Communities nearby would also quarrel over this event. If guns were allowed, and shots were fired, could that affect us? Would the bullet go astray and hit one of my children or myself? Anti-violence groups will not like the idea that something that is so "violent" would be carried by students, and it promotes violence and sends out the wrong message. This would greatly affect the debate and outcome of the argument whether firearms should be allowed or not on campus.
Sometimes even normal-seeming registered gun owners appear to go mad and kill, as tragically happened at Hungerford and Dunblaine in the U.K. Quite simply, guns are lethal and the fewer people have them the better. Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defense. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc), [Gun
Jhalan Jackson English Gun Control Guns can be used to harm people, or can protect the life of millions who have encountered a near death experience to a gun. Most people might be for gun control, which can have its positive, but can also have its negatives. People need to realize this is a world a cruel world we live in and the use of guns can also save the lives of many. So, why not protect yourself with justified actions? There are too many guns in the streets to take control of them all, therefore forget about trying to take control of the gun, and take control of a life or death situation.
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.
As you can see people have some crazy arguments as to why we need gun control like gun control will lower crime rates, less people will die when involved in criminal attacks, and who needs a gun for protection when we have law enforcement for protection. But, these are all clearly pathetic arguments when it comes to swaying the majority. No matter what way they want to look at it, gun control will not work in any
This soon spirals out of control and ends up with Ricky getting shot at the train station towards the end of the film. The director is trying to show how difficult it is for young people to get out of the never ending circle of gun crime. The message of the film is anti gun crime, trying to show young people living in the poorer communities who are more vulnerable to violence or gun crime will sooner or later pay the price unless they have the strength that Ricky didn’t have in-order to step out. Gun crime is often made into a big fuss by the media and glamorised as such. It is important that violence and gun crime are talked about in films and that young people are made to see the real side of it, because people are getting killed often in events where youths are carrying guns, this often appears on the news.
But for some reason criminals are always in a hurry, they won’t wait for you to use the phone to dial just those three necessary numbers. When a criminal breaks into your home which is faster a police car half way across town or a pistol inside a safe next to your bed? Maybe citizens should just wait for the shooter to shoot himself though, since statistics say he is more likely to shoot himself or should citizens wait for him to run out of bullets and people to shoot. Gun control activists may conclude “Well why not outlaw bullets in guns?, People don’t need many bullets to defend themselves.” But they may need a warning shot , so give you may need to give them one bullet. On the other hand what if they miss ?
But in all reality, if guns weren’t around, people would still find a way to do crazy messed up things to kill people. Yes with stricter laws on gun control there will be less shootings, but what will replace guns? President Obama’s attempt to make owning guns harder doesn’t invade your rights. Having rules to protect people is all that should matter. While some worry that they cant do what they want, the United States
Gun Control Gun Control is a very controversial topic in the U.S.A., partly due to the Sandy Hook school shooting. Many people look to increase gun control in order to make this country safer. People believe that if guns are made illegal, then people won't be able to shoot others in public. This is simply not the case. First of all, laws only apply to law abiding citizens.
While most people would by a gun for conventional purposes such as self-defense, hunting, or target shooting, it is inevitable that there will be people who buy a gun in order to use it for robbery, murder, rape, or a number of other heinous crimes, but depriving those who would use their firearm without malicious intent of their second amendment right does not rectify this horrible fact. The issue of gun control is not solely found in the United States, there are many other countries that have taken to banning weapons in an attempt to reduce their homicide rates. In the late 1990s and early 2000s Belarus, Luxemburg and Russia all had handgun bans, ironically enough these countries had on average 10 times the murder rate than that of their neighboring countries which did not have a