Over one hundred years later, in 1934, National Firearms Act was adopted, which started the gun control policy. The Act was governmental reaction to the St. Valentine’s massacre and was aimed at controlling “gangster weapons” such as fully
Bobby Wrench National Government September 18, 2012 Gun control The definition of gun control is any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and use of guns or other firearms by private citizens. Most commonly the guns in question are personal firearms, typically handguns and long guns. I am for gun control because I feel that guns are not for everyone. Certain people cannot handle firearms and certain individuals tend to misuse them. Firearms are not something to be played with.
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.
In this study the authors document that in 1920, Britain passed a gun law severely restricting gun ownership. This law required the applicant to obtain a certificate from Scotland Yard, pay a fee and obtain the appr- val of the chief of police relating to their need for protection and the state of their
“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.
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
Gun Control in the United States of America The United States of America is governed by officials who follow amendments in our constitution that was put in use in 1789. Throughout the founding of our nation guns have been used to enforce law, defend home territory, and hunting to provide food. Within these last few decades guns have been put into the wrong hands and have been used for tasks that were unlawful. Although law abiding citizens support the right to bear arms, many people abuse the amendment to be able to own guns with intent to use them illegally. The government should modify the second amendment to put strict laws on who can and can’t be in possession of any type of firearm.
Many will argue that it is a person’s constitutional right under the second amendment, the right to bear arms. Many will argue this amendment is no longer needed and others will base an entire argument on this amendment alone. The need for citizen to own and possess firearms should be a preference of the city or county of residence. The issue of crime reduction is an area that is discussed when the rights of possession of firearms is argued, the data consistently shows that crime increases when there is no presence of firearms from
This can be seen through the laws that followed after the St. Valentine’s Day massacre, John F. Kennedy assassination and the killing of Martin Luther King Junior which were meant for the government to control the type of guns that citizens could carry and use. I would highly recommend that leaders and citizens to take part in the gun control measures and laws in order to improve their safety and that of their family from crime. I decided as I said in the beginning to pick this topic because a majority of individuals have been affected by gun violence and it has become a menace to society. I will end with “Guns do not kill people. People kill people” at the end of the day gun lobbyists, owners a like and the general public should advocate for laws that encourage buyers and owners to demonstrate that they can possess a firearm lawfully and responsibly.
‘“Good intentions without thought make for bad laws and I think we have a risk of that,’ said J. Reid Meloy, a forensic psychologist and clinical professor at the University of California San Diego, who has studied rampage killers’’’ (Goode). “This point-of-view article discusses how the decades of case law interpreting and applying the other provisions of the Bill of Rights point to the troublesome approach to gun control and constitutional analysis” (Rivkin). “But you wouldn’t know from the current gun-control debate. Several states, for example are considering gun-insurance mandates modeled after those for automobile insurance. There is no conceivable public-safety benefit: insurance policies cover accidents, not intentional crimes, and criminals with illegal guns will just evade the requirement.