Argumentative Essay On Gun Control

Gun control has raised various debates in the public policy for quite a long time. Gun control involves the banning of ownership of some or all types of firearms, waiting period and the so called ban on Saturday night specials. These gun control laws have not been useful in combating crimes as many studies conducted before and after the laws have shown no correlation. In most cases there are misconceptions like high death rates in children related to the gun associated accident and the effectiveness of these control laws in other countries which are false. Indeed gun ownership has contributed to significant decline in the crime rates and therefore gun laws should be changed to make it easier for Americans to purchase handguns, carry them

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US 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." Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling also stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."

When tragic, major events happen in the United States, you can always expect an argument or something to unfold about how to prevent something similar from happening again. On October 1st, a man named Stephan Paddock, shot and killed 59 people including himself, while injuring an additional 546. This shooting is now considered the deadliest attack in United States history, so of course you can expect an ongoing political conversation on how to prevent attacks like this. During the attack, Paddock used what is called a “bump stock,” on many of his guns, making his guns’ rapid fire, like an automatic gun, which is what made it so easy for him to open fire and attack so many. After the tragic event, a gun control organization looked into the

Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms. Approximately 270 firearms are owned by Americans scales to about 90 guns for every 100 people. Annually, the misuse of these firearms cost thousands of lives. Stricter gun control is a step into putting a halt to mass shootings. Not only should gun control keep being enacted, but the process to obtaining a gun should be stricter because it would be an immense effort to keep gun violence down and effectively save more lives.

In an editorial published in the Vidette Online titled “We Need Gun Control Now More Than Ever,” the editorial board takes on the topic of the need for stricter gun control. The editorial board reports that if gun control isn’t more strictly enforced it will only create more mass shootings. They make the point that if there was stricter gun control many people would still be living, but their lives have been cut short because of mass shootings. The editorial board is correct when they go on to say enough is enough and we need to figure out a way to stop these mass shootings (“Editorial: We”). However, the board is not correct when they make the statement that putting an end to mass shooting is going to be solved by banning firearms all

Roughly 16,459 murders were committed in the United States during 2016. Of these, about 11,961 or 73% were committed with firearms because people have been killed with gun shot, example the las vegas shooting. A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2013, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides).

Sandy Hook Elementary. Aurora, Colorado. San Bernardino, California. Las Vegas, Nevada. Orlando, Florida. (Words with Negative Connotation) These are just some of the biggest mass shootings that have swept America in the past few years. Hundreds of lives are lost each year to gun related violence in the United States alone. Gun control has been a topic in our country since our founding fathers adopted the second amendment to the US constitution. Although recently controversy has sparked to an all-new extent in America due to the recent spike in mass shootings and gun related homicides. So many families and loves ones are affected each year in the United States because of gun related violence and other mass killing events, because of these events gun control laws need to be revamped and strengthened in American in order to protect the citizens.

Additionally, various credible sources have attained proven statistics that deter any misconceptions pro-gun control activists put forth, such as their most common scapegoat saying: “it was the gun” (Schmidt). This statement is distorted by the rage and helplessness experienced by every American after an act of terrorism is executed; real issues such as the “breakdown of the American family, out of wedlock births, and fatherless children” are the true complications that have led to an increase in violence and crime (Schmidt). One of the most candid statistics supporting the anti-gun control viewpoint is that "as the numbers of ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large’ magazines have soared to all-time highs, violent crime has been cut in half,” which provides a direct correlation between the number of guns owned and the amount of gun violence (“A Ban on Assault Weapons Would Not Reduce Crime”). Furthermore, police reports and felon surveys across the country have found that "assault weapons are used in only 1%-2% of violent crimes,” depicting how insignificant the problem is compared to others, including robbery, suicide, sexual assault, abduction, and physical assault (“A Ban on Assault Weapons Would Not Reduce Crime”). After comprehending the information collected from these two facts, the transparency of the false blame on guns is blatant; unfortunately, due to the easy targeting of guns prompted by fear, the endless circle of polemics continues. Not only do assault weapons make up a miniscule part of violent crimes, but "most guns that are traced have not been used to commit violent crimes, and most guns used to commit violent crimes are never traced," making firearms extraordinarily difficult to manage in the first place (“A Ban on Assault Weapons Would Not Reduce Crime”). There is no purpose in exerting gratuitous laws restricting good samaritans’ right to bear arms. These gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns from underground black markets, nor will they prevent offenders from breaking the laws in the first place. Essentially, an increase in gun control laws would give law abiding citizens a disadvantage, and at the same time provide lawbreakers with an augmented number of opportunities to

