He had to come up with a plan to satisfy the House of Representatives and Congress. Some pros for gun control would be that it might bring the number of accidental shootings down. An example would be that a household would not have a lot of guns just sitting around, and the little children could not just shoot it by accident. Also, depending on what guns they would rule out, the gangs would not be able to get a hold of certain guns as easily. I am not saying they would not get them, but it would be more difficult to find them.
Therefore even though Arrow was being hard on herself for the killings, she did what was best for the people around her. Another decision that Arrow made which revealed her morals was when she was appointed to her new commander and is told to shoot at a target. She rebels with the statement, “I’m not going to kill an innocent civilian.”(Galloway 224) Arrow showed the ability to have the will power to go against the man’s order and do what she believed was right. Arrow was the only reason the city of Sarajevo stayed somewhat sane as she kept the legacy of the cellist
It also doesn’t make sense to blame an inanimate object rather than the individual behind it and the reasons why gun violence occurs. A gun is a tool, not unlike a car or knife. When a law-abiding citizen makes the decision to purchase a gun, it is usually for the purpose of self-defense. It evens the playing field between a victim and a potentially dangerous criminal. In the story “They Each Had a Gun,” Hannah LaMarca was robbed and assaulted with no way to defend herself.
Jhalan Jackson English Gun Control Guns can be used to harm people, or can protect the life of millions who have encountered a near death experience to a gun. Most people might be for gun control, which can have its positive, but can also have its negatives. People need to realize this is a world a cruel world we live in and the use of guns can also save the lives of many. So, why not protect yourself with justified actions? There are too many guns in the streets to take control of them all, therefore forget about trying to take control of the gun, and take control of a life or death situation.
This is the best way to detour potential safety concerns. It may be a cliché’ but guns don’t kill people, people kill people; lives were not lost at the hands of a safety officer with a gun but by the hands of a deranged teen who’s irresponsible parent owned a visible fire arm. In event that the sandy hook school and the movie theater in Colorado did have safety officers carrying guns all those innocent lives could have been saved. Gun control actions may or may not be taken throughout this New Year. Many argue that if more citizens carried weapons, criminals would be less likely to commit violent crimes.
Some individuals are for gun control and some think that gun control does not make a difference. These are some pros for gun control. Knowing that people who cannot easily obtain a firearm allows people to feel safer. Most violent crimes are committed with firearms and restricting gun ownership will most likely reduce a tremendous amount of crimes. Legalized gun ownership gives a greater chance of being in the wrong hands such as a child, giving it a better chance of resulting in a deadly accident.
Most agree that gun-related injury or death of innocent citizens should never be tolerated, but there are opinions on the course to take in an effort to discover a solution. This paper will offer problems and solutions associated with past and present efforts to manage the issue of gun-related injuries/death. This paper will also render the discoveries and opinions of the above-mentioned group members as it relates to this controversial topic. Stricter gun-control laws do not help prevent gun-related injuries/deaths One method to prevent gun-related injuries/deaths is to make serious efforts to treat depression, mental health issues, and drug abuse in society. A large number of gun-related injuries/deaths are committed by members of society that have untreated disorders and others that simply neglect firearm safety rules and existing gun-control laws.
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." (James Earl Jones, Online). Banning all or some weapons is not the solution to decreasing the increased gun related violence in the United States.
The activists believe people will have gun fights over things as simple as parking spaces. Basically anti-gun activists believe that normal people can not be trusted with weapons to protect themselves or their families. Americans can be trustworthy with concealed weapons, gun laws do not affect the criminals of the country, and guns are not only used for bad to hurt innocent people. Americans have the constitutional right to own hand guns and stricter laws and licensing will not effectively save lives.
Summary of “Ban The Things. Ban Them All.” In the essay, “Ban The Things. Ban Them All,” written by Molly Ivins, she expresses concern about society’s ownership of guns, and how they have grown to be used more of a weapon for show, than for protection. Ivins also argues that the argument of “guns don’t kill people,” doesn’t exist, because she believes that they do, and that that may be all they ever do. Ivins states that she supports the Second Amendment: “A well–regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed,”(437) and that adolescents in our society are NOT part of a well-regulated militia: “[there are] teenage drug dealers…cruising the cites of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles” (437).