Getting Rid Of Guns In America

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads that: “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.” According to Nelson Lund, “Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard,” however, this question did not come to people’s attention long after the Bill of Rights were adopted. Although there has been a lot of controversy over whether keeping the Second Amendment would be beneficial, many believe that getting rid of it would not be a massive step forward compared to where it stands now. Stricter gun control may slow down the likelihood of people obtaining guns, but it will not reduce the amount of gun violence that happens throughout the world. What outcomes do people believe will happen if they take away our gun rights? While the Second Amendment helps in preventing the number of crimes from increasing, it has been found that armed citizens are very helpful in reducing crime. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect, the homicide rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent, according to John Lott, author of “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.” However, having armed citizens walking out and about it makes it very difficult for policemen to identify the criminals from the responsible citizens with legal firearms.

Gun control should not exist at all in the United States. Mass shootings have almost become seen as normal event in the United States. What people do not understand is that gun control is not the answer; there are countries with little to no control that have fewer shootings. According to The Washington Post,Finland is ranked number 4 in countries with the most guns despite that they only had 24 homicides by firearm (“Gun homicides and ownership by countries” n.pag.) . In the article Did Gun Control Work In Australia “it is shown that gun control has reduced the problems but it still has not completely got rid of all firearm deaths”(Matthews n.pag.). The number of murders, homicides, or suicides do not go up due to people just owning more guns. Clayton Perry, a staff writer at the University of Maine, even points out “Stricter gun laws were in place during the Assault Weapons Ban between 1994 and 2004, but that didn't stop the shooters at Columbine in 1999 ”(Perry n. pag.). In Iceland, thirty out of a hundred people own a gun and they have zero homicides caused by guns a year(“Gun Homicides and ownership by country” n. pag.). In this day and age, everything is unpredictable, guns are a form of protection for everyone and there should not be restrictions on protection. The U.S. Department of Justice released a data brief that states, “ On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property”(Rand BJS Statistician n. pag.). The National Sheriffs Association released that the average police response time is at eighteen minutes while the average school shooting only last twelve minutes (“Embracing Technology To Decrease Response Time” n. pag.). Gun control should not exist because other countries do fine without it , high gun ownership has no link with increasing death rates , and guns are not harmful when instructions are followed.

Every day in America an average of 93 are killed people due to gun violence. One of the biggest concerns today in American policy is gun control. This is a very controversial and complicated topic for both pro-gun and anti-gun supporters. American policy makers need to make it harder for the wrong people to obtain firearms and the fact that Second Amendment and gun control can co-exist. Mental illness constantly emerges in relation to mass shootings and shooters a like, as well as day to day homicides and suicides. America doesn’t necessarily have more crime then other developed countries the crime is just much more lethal. Right-wing Republicans constantly use the Second Amendment as shield to use firearms, the fact is the document is

School should be a place of peace and opportunity, but gaps in the system of gun control threatens the safety of faculty and students. School shootings have killed a total of 297 lives, young and old (Slate Magazine). Gun control has been a continuous nationwide debate for many years. It seems that no one wants to take a stance against guns unless they are personally affected. In order to take control of the matter and prevent more incidents from continuing schools need to change. To achieve a safe environment in schools need to educate faculty, safe and students, heighten security, and assess mental health issues.

In most cases even preventing the crime from taking place in the first place. While the second amendment protected these individuals, it has also harmed others; According to 2014 Crime in the United States, Expanded Homicide, roughly 14,000 murders committed in the United States during that year, of these, about 10,000, were committed with firearms. While repealing the second amendment would have decreased the deaths, the criminals who are doing harm, will still find a way to commit harm with or without a firearm. It would give the criminal the advantage of knowing that the citizens do not carry guns and would lead to the criminal to conduct the crime because the citizen cannot defend himself. The problem with repealing the second amendment is that criminals would still find a way to commit the crime if the second amendment gets repealed. As shown in Criminal Victimization 2014, roughly 5.9 million violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2014 these included assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. 10% were perpetrated by offenders visibly armed with a gun. This goes to show that 10% of these cases did the criminals require the use of a firearm to commit these offenses. Meaning that the criminal committing the crimes would have committed the crime with or without the firearm when only 10% of the criminals needed a gun to go through with their crime. Taking away guns would

Every so often the media and news feeds flood with reports of a mass shooting. Families mourn. In the days that follow, calls to action can be heard, and there is a demand for change. Sometimes minor legislation passes, but in the United States extreme change is rarely seen. Other developed nations provide an opposite comparison. Following the Port Arthur shooting in Australia and the shooting in Great Britain, both countries organized for significant gun reform.

To actualize firearm control, would mean putting considerably advance confinements on the business, purchases, owning and conveying of weapons. This would do two distinct things, neither of which would help the circumstance with crime rates at all. Above all else it would remove firearms from those of us upstanding natives who do comply with the laws put forward to us by our administration since we would realize that having a weapon would be illegal. In the meantime, however, lawbreakers will be unlawfully getting firearms similarly as they illegally do numerous different things now. Due to this

According to Nicholas Kristof’s article “our blind spot about guns” gun control is a lot like cars regulation such that if we can regulate cars we can regulate guns. It took a lot of time and effort but thanks to regulations cars are safer than they were many years ago, and the same is very possible with guns. We need to keep our country safe. The first steps to gun control are improving on background checks and also requiring trigger locks on all guns.

