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 Second Amendment interpretation is flawed by In Molly Ivins's article, "Ban the Things. Ban Them All." She supports the Second Amendment, and she points out the main objective of signing this document is the authorization of a group of individuals that's trained to carry fire arms, even though they are not part of government. They may carry arms for security purposes in order to maintain a free state, and that this group of individuals have the right to keep and carry arms. The authors' main argument, is against individuals that are not trained to carry arms, nor do these individual carry arms to maintain a free state.
GUN CONTROL “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 amendment has created a debate for the United States, which has caused controversy throughout the American people. Some argue that the amendment creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" clearly states that citizens should be able to bear arms for protection. Under this "individual right theory" the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively
The anti-gun control groups consider that banning of guns or restricting individuals on the possession of guns as unconstitutional (Brown & Abel, 2003). The anti-gun control groups support the Second Amendment, which protects the rights of civilians from undergoing infringement for a safe state. Individuals can acquire, possess, and use their guns for their own personal safety. The Gun Owners of America (GOA) refers to a lobbyist group preserving and defending the Second Amendment (Brown & Abel, 2003). This lobbyist group considers the right to acquire and possess guns as a freedom issue among the civilians.
It is a debate that has no right answer, and two justifiable sides. Gun-lovers need the NRA to stand up for their rights yet those opposed to it are just looking for a safer America. Pro-gun or not, we must remember that it is not the weapon that kills it is the person holding
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).
First of all, laws only apply to law abiding citizens. This means that anyone who is morally okay with breaking laws, will still get a gun if they want. Making anything illegal, whether it be guns or drugs, means that the government is giving away any control that it has over said items. The government can't stop criminals from getting guns, whether they are illegal or not. Now, most of the shootings reported by the
Gun control is the issue on whether we should put more restrictions on gun laws or keep them the same. Personally, the gun laws in our state are fine and do not need to be changed. Even if we were to add more laws while it would only serve to make obtaining a gun even harder than it already is and would have no effect on illegal trade. Criminals would continue to smuggle and trade illegal guns regardless of the laws to be or already in place. Therefore putting down more laws wouldn’t make a difference as Illegal trading would continue to take place, as American citizens we have the right to bear arms according to the second amendment, any new laws would make getting a gun harder for someone who could use it as protection.
In an event where they are victims of an attack by unregistered gun owners, how will they show resistance? The answer, obviously, is by owning guns themselves. Anti-gun conservatives might argue that more guns equal to more harmful gun-related incidents and that no guns would mean no gun-related crime, but this is where they are wrong. Powerful crime organizations and mercenaries need guns to function, and the absence of guns would only render them more determined in owning firearms. This leads to smuggling.
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.