Some individuals are for gun control and some think that gun control does not make a difference. These are some pros for gun control. Knowing that people who cannot easily obtain a firearm allows people to feel safer. Most violent crimes are committed with firearms and restricting gun ownership will most likely reduce a tremendous amount of crimes. Legalized gun ownership gives a greater chance of being in the wrong hands such as a child, giving it a better chance of resulting in a deadly accident.
People against gun control that want tougher laws on gun related violence will most likely see those added laws overlooked because the tougher laws will most likely be an add-on to current laws. Those add-on laws can be easily bargained away in plea deals. The tougher laws are also less likely to be imposed swiftly. A judge would not want to impose the tougher laws without absolute solid proof the person being prosecuted is guilty. That would be hard to do in cases where there is a chance, no matter how small, the defendant is not guilty.
Can gun control laws reduce the amount of gun violence? The clear answer is yes. First, the suicide rate will lower if we enact more gun control laws. Next, making people undergo background checks before owning a gun will help lower the risk of a firearm ending up in the hands of a criminal or a person with mental illness. Third, there will be more gun deaths if it is easier to obtain
To further enforce this law would only be a waste of effort and “more dangerous” to those who are actually doing the enforcing. I think the second premiss is completely credible; “society” will not stop the use of marijuana if there are new laws passed stating the use of marijuana is prohibited. Therefore the conclusion that states “severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” is plausible due to the fact of reality that on a regular basis people don’t obey these laws. Getting in trouble with the law is more dangerous to society than just taking marijuana as an activity. For this particular argument it would have to be “Circular Reasoning”, it’s a fallacy that in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.
Capital punishment does not deter crime; instead it increases the murder rate and there is a chance of error. Therefore, capital punishment should not exist in today’s society because it is an unconstitutional punishment. Capital punishment it’s not necessary and it is also unfair. There is a chance of error, you can execute the wrong person and later on find them innocent. Even though some may argue that death penalty deters crime, studies have shown that it does not.
Andrew Iglesias June 2, 2014 Period 1 ENG 2 Argumentative Paper Gun control has been a very controversial topic and with all of the relevant events it’s become bigger and people want an end to their right to bear arms but what people are failing to recognize is that guns don’t kill people…. People do and that’s just how it is. The right to bear arms should be kept protected because we should be able to feel free and also be able to protect ourselves. By putting an end to the right to bear arms we are basically just taking away a form of protection from the honest person and giving the “criminals” more power and might as well be arming them ourselves. “Criminals” will always find a way to get ahold of something they want, take a look at drugs for example it’s illegal but that hasn’t stopped these people from acquiring it.
Professor Daube said increasing the drinking age was no “magic bullet” but would help. “Raising the drinking age is something we should consider because it clearly would reduce the problem, it would mean a significant change to our drinking culture,” he said, but conceded it would be “very bloody hard to enforce”. “The harsh reality is that we can decide as a community pretty much how much violence we want.” According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, alcohol is believed to be a factor in about two thirds of assaults. Victims and their families who have shared with news.com.au their stories of being randomly bashed in the street say alcohol is often a common factor. We have also listened to those whose lives have been torn apart by random violence - the mothers, fathers, wives and girlfriends of victims who went for a night out and never came home.
Even if it did while it may reduce murder from gun crime criminals would still have the option of other deadly weapons. These new laws would not stop criminals from obtaining a fire arm as most criminals don’t own a their guns as legal weapons anyway, they get them through the black market. Further restrictions would only make it harder for the citizens who would have a proper use for it but not for criminals. This is why many believe that gun control laws in our state do not need to be changed as they would make no difference to those who get them illegally. Putting down more restrictions would only serve to make law-abiding citizens who would have a purpose with it harder to obtain, and it go against our right to bear fire arms.
It has been proven to be cheaper for taxpayers and governments to sentence someone to life rather than to death row, which would provide more funding to go towards more useful things like education and foreign aid that may actually help the number of crimes being committed to decrease. The life of the criminal cannot compensate for the crime committed, two wrongs do not make a right. It’s hypocritical, it condemns killing by killing people. It’s understandable that in some cultures and religions the death penalty may be quite traditional as a way of making someone amenable for the crimes that they have committed. But tradition can change.