“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.” The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the impression that gun control issues should be very black and white. Unfortunately this is not the case. There are too many standpoints to put a number on it. Ranging from absolutely no one should own a firearm, to citizens should be able to roam the streets with bazookas, and everything in between. There are many viewpoints for those who are in favor of gun control.
In our country nearly one half of households own a gun and nearly thirty thousand people die each year from gun shot related wounds (Smock 151). It is because of statistics like these that gun control has become one of the most heated issues that our country is currently facing. While it is obvious that guns are dangerous weapons that must be used responsibly, many people are debating whether or not stricter laws should be put in to place in an attempt to lower the harms caused by guns. Many states and cities across the nation have already established laws that have made it harder for people to get their hands on guns. Many extremists have even asked for guns to be completely taken out of the hands of everyday citizens.
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.
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.
It is their job to declare void acts by other branches violating the Constitution. Second, as Alexander Hamilton has said in the Federalist Paper, the judiciary review should act as barrier between the people and the Congress. The main goal of the government is to protect the people. The Declaration of Independence also states the government is for the people. The general liberty of the people must not be in danger especially of the government power.
Some people get trigger-happy when it comes to tense situations. Because of this, criminals are killed more often by citizens than by law enforcement (Huntwork). Firearm injuries are the second leading cause of injury (Ruben). There are more gun related fatalities in the United States than in the worlds thirty-six other richest nations. Murders by firearm rates are 17.5 times higher than in twenty-two other populous high-income nations combined.
On the other hand he states that "In a study of 23 high-income countries, the U.S. had 80% of the gun deaths, along with a gun homicide rate nearly 20 times higher than the rest of the sample'' clearly shows gun control is a necessary debate, although the outcome is without fail unbalanced (Grunwald). Prohibition will not stop crimes and murders, as it will not stop criminals from obtaining them from various sources. It cannot be denied that if more people are allowed to own and carry guns, deaths and injuries from the weapons will also subsequently increase but, everyone should be able to protect themselves from criminals and should not be told not to own a gun because crimes will always exist and we will always need protection. Having a ban on guns takes guns out of criminal’s hands and into those who choose to bear arms for protection. The fact of the matter is that guns don’t kill—people
In the 1960’s and 1970’s when many states had lowered the MLDA, besides the rise in drunk-driving deaths, studies showed that people raised from childhood in under-21 states were involved in higher rates of alcohol and drug use as adults, and had a higher rate of homicides and suicides. (Moses, 2011) This in turn convinced federal law makers to raise the MLDA again to 21. However, in order to encourage states to comply, the federal government would tighten their purse strings and states would receive little or no funding towards highways. So while there are those who do not necessarily care one way or the other about the actual age limit on alcohol consumption, they do prefer having the federal
“Let’s do the right thing”, let the officers of the law provide a safe and secure society. As upholders of the Constitution of the United States, the officers and defenders of this nation should be excluded from these laws and restrictions of gun
For instance, the criminal will think twice before killing for fear of receive the strongest punishment. Death penalty actually is not an effective crime deterrent. This is because majority of people do not anticipate they will be caught. Some states in the United State such as New York, Hawaii, Alaska and Michigan do not use the death penalty had proved they had lower murder rate than the states that do. For example in 2004, crimes rate for states do not use the death penalty had 4.08 murders per 100000 inhabitants compare to states use death penalty had 6.32 murders per 100000 inhabitants.