On October 1st 2017, Steven Paddock shot and killed 58 people at a country music festival in Las Vegas, Nevada. Over the course of 12 minutes, Paddock committed the worst mass shooting in modern American history. We must honor the victims and respect their memory, but we have to ask ourselves what we will do to prevent this in the future. The first and completely valid response to that question is enacting stricter gun control, but there is much more than that. We can increase funding for mental health treatment, we can take stricter security measures at hotels and concerts, however there is something major that needs to be changed that hardly ever gets talked about. It’s something that we are used to, that we have seen all throughout our

On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and leaving 17 injured at Virginia Tech. On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza went on a shooting spree in Newtown, Connecticut, killing his mother before shooting 20 1st graders and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary. On June 12, 2016, in Orlando, Omar Mateen killed 49 people and injured 58 others. Most recently on October 1, 2017, 58 people were killed and another 489 injured when Stephen Paddock fired onto the crowd at the Route 91 Harvest music festival. Many more mass shootings have happened where more innocent people have lost their lives. Gun control has been in debate for some period, some people advocate for it while others dissuade it. Now more than ever, changes must be made to better protect people from losing their lives to a shooter. To prevent future tragedies in the United States, there should be stricter gun laws enforcing a more advance psychological test, imposing a federal gun license, and have a 1 month waiting period to receive the gun.

We see and hear about it on the news how someone shot and killed someone and we all think why do people do that or what gives them the idea to just go out and take another living human life away. Then the issue is would it be better to make Gun-control even more strict so that the deaths caused by gunshots could lower? So when people do bad, other people look for a solution on what to do and the idea that keeps getting tossed up is to make Gun-control more strict so it doesn't happen as often. But this shouldn’t be the case since there will always be gun violence. The issue isn't the gun, the issue is who wields it and uses for harm instead of protection. Then will this person who has a gun will he/she be mentally stable enough to use it

Do you realize the number of firearm deaths is steadily increasing each year; in 2000, there was 28,663 deaths, in 2010 there was 31,692 deaths, in 2014 there was 33,599 deaths (Alpers, 2016). Today, the chance of you being killed by a firearm is equivalent to the chance of you dying in a car accident. The dialogue on firearm importance, becomes a more discussed topic everyday. We must be aware of the supporting and opposing arguments, for the better safety of our society currently. We must also be aware of the physiological needs after a gun related incident. The American Psychological Association mentions coping with the aftermath; discussing the event, turning away from news and gathering your emotions with a break, or even helping others do something good (Managing, “n.d.”). Firearm violence prevention is crucial; not only to save lives, but also to prevent hurting individuals psychologically. American Psychological Association, and The Prevention Institute, have different perspectives on firearms, but all the same intent, to end the violence between Americans.

From an economic standpoint, it does not make much sense to take guns away from people. Companies in the United States that manufacture, distribute and sell firearms, ammunition and hunting equipment employ as many as 128,794 people in the country. The total impact that the economy sees from this industry annually is approximately $42,956,599,500 (Dunham). With these statistics alone, it proves that taking guns away would hurt the already struggling economy greatly. It just does not make sense economically to take guns away from people because it would prohibit sales of firearms, ammunition, and other gun related items.

Statistics and logic undoubtedly attests that weakening the second amendment right and strengthening gun laws will only make matters worse. According to PBS, over 132,471,000 (132.471 million) about 33,636 people in the United States die each year because of firearms, and even less people are criminals with firearms (Goff). This means that only about 0.0001% of Americans get injured, let alone killed, by firearms; it is not just to take away guns from the 41% of Americans that own firearms. Taking away the Second amendment right because so few of people are injured each year would be up right preposterous. Also, David Kopel, Professor of Constitutional Law at Denver University, conducted a study by comparing statistics and came to the conclusion that only about 13% of burglaries occur when the occupants of the homes are there because they are

From 1988 to 2001, the usage of anti-depressant drugs in the general public increased by four-hundred percent (Swanson). The mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary took place in December of 2012, and during 2014, firearms were used in 88 percent of teen homicides, and 41 percent of teen suicides (“Suicidal Teens”). On February 28th, 2017, the Trump administration repealed a firearms regulation that prevented mentally disabled persons from owning guns. At the same time, teenage mental illness is on the rise, specifically in cases of depression and anxiety. A report from the Surgeon General shows that over 90 percent of adolescents that committed either suicide or homicide have or had a mental disability. Mental disabilities such as depression and anxiety put teenagers at a high risk for homicides and suicides. Teenagers who are stressed due to school, lack of parenting, puberty, bullying, and other factors can develop depression, anxiety or another mental illness. Allowing these teens easy access to firearms proves time and time again to be very dangerous. In some cases, the families of these teens have never been assessed to see if they can responsibly store firearms. The only background check performed is on the owner of the firearm, meaning that a person may own the weapon even if another family member living with them legally cannot. Loose gun control laws allow families with physiologically ill children to have access to firearms, without first checking to see if the disabled children in the home are responsible enough to be around said firearms. Repealing gun control laws instated by the Obama administration will cause an increase in adolescent firearm-related homicides, suicides, and tragedies similar to the one at Sandy Hook Elementary.