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.
When you are convicted of a crime, you are no longer a member of society; therefore, you have no rights". Which most people would think the same thing as this blogger, the only time it is legally correct and should be allowed to take away gun control from citizens is if entering jail, or have a criminal
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.
Due to the recent upheaval of violent crimes on campus, many pro-gun activist have suggested that both the students and teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Those for this may claim that their rights have been violated because many college campuses refuse to allow weapons of any kind on campus. It is not the right to carry a gun which is in debate here, but rather it is whether or not guns should be allowed on a college campus. The Constitution of The United States of America already grants citizens the right to carry guns, and being in the south, I am by far no stranger to seeing a gun from time-to-time, but it is not appropriate for guns to be in a vulnerable area such as a college campus. There are already too many guns available to the public, and allowing them on an educational facility would greatly increase the likelihood of injury or death.
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
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
Jodee McDonald Mr. Nellis English 1301.004 18 February 2013 Gun Control Today it is impossible to turn on the TV, read the newspaper, or even walk down a crowded city street without hearing about the innocent people who have been killed by guns. Many people are asking the question, what is worse, guns or the people that own them? When guns are obtained legally and used properly and respectfully, they are not a danger. Therefore, the right for Americans to own a firearm should not be taken away. Evoking an individual’s right to own a gun(s) has not been proven to decrease acts of violence.
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).
Arming Teachers I think violence should never be fought with more violence. Fighting a gunman with guns does not eliminate the problem of school shootings. I think arming our teachers is a bad idea if you consider all of the risk factors. A small child could find the gun hidden in the room and easily harm themselves. If a teacher had a gun it would have to be hidden somewhere, but not in a locked place for quick access if someone were to open fire.