"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.
Gun Violence Essay I believe if the government started banning guns and other weapons it would not limit gun violence. Just trying to ban a weapon or guns, wouldn’t stop the person from trying to commit the crime he or she is wanting to commit. I believe the only way they could reduce it is if they actually go door to door to every house in the United States and take every gun that that person has, and that still wouldn’t be enough. People will eventually find out that that’s what the government is doing and most likely try to hide their weapons if they wanted to keep them that bad. That’s why I think it would only reduce gun violence, not make it go away completely.
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. But they believe it's their right. People who claim to believe in the "Right to Bear Arms," doctrine think that it refers to individuals. However there are a lot of people that misinterpret this document, they believe this document gives the individual the right to keep and carry arms. In today's society guns are not necessary unlike the uncertainties people had of the new frontier, there are no longer hostile forces to contend with, nor are there any fierce animals, therefore unrestricted gun laws are becoming a disaster, in this society.
Now imagine an army of criminals with assault rifles versus a police force with no weapons at all. This nation will fall into anarchy over night. Anyways the government can never take away our guns, its just not cost effective, and a majority of people would find a way to hide them
On the other hand, some people believe carrying guns is a not a civilian’s duty; therefore, only military, police-officers and other law enforcement entities should possess them. In his journal article “The Media Campaign Against Gun Ownership: Gun Control Will Not Reduce Gun Violence,” author Phyllis Schlafly states: Despite the claims made by its advocates, gun control will not reduce firearms violence. Supporters of gun controls propagate lies, including inaccurate statistics [that 12 children a day die from guns] on the number of children killed each day by guns and the assertion that access to guns at home leads to an increase in violence…The only way to reduce gun violence is to pass laws that give citizens the right to carry firearms. Criminals are less likely to commit violent acts if they believe their victims could be armed (Schlafly, P. 2001). Thus, the restrictions placed on citizens to not carry guns affect them considerably; when citizens lose the right to own guns, they automatically become
Law & Policy, 5(3), 271-298. These gentleman argue that the mere sight of a gun can elicit aggression. They also go on to say that “guns are useless for self-defense or protection of one's family”, and that they will have no deterrent effect on criminals. Murray, D. R. (1975). Handguns, gun control laws and firearm violence.
I am not saying they would not get them, but it would be more difficult to find them. Cons for gun control are that if they ban some clips for a .22 rifle, I would not be able to keep my magazine unless they rule that a big clip is smaller than a certain number. Some people would disagree that having any kind of gun control is bad. The big gun enthusiasts think that nothing is going to change except for the temper of the
Alas, you are a devout gun control supporter and do not have any means of which to defend yourself from such an attack. How can this be that a criminal is carrying a gun when the new gun control laws are in effect? The answer is quite simple: Criminals do not follow the law! Gun control is not an effective means of curbing gun-related violence. The only people that benefit from gun control are the criminal element.
At times I feel as if I am incarcerated, even though I am a free citizen. I think the solution to ridding gun violence is to get rid of all the guns. Since that'll never happen, we need to make guns less accessible by creating federal legislation, applying it uniformly throughout every state. Easy gun accessibility is the reason why there are so many homicides because it is easier to pull a trigger than by attacking with a knife or other foreign object. I feel that handguns and assault weapons should be outlawed altogether because too many people misuse them.
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).