They are rare and hard to get access to, having very strict licensing laws. The pro-arming argument is that the Police would be a deterrent and would protect the officers. People who say that arming the Police would be a deterrent use other armed countries as an example of why we should have it; I don't believe this is an accurate view of the matter. Worldwide 2011 crime statistics show that in the USA there were 12, 664 murders, and 8,583 were caused by firearms. Compared to the UK where 648 murders where only 58 were caused by firearms.
This means that criminals don’t have to worry about the police being able to defend themselves with guns and so it makes it easier for them to commit crimes. Using armed police was successful in Bristol, because in 2003, police were armed to take the tension of gang related crimes away. Police were then able to go back into the inner – city areas unarmed without have to worry about armed gang related crimes. Point Most countries in Europe and North America have armed police forces, in part to deter criminal acts, but also to protect officers working in an armed or dangerous environment’ . Armed criminals operate in at least some areas of virtually every jurisdiction.
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
Gun Control Laws Are Ineffective Tracy M. Turner Gun Control Laws Are Ineffective In the wake of horrific shootings across America, more and more leftist politicians and commentators are calling for stricter laws on gun control. Certain gun control laws are in place in some states and in other countries, but are they actually putting a dent in crime? Limiting a citizen's right to bear arms violates our second amendment freedom and puts the unarmed person in danger by giving the criminal the advantage of owning a weapon. Gun control has proven ineffective in deterring crime. The Brady Bill imposes a five-day waiting period on the acquisition of firearms.
Gun control ENG/102 8/11/10 Brian Kevin Gun control 1 Introduction: Gun control advocates have cried foul, because of the Supreme Court 2010 ruling they believe will damage the chances gun control laws to reduce crime. While many people consider gun control to be too restrictive, advocates are of the mind that we should remove all the guns, at all cost. The Supreme Court ruling has mandated that state and city governments have no choice but to respect the Second Amendment of their citizens. While the ruling does not completely abolish current gun restrictions, it does weaken the ability of the local government to
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The idea is that if we can restrict who can have guns and what they can be used for, then there will be less violence and gun related deaths. However, this is difficult to enforce because there are so many guns already out in the public. “There are close to 300 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. Even if congress passed a law banning the sale of firearms tomorrow- which violates the Second Amendment- it would be decades before the supply of guns significantly, especially considering that many guns are operational 100 years or more after they’re manufactured.” Criminals can easily get the guns from friends, or illegally from ones that are currently privately owned or they can get them from other countries. In conclusion, I am currently against gun control because I want to make sure that innocent citizens can have access to guns and be able to protect themselves against criminals when they need to.
In addition, smoking and having small possessions would no longer be considered a crime, so the smokers will not be sent to jail for simple possession of marijuana. With less marijuana related “crimes” the government can focus on catching real criminals, like crack cocaine dealers and
In the republic of California, some would say we have some of the worst laws and restrictions in the country. Gun control on American citizens has been attempted ever since the Bill of Rights’ 2nd amendment said, “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.” This sentence and its meaning have been debated by lawmakers and firearm-bearing citizens to this day, and we can not agree on what our founding fathers intended the amendment to mean. In my mind I see it only one way, the second amendment gives the people the right to own and keep any firearm they feel they should have. One point argued about the second amendment is at the end of the quote, it claims that our right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” This phrase, however, is debated to whether they are talking about the right to simply own a firearm, or to place any limitations on firearms capabilities. The word infringed means to inflict upon a right or privilege.
I feel that sometimes when something becomes illegal, it almost turns to be something more coveted and may raise the demand of said illegal item. If we issue a sort of buy-back plan to where it is offered that one can turn in a assault weapon, or any weapon for that matter, we can potentially reduce crimes rates more than a ban may ever be able to do. In the 1997 Australian buy-back program, it led to a significant drop of firearm suicide rates of almost 80%. I feel that a buy-back plan a more effective alternative to the ban, and with a little incentive to hand in assault weapons, the crime rates could potentially drop, thus achieving the goal of the Federal Assault Weapons
However this right has been abused when guns fall in the hands of senseless murders, robbers, mentally unstable individuals, etc. which generates issues of the debate about gun control in recent years. Republicans and Democrats both stand behind our right protected by the Second Amendment nevertheless we need control over the gun laws. Republicans fully stands behind citizens right to guns, just the same as democrats they believe in regulation to keep down violence levels but philosophy they go against anything that inconveniences constitutional right of gun owners. Democrats in no way wish to undermine the right to the second amendment but do wish to establish strong laws to who can and cannot bear a gun for example restricting guns to be issued in the hands of previous criminals, stalkers, person going under mental services, background checks for gun sales, etc.