As Americans, we are very used to the scene after a new mass shooting happens: outrage, fear, and families suffering the death of their beloved ones. Politicians start debating on gun policy, again, arriving at no solution. This has been America’s reality for the past decades. The problem in which lobbyists and a dominant minority stop any attempt to find a solution. Dan Gross, as president of the Brady Campaign, is seeking to promote sensible gun control in the United States. Mr. Gross advocates for gun control and for laws that put a stop to the gun violence problem (Ted Talk). Another article by Tom McCarthy in The Guardian gives some data and ideas about what gun control would look like. McCarthy’s article gives us a context in which

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.” People interpret the Second Amendment to mean that all people have the right to own guns, but not all people should be able to own them. “In 2007, 385,178 total firearm crimes were committed, including 11,512 murders, 190,514 robberies, and 183,153 aggravated assaults” (Giffords). The United States government must have stronger laws about purchasing guns.

During the early history of the United States, gun regulations were a state centered issued. In 1827, Georgia was one of the first state to try to implement gun regulations by passing a bill that attempted to ban handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out (Utter, 2000). As gun technology progressed during World War One and the Thompson submachine gun was developed a change for stricter gun regulations was inevitable. The History News Network reported that, “at least 27 states enacted measures to restrict or outlaw the sale and possession of fully automatic weapons prior to 1934 (Spiltzer, 2015)”. The country understood the need to regulate fully automatic weapons but the issue would be further expounded due to the fact that

“The second amendment of The United States Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit, period.”- Ted Nugent. Saving lives one by one starts with limiting the purchase, sale, and use of guns in America. According to Alexander Lee, the political and social debate over the question of how much gun control is appropriate and it has been regularly discussed within the last decade. Shootings such as Sandy Hook, and Tucson shootings have raised the government’s awareness on guns and possible restrictions and regulations. Gun talks are discussed with the question, “Will controlling guns cut back on violent crime rates?” Although many guns are open to be sold to the public over 18, there are traditional gun laws that limit who can own them. These laws include sell restrictions to the mentally disabled, the age in which you can obtain a gun, background checks, and dishonorably discharged military personnel. Gun control laws could have a positive effect in America by reducing homicide rates, but at the same time, citizens still have the right to bear arms under the second amendment under the U.S constitution. Gun control laws do not mean the absolute confiscation of guns, but rather reduce the amount of power a gun and the amount of ammo that a gun can hold.

Gun control in the United States is a very controversial topic in today’s political society, leaving the nation divided into two sides with two strongly opinionated beliefs. This all started with the increase in the amount of mass shootings and an overall increase in gun violence. The two sides consist of the liberal point of view and the conservative point of view. The liberals believe that the availability of firearms to the people in the country is a major issue, and that the U.S. government is at fault for the mass shootings due to the lenient regulations on guns. In retaliation, the conservatives argue that having a gun is a God given right, that the Second Amendment of The Constitution. Although the availability of guns is seen to be

Some claim that stricter firearm regulation would contribute directly to the nation’s collective security by preventing criminals from obtaining firearms through legal means. However, this is a misguided approach in addressing the real issue. A hardened criminal, accustomed to life on the fringes of the legal system would have no qualms about adding the illegal acquisition of a firearm to his repertoire of criminal activity if it suited his purposes. Any suitably motivated individual with a strong enough desire can and will obtain a firearm or an alternative means to accomplish their goal. Take the city of Chicago: “Despite Chicago 's ban on gun shops, shooting ranges, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, in 2014 Chicago had 2,089 shooting victims including at least 390 murders. Approximately 50,000 guns were recovered by police in Chicago between 2001 and Mar. 2012” (Procon). The ease with which one can obtain a firearm is laughable and the government deeming them illegal would not change that. If one were to round up every legally owned and registered firearm in the United States and melt them down for scrap, this would still be true. Trying to remove guns in order to prevent violent crime is like banning water to prevent drowning; how do you keep it from slipping through the cracks?

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” (Stolzenberg and D'alessio). These words were written over two hundred years ago, however the exact meaning of them are still not entirely clear. The Amendment’s true meaning has been rather obscure for centuries, but it wasn’t until recent years that the issue has become the center of legal and academic debates (Stolzenberg and D'alessio). Though there has been regulations on guns for quite some time, firearm regulation did not become a “prominent political issue” until the 1980’s (Stolzenberg and D'alessio). “Once gun control entered the nation's political conscience, there was a surge in academic study of the Second Amendment's language and the historical sources surrounding its adoption” (Stolzenberg and D'alessio). Various books and articles were written and published reviewing these issues and “even noted constitutional theorists such as Laurence Tribe” began to change their ideas and understanding of the amendment (Stolzenberg and D'alessio).