Greenhaven Press, 2011. Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV),"America Caught in the Crossfire: How Concealed Carry Laws Threaten Public Safety," December 11, 2009. www.lcav.org/concealedcarry/. Copyright © 2009 by Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV). Reproduced by permission. Ted Lewis "The United States Should End the War on Drugs and Strictly Control Gun Sales “Mexico.
No Common Sense in Gun Control Stephen L. Kono Park University First Year Writing Seminar II: Academic Research and Writing EN 106 Mrs. Regina C. Muir October 11, 2013 Abstract Gun control advocates insist that increased gun control will lower the soaring crime rates of the early 70's. Gun violence is a big problem in the United States and should be reduced. Gun Control Act of 1968, did very little to lower the number of crimes committed by the use of firearms. Gun control in American history started back in 1775 and was the precursor to the American Revolution and our constitutional rights. One of the major points against gun control is the violation of your second amendment rights, you have the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection.
Joshua Castillo Bang Bang, Are Guns Safe? : Sarah Thompson Emphasizes They Are! Rhetorical Analysis December 04, 2011 110C: English Composition I #10990 Word Count: 1616 I Joshua Castillo adhere to Old Dominions Honor Code in the submission of this essay. Imagine walking to your car late at night, being mugged, left helpless, broke, hurt, or possibly dead! In Sarah Thompson's article "Concealed Carry Prevents Violence", Thompson argues for concealed weaponry to be legalized.
The Second Amendment was designed to guarantee the ability of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms for legal purposes (The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, 2010). Even with the current gun control laws and their supporters, there are associations opposing against any and all types of gun control. The opponents of gun control, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the “right to bear arms” is their guarantee under the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. This association also argues the licensing restrictions
The second amendment says “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.” (Bill of Rights). But how could we interpret this amendment? Does this mean that we have the right to have only one gun, or we have the right to have as many guns as we want? Every right has its limitations and this right is not the exception. The first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” (Bill of Rights).
The argument is usually the same: one side insists that if officials eradicated guns, thus abolishing the Second Amendment, gun violence will somehow go away. Contrarily, the pro- gun side argues that this invades our rights as humans to protect ourselves. It seems ironic that a debate about the morality of building and owning bombs doesn’t flare when a mass bombing kills dozens, sometimes hundreds. For the argument of fairness, one could suggest that purchasing the materials to build a bomb of any kind could be punishable by law regardless of knowing the intent of the individual. Just as a law abiding American citizen seeking to purchase a gun might potentially be prosecuted if the Second Amendment is dropped from the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled on June 28th 2013, that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns- to all cities and states for the first time. New gun control laws will only farther erode our rights. One of the strongest arguments in favor of people who want to carry firearms is that nine of the states that have the lowest violent crime rate in the country are those that allow its people the right to carry guns. Gun-control laws have never, and can never, reduce violent crime. That's because anti-gun laws don't affect criminals, who ignore the laws.
Fact: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Granted guns make it easier but no different than a car, a knife, or some other means that is the conscious choice by the decision maker. The key issues for consideration are the legal precedence, the evolution of firearms, society’s perspective and their application in today’s modern American culture. The United States of America was founded on the principal of being a sovereign nation with the ability to protect itself from others and also from within. In order to understand the implications of instituting a nationwide ban on firearms, one must understand the past, consider the actions of the present and predict the outcomes of the future.
Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban Intro: One goal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was to reduce the amount of assault weapons used to commit crimes. Renewing this ban will most likely lessen the accessibility of assault weapons and in turn, lower the violence rate. 1st:The less amount of access, the more difficult to attain- Assault Weapons were not intended for citizens to use as it posed a risky potential for violence, therefore decreasing the amount of citizens with access to assault weapons introduces another goal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. One might argue that because these weapons can still be modified, sold, and bought on the black market by criminals and other mentally unhinged persons, it can instigate a threat among other law abiding citizens, thus prompting them to purchase them as well. With this I must bring up the case that it is not a legitimate reason for negating the resolution just because criminals will always have access to assault weapons.
— Eric Helland, Claremont-McKenna College and Alexander Tabarrok, George Mason University, 'Using Placebo Laws to Test "More Guns, Less Crime",' The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy,