This gross oversight has been the core fallacy to many gun control campaigns. The primary reason gun control advocates are unable to prohibit firearms outright is that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess and bear weapons in general. Thinking about this issue from a completely unbiased point of view, one could conclude that just about anything from missiles to rocks can potentially be used as a weapon. The semantics used gun control advocates emphasize the guns lethality but our ancestors used sticks and stones in very lethal ways centuries ago. Imagine how absurd a “sticks and stones” control law would have sounded to them.
I’m not even going to go into the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. It’s played out and tired, and ultimately unneeded in my argument. The basic and supposedly strongest argument for “more” gun control can be summed up with the following statement: Guns strengthen, embolden and promote higher crime rates. It has also been argued that the average citizen can simply not be trusted with such a tool. (Yes, they are a tool.)
Most gun activists stand by the 2nd amendment but does it really make sense to do that lets just think for a second why was the 2nd amendment made? It was made so Americans can protect themselves from danger but do guns really protect us when we are using them to kill other each other and using them to commit acts of terror? The obvious answer is no but lets pause for a moment and just say that people need guns such as hunting rifles to hunt and handguns to protect themselves given certain situations, even with these exceptions there is no need for assault weaponry
They think the laws and licensing are loose. In 2006, third two states are required the background information checks for purchases firearm (Moorhouse 105). In October 1997, factories of gun in the U.S. accept to install a trigger locks on handguns. It also had a vote about training for all gun users in November, but it failed (Jost 1105). Although I am a supporter of gun control, I think the result of this vote was totally correct because it involved a huge number of the gun users in the United States, and who should pay the money for that training if the
So gun control is not the answer to the problem. Law Enforcement needs to crack down on criminals and the illegal sales of firearms to help elevate the problems with the death or homicide rate. The normal everyday work class people do not need to be punished for the acts of criminals and drug dealers. If gun control were to take effect and guns were outlawed it would still not solve the problem at hand. It wouldn’t solve the problems because only the outlaws
When you think of gun control, you automatically think of someone trying to take away your right to express the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms); however, this ideal is wrong due to our lack of knowledge about the term. Gun control refers to the laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms. (In other words, they are the glue that allows us to exercise this right, but in a safe way). The term above does not lead us to do away with our democratic rights, but rather provides a protection to the lives of people in our own land. Every single day someone dies here in America due to guns, whether it is by suicide, school shootings, or just even children playing around at home with an open gun at home.
Anyone can obtain a gun by going to a state with less restrictive laws or by getting a friend who lives in the state to buy the guns for them. A national system would prevent this by scaring those "friends" into not buying the guns legally and selling them illegally, then if the guns are used in an illegal crime, that person can be held accountable. Secondly, a national system would be more helpful in tracking crimes after they have happened, to bring the perpetrators to justice. Instant background checks, on people attempting to buy guns or ammunition, are the next step in gun control. Brady system is still limited, and does have its flaws in tracking felons.
If a person has two or more previous convictions for serious crimes, the three strikes provision applies for them. The defendants here are referred to as third strikers, and they fall in the category of ‘25 years to life’ in prison. The previous crime must be serious to qualify as a strike in both of the provisions (Domanick, 279). Most criminals in these provisions are not entitled to probation, and they should serve a prison term. To sentence a defendant under the two and three strikes provision, he or she must be convicted of a felony offense.
If the adults cannot buy a gun legally there is always the other option, to get them from selling them illegally When responsible adults buy a gun, they most likely will not use it to murder people. They would use it so they can help themselves. A lot of people are in danger every day and most of them don’t have any protection. Guns aren’t the best way to solve a problem but if you are in need for some help and protection, then a gun can help a lot. 67% of Americans own a gun for protection from 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.