When someone thinks of the word “handgun” their minds will automatically think of something small, concealable, and deadly. What some people do not realize is that it is not handguns that commit the crime, but the hands and actions of the criminal. Allowing handguns to remain legal will allow individuals to feel safer and secure in their homes and it also protects our constitutional right to bear arms. Banning handguns will not only increase crime, but it will create a new situation that is similar to drug trafficking. With rising crime rates, law abiding citizens should be buying handguns to protect themselves.
But then again if the gun weren’t there the person who wanted to shoot somebody didn’t have the possibility to do so. If you don’t have a gun lying around you won’t get in a situation where you can shoot somebody. I think that guns should be legal but not in the scale they have in the US. They need to make laws so that with every gun there is a license and registration, and if the gun you have is not registered in your name it’s illegal. Just like owning a car.
Opponents of the policy, however, argue that this will deny rightful owners of guns a chance to utilize this tool in other activities. As the debate rages on, it is unclear which side of the debate will carry the day. However, it is clear that guns are a major aspect in the lives of Americans. This paper explores gun control and posits that such a policy will not reduce crime. Gun Control refers to the control in ownership of firearms by citizens.
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.
There are some responsible uses for guns and if people use them irresponsibly, then that is when people will injure others. The last point that is made is that there are questions to gun control and how it effects crime. Having the right to guns teaches people self-defense and responsibility, which can assist in reducing crime. If you take the right to bear arms away, people will not be as secure in their communities. In order to understand the laws for gun control, one must first examine the law and how it is written.
These people feel that repealing the Second Amendment would solve the problem. These people feel that there are two reasons for the repeal; one is the rising of violence among teenagers, the second reason is their interpretation of the Second Amendment which could be considered a strict one. The side opposing these views uses arguments like how it would be impossible to repeal the Second Amendment, and a long western civilizations history with a right to bear arms. Finally one can see the conflict of views dealing with the Second Amendment, but one would also see that repealing the amendment wouldn't solve the problem facing our society. The controversy of this issue that has the potential to pulverize this country is why it is such a good topic to discuss, people should be better informed and make a decision based on fact and not fiction.
Gun Violence is a problem in the United States as well as in our community. So now we need to find a way to control gun violence. Guns themselves, however, are not the case of the violence, and gun control will do nothing to decrease violent crimes. People who decide to kill will find a way to kill even if they do not have access to guns. Therefore, guns cannot be singled out and blamed for all of gun control.
One thing thought to create this mess is the gun laws in the city and country itself. The Right to Bear Arms was not meant to be taken for granted. But this is not the case in Philadelphia. Who would’ve thought one of our constitutional rights would have an effect on the life of today. We should be able to have this right but use it for a purpose.
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.
I feel if we had stricter gun laws that our crime rates would plummet. If we held more people accountable then we would not have to worry as much about our children and public safety. Because of the enormous responsibility a gun owner carries, they should be required to submit their criminal or otherwise, background information before they are registered to carry a weapon. If Arizona citizens would enact a law that requires an extensive background test that would include any medical or criminal history then this would help law enforcement to keep better track of guns in our state. Also if the background history of a person who has a mental or criminal history that has a gun registration then they should be revoked and never be allowed to carry a weapon.