This opinion piece from The Washington Post was written by U.S. Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut. Published days after the recent Las Vegas Shooting, Murphy tells of his past experiences with gun violence urging for stronger gun control legislation. He states that the “phenomenon of horrific mass shootings is exclusive to the United States”, so the solution should be able to be solved by Americans. He argues that our response to “regular mass shootings” has been un-American, and how can a country that has solved the greatest problems in the world, not solve a problem that puts our fellow citizens in harm. “…we choose to be an increasingly distant outlier of exceptional violence”, Murphy states. He mentions one statistic in the article, “In my state of Connecticut, which has expanded background checks and requires issued handgun permits, gun crimes have dropped by 40 percent.”. No other evidentiary support is presented to support Murphy’s argument. He is appealing on human emotion that we, as Americans, are failing to take care of each other and continually allowing others to be put in harm’s way if nothing is done. Murphy’s biases are evident from the beginning of the article when it is stated that he is a democrat, as most democrats are in favor of stronger gun control; it is a common party platform. It is later shown that Murphy has a personal connection to gun violence as he served as the congressman for Newtown, Connecticut during the Sandy Hook shooting. He does
The article “Will recent shooting influence gun legislation” takes about how the recent shootings are having an influence on people's perspective on gun control. It explains the various mass shootings across America such as the one at Charleston. Some people are deciding to go out and buy more guns, while others are trying to enforce more gun control laws. The American people are split down the middle, deciding whether they should protect gun rights or attack then. The article tackles varying concepts, such as mental health with guns and the use of assault rifles. It shows how gun violence has escalated in the past few years, and how the American people are reacting to it. Overall, it is about
Mass shootings have become a disturbing movement that only seems to be rising. The Orlando tragedy caused opened the conversation towards guns and public safety. Americans no longer feel safe. The theoretical statement in Why Obama Can’t do anything about guns by Jamelle Bouie is gun control isn’t the President Barack Obama’s failure; it is the American people not speaking up. The theory used as a premise in this argument is not accepted because the understanding of gun policy is still a myth (Bouie, 2016). Additionally, the alternative theory is if gun policies were to remain stagnant, the danger would escalate over time. The doubtful prediction derived from this theoretical statement would be republicans supporting the liberal views about gun control. Americans and the U.S. government must stand together to fight for the protection of the society.
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.
Gun violence has become an increasingly apparent and critical issue in American society. The most prominent and dramatic examples of gun violence are the shootings that have been occurring recently. In October of twenty-seventeen, a gunman opened fire on a concert in Las Vegas killing fifty-nine and injuring over five hundred in what would be the largest mass shooting in American history. These numbers are astounding but do not change the fact that stricter gun control will not solve the problem. While tragic, these instances they offer insight into what perpetuates gun violence. However, people often use these tragedies to gain political favor and call for more action for gun control, but these instances only reveal that guns are not the source of the problem. According to USA Today journalist John Munn, these type of instances are an example of why more gun control is a necessity. In his article, “Readers sound off: We need to do more on gun control”, Munn wrote, “[Guns are] being used against the general public for the express purpose of mass murder. They’re not hunting tools. They’re not used to protect the innocent.
Gun control is defined as the “regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns” (“Gun Control” Merriam-Webster 1). Gun control is a heated topic that many Americans concern themselves with today after recent mass shootings. Suggested solutions are posed and debated between different viewpoints. The laws in existence today should be carried out and tightened before excess laws are passed. Many Americans have turned to face the issue of gun control after recent mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas or in some Churches. Some Americans with a more liberal view believe that tighter gun control laws should be enacted. More conservative Americans believe that the gun control laws already passed should be followed through. The gun laws that have already been passed should be followed through opposed to enacting new laws because many laws are already in place, gun control laws do not stop illegally obtaining a gun, and strict gun control laws have failed to prevent mass killings in countries.
This was the headline in “The New York Times” by Christopher Mele and Manny Fernandez on November 5th 2017. The authors highlights the events that led to a gunman by the Devin Patrick Kelly, 26, opening fire at a congregation worshiping on a Sunday at a rural church in Texas, killing 26 people and scores injured. According to this article, the motif of the attack was attributed to a serious mental health problem and a failed marriage which led to divorce the victim having assaulted his wife and child.
Multiple videos of police involved shootings have surfaced on the internet over the past few years raising the question; should police be carry firearms? A few countries have already disarmed their patrol officers and left only a few specialized armed units. There are some that would believe the same should be done in the United States. However disarming officers would have disastrous results. Police officers must be armed to project force, secure a crime scene, and defend the lives of others.
