Gun Control Laws in America Firearms should not be restricted, nor should their accessories or capabilities. Placing laws that take away from our right to bear arms would only give negative effect on the safety of the general public and the amount of crimes committed. People need guns to protect themselves from the people who want to corrupt their lives by using guns, regardless of the law. Gun control laws vary from state to state. In the republic of California, some would say we have some of the worst laws and restrictions in the country.
The opponents of these laws say that Americans have the right to bear arms. They believe that the laws would stop individuals from defending their property of themselves. The significant disagreement that opponents argue is that the right to use and own weapons is a personal freedom promised by the Constitution. Individuals against gun control also think that certain people should not be allowed to own guns but also think that stricter laws can stop the needless loss of life. The debate over gun control has been one a main topic since the 20th century.
Gun casualties and incidents throughout the country have woken the public up from its ignorance and shown them the danger guns can pose to society (Martinez, 2013). While some people want a complete blanket ban on the ownership of guns, others wants an easier access to guns so that every person may look after their own security. Part of what makes the term gun control a very controversial topic is that it’s used in a ambiguous way that does not explain the details of the issue and the demands, apart from literally controlling guns. The two prominent sides of the debate are the groups who ask for liberal gun laws that make it easier for a person to procure guns and conversely, there are groups who want to repeal the second amendment. I personally am a strong believer that an “ideal society” should have no guns; nevertheless crime is a big problem to the citizens of our society and guns are necessary.
Given that the gun control laws will limit the number of people who have guns, but at the same time just like drugs the guns will still find its way into the hands of the criminals. This shows that the people championing for the establishment of a tougher law to control the flow of guns are protecting the criminals while exposing the citizens who law are abiding to danger. . (William eta’l’ 1990 Page 221- 297) The perception that the many people have about violence and guns is not the correct perception. Firearms do not contribute to the increased rates of violence and crime.
However this right has been abused when guns fall in the hands of senseless murders, robbers, mentally unstable individuals, etc. which generates issues of the debate about gun control in recent years. Republicans and Democrats both stand behind our right protected by the Second Amendment nevertheless we need control over the gun laws. Republicans fully stands behind citizens right to guns, just the same as democrats they believe in regulation to keep down violence levels but philosophy they go against anything that inconveniences constitutional right of gun owners. Democrats in no way wish to undermine the right to the second amendment but do wish to establish strong laws to who can and cannot bear a gun for example restricting guns to be issued in the hands of previous criminals, stalkers, person going under mental services, background checks for gun sales, etc.
Should the United States abolish gun ownership? Introduction: The gun control debate poses the basic question: Who is more trustworthy, the government or the people? Argument A: Increases in gun control laws in the United States of America are unconstitutional. Increases in gun control laws in the United States of America are unconstitutional because the Second Amendment states that we have right to bear arms, citizens have the democratic ideal of life or justice, and statistics show that states with more gun rights have a lower crime rate. (Emotional arguments) Gun control is based on the faulty notion that ordinary American citizens are too clumsy and ill-tempered to be trusted with weapons.
The new bill proposed by President Obama was shot down by Congress and not voted into effect. One persistent argument of those who advocate for the Second Amendment is that guns are inanimate objects and therefore cannot kill people by themselves. They believe that it takes a person behind the gun to pull the trigger, and therefore the real cause of these mass shootings are society and its lack of restraints on the “madmen” who live among us. There is a simple rebuttal to that banal argument. We have limited control on people’s medical diagnoses, lifestyles, or events that “trigger” said behaviors.
Just a few of the laws that Dianne is proposing is: Ban on certain more dangerous firearms, ban on importation of assault weapons and large capacity magazines, and no magazines more than ten rounds. this laws are intended to stop unnecessary use of firearms. although these laws may be able to stop the majority of criminals from getting weapons, its impossible to rid all weapons from the hands of criminals. These laws may represent the wrong balance, and could hurt America rather than helping it. Other
There are different opinions about the Second Amendment. The pro-gun lobby and especially the National Rifle Association (NRA), thinks that gun control should be opposed because it would harm the Constitution and a fundamental right of the individuals the right to keep and bear arms. This right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment and therefore they believe that restricting this Amendment would mean that they are being denied one of their fundamental rights. Advocates of gun control think that in the 21st century the Second Amendment is not appropriate anymore and that the individual simply does not need the gun the way he needed it three hundred years ago. They also say that guns are not only used for self-protection, but they are often used to kill people, especially young people.
Lenient Gun Control Gun control laws in the US are lenient. Gun could be a safe protection or it could be a dangerous destroyer. For me, gun should refer to be a security to us. In our world, there are more than 190 countries; within 48 states citizens can have guns legally, and 43 of them can buy guns without any licenses or enrollments. In addition, we do have a grave problem which has been controverted for a long time that is gun control ordinance in the social life.