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). Basically, “fourteen-year-olds are not part of a well-regulated militia”(437). Ivins then compares an automobile with a gun, and how they can both harm people, if not used correctly. Ivins also makes a very good point when she says that, “we do, however, license [cars] them and their owners, restrict their use to presumably sane and sober adults and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do same with guns”(437).
I feel some crimes that have taken place in this country could have been stopped or lessened to a degree with a concealed firearm. The government can not ensure the 100 percent safety and wellbeing of all its citizens. For example the school shootings and workplace instances etc that happened in this country. But if there were more responsible law abiding people that had a concealed weapon on them some of these tragedies could have been avoided or at least minimized the damage that those criminals caused saving the lives of others is always a good thing. Criminals are not known for following the rules so all law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves by any means needed.
People who own guns need to keep them put away and out of the reach of children. Parents cannot think that because they taught their children all about guns that it is ok to keep the guns accessible to all. Parents needs to understand themselves how much peer pressure a child gets and what peer pressure will cause someone to do something they knew was wrong, but they still wanted to be in the cool bunch of kids. Or the only way someone will like me is if I pretend to shoot my best friend. So truly it is about the training of guns not the
However, Arthur Strang neglecting to keep his gun stored in a safe place is not a good enough reason to take away guns from the millions of responsible gun owners. What happened to the child was unfortunate, a terrible accident. But “They Each Had A Gun” raises a good point; more children by far die by fire than by guns, yet we do not ban or license matches. The same situation with Arthur Strang’s son and Bruce Kammerer could have taken place if you replace the gun with a knife or an accidental swing of a baseball bat, yet we are not in a rush to ban these items because that is not their only purpose. The same applies to a
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.
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.
If we were to make America a complete gun free zone what is going to stop the criminals from getting guns anyways. Criminals already get guns illegally and they don't get caught. So if no one has a gun and say a criminal gets a gun then who is going to stop him from killing everyone in that area, I mean they can run but how long does it take for the cops to get there and stop the shooter it takes some time and until the cops get there the shooter is almost unstoppable. They can say that law enforcement will be improved and their numbers will increase but we still wont get more people in
Banning all or some weapons is not the solution to decreasing the increased gun related violence in the United States. Having stricter gun laws and measures could keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, people with mental illness, or individuals with bad intentions. Limiting the number of bullets a magazine can hold will not keep these types of individuals from committing a crime. The solution that will not affect the responsible gun owners would be to have stricter gun control laws, thorough background checks with mental health assessment,
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
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.