other function” (Bowman and Newton). Today, there is a major debate whether or not guns should be legalized or stay legal. The Second Amendment allows people to right to bear arms, but many people disagree with that and to express their opinions, both sides protest. Guns have a long history in the United States. They were made for military purposes and are now used for anything a individual wants to use it for, like for example hunting. Stricter gun control laws should be enacted because they will cause fewer deaths, save money, and for increased public safety.

James Mallon once said that “Gun control is like the annoying family member you hate to see. No matter how much you disdain seeing them or talking to them, eventually a climatic event, family reunion, or holiday forces you to have interaction with them.” Gun control may be that elephant in the room given all the recent tragic events involving firearm use, but ignoring that elephant is no solution. Stricter gun laws, as well as other forms of gun control may be the final viable resort to ending the onslaught that are mass shootings.

Gun Control has been a long debated, and hot topic among the American population for many decades. The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution states that, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Both sides of this debate have very logical arguments for increasing gun control or lessening gun control. These arguments tend to spike shortly after active shooter events, eventually having some type of legislature passed to prevent these atrocious acts from happening. But ultimately active shooter events continue to plague the United States, and much of the world.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution has drawn a great deal of criticism especially in recent years. The topic of gun control is controversial throughout these past few years because of the many mass shooting being committed through the the use of guns. 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.”(“Guns and Violence”, 2016) I came about this issue because of the recent events that took place involving guns causing a mass shooting done by a person legally allowed to get weapons. This even made it seem as if weapon killing innocents are the norm in the United States because of all the mass shooting that have taken place throughout the past few years. I wanted to do research on what would happen if there are gun control laws placed in the U.S government, would it make America a safer place or a more dangerous place. “Expanding background checks for gun purchasers to a wider range of gun sales was also judged effective and popular. It is an idea that was considered by Congress in 2013, but failed to win enough votes to become law (Bui, 2017).” This quote got me thinking why do people not want to limit gun control if it might help the safety of Americans. Gun laws need to be changed so that guns are harder to obtain for those who are not deemed fit to hold a gun and allowed for those to carry as a method of protection from the government from overpowering us and from criminals.

"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 Bill of Rights.“The 21st century” a backdrop for the War On Terror, has since changed that view on the right to bear arms enough to call for major gun reform. Orlando, Florida 50 killed and 53 injured June 12, 2016. San Bernardino, California 16 killed and 24 injured December 2, 2015. The media slanders two weapons of so called “terror”, the infamous AK-47 and the AR-15. The AK-47 a soviet made weapon a by product of the cold war, and the AR-15 a weapon invented to combat the AK-47. Both weapons are used in many mass shootings, in fact the New York Times calls both assault rifles

Although I did not agree with the article How Gun Control Advocates Could break the NRA’s Blockade by Ronald Brownstein, it states some points that were hard to refute about gun control and that helped shape my argument. My stance on gun control is that we should not ban guns as a whole, but have more of a centralized approach on how people can obtain a gun. Being an American citizen allows you with certain alienable rights that are outlined by the Bill of Rights. We as a nation were given these rights at the creation of our great nation based on the fact that all men were created equal. Some of the rights that are given include things such as, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights was made because they wanted to place specific limits on government power. The author of the article is suggesting that we as a nation should ban all types of guns. This topic of banning guns or not banning guns is important because in recent events there has been a lot of mass shootings that have ended lives too early. These mass shootings are becoming more and more common the number of people that have been killed by guns within the last year has been four hundred and sixty-one. Also, there have been over three hundred mass shootings in the last 477 days.

Violence. Murder. Sadness. These words describe a situation that has been occurring in the United State more frequently, a mass shooting. The thought of something so horrible happening to someone close or even oneself is hard to imagine. However, knowing that that possibility of a shooting happening is raising more concern on gun laws. The debate is one that is difficult to answer; there are those who, almost literally, love their guns more than their children and there are those who love their children more than guns. Both sides make valid arguments and can be quite convincing as well, although, to provide a unanimous solution we must analyze both perspectives. The question is then brought to attention; what are the perspectives on the gun

Gun Politics in the U.S. are defined by two distinct groups: those who are for tighter if not outright ban on guns. And those who want to preserve every American’s rights to bear Arms under the second amendment. This of course led to disagreements when it came to the interpretation of laws and court cases related to firearms. Among other things related to the issue, like the effects gun control has on crime and the public safety (Rozsa, 2017). Debates regarding the access to firearms by the general populous and gun violence in the United States have been characterized by the concerns about the rights to bear arms and the responsibility of the government to serve the needs of its citizens. Such as the prevention of crime and

Recently there has been a renewed debate about whether or not gun control could be a legitimate way to reduce the violence in the United States. Like any debate there are two sides: one for gun control and one against it. Recently, the pro gun control side has argued that the recent mass shootings and general violence is a result of our country’s minimal gun control. And although this may seem like a reasonable argument, in reality it is an overgeneralization; there are many other factors that lead into horrific events like mass shootings. On the other side, those who want gun freedoms have argued that gun control laws are a violation of citizen’s constitutional rights. But when the facts are looked into more it is clear that generalized gun control is not a good solution because guns do not kill people, people kill people.

Gun control laws are an ongoing process that varies from location, to time of history. Throughout history different laws and regulations have been made about gun control across all continents on earth. These laws change frequently and will continue to do so till the end of time. Many people are either for or against these laws depending on their religion, moral beliefs and location. Although increasing gun control is used for the protection of citizens, it could be deemed unnecessary to many because it simply doesn't work, there are too many unreasonable laws, and is unconstitutional. Instead we should learn from other countries across the world.

On October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a large crowd of concertgoers on the Las Vegas Strip, killing 58 people and more than 500, making it the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. Following yet another mass shooting we find ourselves as society asking the same questions of gun control and whether we are doing too little to prevent these now eerily common instances. Although many will agree with Nevada Sheriff Joe Lombardo, “I don’t know how it [the mass shooting] could have been prevented.” others preach that more rigorous gun laws could have lessened the death toll or maybe even prevented this tragedy. I believe that more demanding gun control laws especially relating to assault rifles and gun ownership procedures would help decrease if not prevent many of these mass shootings.

Gun Control is a set of laws that provide limitations on gun ownership by civilians. Gun control has been argued over many years due to advances in technology with weaponry, and whether it is actually necessary to keep the limitations. One major example people are for gun control are the previous acts of terrorism on the United States. People are concerned that background checks are not being performed or not examined deep enough. Background checks one possible way to keep gun control under fair limits. Although the U.S government can not fully ban the ownership of weapons to civilians, there are some limitations that can be questionable. Limitations such as gun modifications to make them more lethal seems like a limitations that should not even exist. But because of recent events

Gun control is a very sensitive topic which can cloud the minds of many. Those who agree with gun control want there to be better strains on gun laws. Though those who oppose gun control feel the laws need to be more flexible. This topic is viewed in two major standpoints because guns are like both a blessing and a sin. Arguments over gun control will never end due to the fact that no one knows for sure if guns are acceptable or harmful.

For many years, people have been pushing the American government to implement new laws that deal with gun control. Supporters of the argument claim that increased gun control will drastically reduce the crime rate in America. Nevertheless, a majority of gun control arguments are formed from strict control of data and emotional appeal. The mainstream media picks up these stories and broadcasts them to viewers without providing any context to them. While gun control activists assert that gun control is necessary, the American government should not ban guns because of the following reasons: potential vulnerability of innocent people being shot at by criminals and the inability for people to defend themselves against their own government.