The Constitution states the second amendment as, “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.”1 This amendment gives the people the right to own and carry guns for their protection and for the security of their homes. There are many controversies surrounding the issue of people owning guns and gun related violence because of the second amendment. One of the biggest controversies is the regulations on gun control regulating what type of guns people may possess and what kind of registration is required. The tenth amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”2 The second amendment (along with all the other amendments) is under federal jurisdiction; therefore the states do not have power in this case.3 The second amendment gives the right to all American citizens to bear arms, therefore, the States do not have the power to regulate what type of firearm they may possess and how they carry or keep it.
With an increase in the number of mass shootings that have occurred in the United States in the last few years the issue of gun control laws has become a prevalent topic of debate throughout American society. This debate stems from two opposing arguments over gun control. Some feel gun control laws are fair and not the contributing factor to these mass shootings, whereas, others feel that there is an urgent need for strict laws in order to end the problem of mass shootings. There are numerous pros and cons to the enforcement of stricter gun control laws but we must note a few things: stricter gun control laws would interfere with the second amendment, it is not the gun that kills it is the individual, and it is ultimately not laws that are
As Boss (2017) mentions, 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” (p. 164). Gun control has always been a controversial issue. Due to shootings related to culture, schools, robberies, movie theatres, and accidents, guns have become an object of violence, fear, and danger. All people have been affected by gun violence or have heard of an event related to gun violence. The two articles that will be analyzed are Erik Gilbert’s “Stop Worrying About Guns in the Classroom. They’re Already Here” and a testimony by Mark Kelly “Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Gun Violence on Gun Violence on January 30, 2013”. After comparing arguments through different premises from both articles, one essay will be chosen superior to the other.
The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Gun control is an argument much debated in the United States of America today. Recent events such as the shooting in Connecticut elementary school and the shooting in a Colorado theater at an early morning screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" have persuaded many government officials to support gun control laws. However, many government officials still hold to the 2nd Amendment, which bluntly states, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This being part of the Constitution, it bears a lot of credibility. However, I don't believe this is right. The government should not control guns rights to extremes, but it shouldn't let us have too much freedom.
Barack obama said “We Americans are not more violent people than folks in other countries. We're not more prone to mental health problems. The main difference that sets our nation apart, what makes us so susceptible to so many mass shootings, is that we don't do enough, we don't take the basic common sense actions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. What's different in America is that it's easy to get your hands on a gun”. The areas where gun-carrying is restricted cause mass violence rather than reduce it. “The real problem, both in discussions of mass shootings and in discussions of gun control, is that too many people are too committed to a vision to allow mere facts to interfere with their beliefs, and the sense of superiority that those beliefs give them”. Myself thinks mass shootings is a big part of the reason why people have depression. Moms that have kids that died because of mass shootings or even people who lost one of their family members they can have a lot of depression. Ezra Klein said “Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies” we can stop mass shootings by selling guns to people that are
In this era, gun control has become a very controversial topic. People have debated whether any person should be able to obtain the privilege of handling or carrying a gun. Scholars, teachers, and politicians consistently go over the fact that guns can be a potential threat to society, especially with the current uprising of shootings across The United States. However, they fail to further analyze the feelings of those who believe that obtaining a gun is essential to feel safe and to ensure their survival. Over the years, violence in our communities has increased significantly, which frightens people and inclines them to carry their own gun. There are several factors that can cause someone to want to carry a firearm such as, a recent
Lastly, a major component to the right to bear arms comes from the interpretation of the Second Amendment to represent an individual’s rights to bear arms not only for individual protection but also for the protection of tyranny from a government. Previously in the United States the idea that the Second Amendment was meant to protect this right, was only one that shared by fringe individuals however, in recent years this has become a more legitimate argument. It appears that on a daily basis the government may be corrupt and many American citizens doubt if they can trust the government at all. David Welna, of National Public Radio wrote an article referencing the idea that tyranny is now a mainstream idea. He explains that in the aftermath
As opponents against gun control have numerous reasons as to why guns should not be restricted amongst the American public but pointed to the Second Amendment to the United Constitution as the main reason why gun control should not be permitted in the U.S. However, what these critics do not want to accept is that since 1980, several crucial events in the United States have led to excessive gun control movement. Remarkably, it takes a lot more than one appalling catastrophe to influence Americans that more attention should be taken into monitoring the number and types of guns the public can get access to. However, some major shooting calamities in the U.S such as assassination attempts on President Reagan’s, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook have all triggered majority of Americans to take a stance in favor of gun control legislation. The first key push in the direction of the gun control movement begun during the era of Ronald Reagan presidency since he happened to be of one of the most “pro gun” presidents in American history.