I feel some crimes that have taken place in this country could have been stopped or lessened to a degree with a concealed firearm. The government can not ensure the 100 percent safety and wellbeing of all its citizens. For example the school shootings and workplace instances etc that happened in this country. But if there were more responsible law abiding people that had a concealed weapon on them some of these tragedies could have been avoided or at least minimized the damage that those criminals caused saving the lives of others is always a good thing. Criminals are not known for following the rules so all law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves by any means needed.
The reason is the perceived view that it is the lack of gun control that has resulted in the number of firearms-related deaths in the country. In fact, this is one of the most stated, but wrong, arguments for gun control. The fact of the matter is that if gun control is put into place there are more chances that law-abiding citizens will be victims. Gun control laws to a large extent can have no effect on criminals, as there will always be a thriving black market for trade of guns and firearms. (Nair,
The high likelihood of detection by the police, and the deterrent effects of punishment have been seen as forms of crime prevention. But the traditional criminal justice agencies have prevention as a sort of side effect or unintended consequence of their main aim of detection and punishment. And they are, as we have seen in previous lectures, not that efficient. Specific measures aimed at preventing crime have always been around in an everyday sense. Families, schools and communities disapprove of crime and this acts as a form of 'informal social control' People lock their doors and windows against burglars, and perhaps avoid badly lit areas, or certain parts of town, with the intention of reducing the likelihood of victimisation.
Question such as “what are the consequences to a police a police officer if they practice unprofessional behavior” or “how can the unprofessionalism of a police officer affect the citizen and their society”? Obviously the more experience the interviewer has with conducting the questions the better the interview will go. “Informational interviews are extremely valuable both as a research tool and as a networking technique; it is an opportunity for a candidate to learn more about a practice area, the role of an attorney in that specific organization. Informational interviewing is not an opportunity to ask for a job, but it is a chance to make a strong first impression that may lead to future contacts and opportunities” (Conducting an Informative Interview, 2010). Questions such as the examples given demonstrate the importance of professionalism in the law enforcement field and how it affects real life scenarios.
We face a problem of full accountability, many owners purchase weapons without thought of receiving training for or how to secure the weapon. It is proven that “cultural orientations condition individuals’ beliefs about risk through culturally partisan forms of trust” and that “The people they trust, naturally enough, tend to be the ones who share their worldviews” (Braman and Kahan 576). Gun owners and gun controllers continually profess to the need/no need of the weapons with the many excuses but when paired down to the most basic reasoning it is “that insufficient gun control will expose to many innocent persons to deliberate of accidental shootings; and that the excessive gun control will render too many law-abiding citizens vulnerable to the violent predations” (Braman and Kahan 577). The opposition to legalized gun owner ship responds to the claims of need with their own reasoning to remove all weapons with the exceptions of government officials by reiterating with the statement that “the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is targeted towards
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." (James Earl Jones, Online). Banning all or some weapons is not the solution to decreasing the increased gun related violence in the United States.
Since law enforcers are not enough to ensure safety for every citizens, citizens should be allowed to protect themselves. Opponents of gun control like NRA also argue that gun control policies are for authoritarian models of government like the Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy (Rogers, 2013). These are governments that disarm the population due to the fear of being overthrown due to their bad governance and violation of human rights. Therefore, democrats should not be afraid of being overthrown by disarming citizens if they respect human
In a country full of violent crime, the United States continues to embody the gun as integral to it's protection and culture. While the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution grants the people the right to bear arms, the people must on the contrary protect themselves from those who bear them. In my view, guns give people a false sense of security and are more of a nuisance than a benefit. Guns are a threat to the peace and safety of society. Therefore, since it is unlikely that all guns will disappear in the United States, legislation must be enacted to ban and cease the further manufacture of the types of firearms involved in more violent crime than all others; handguns and assault-weapons.
The reduction of the crime rates following the reduction of gun-related violence can be used to justify gun control. However, the official statistics does not support this assumption. The reasoning that guns cause crimes arises numerous disputations, as it does not consider that guns are just another mean of committing a crime. Pro-gun advocates usually assert, “Guns do not kill people; people kill people.” The Vice President, Wayne Lapierre argued that the best solution to the Newton Massacre was to allow citizens to own guns. He stated”The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (Spitzer,
The activists believe people will have gun fights over things as simple as parking spaces. Basically anti-gun activists believe that normal people can not be trusted with weapons to protect themselves or their families. Americans can be trustworthy with concealed weapons, gun laws do not affect the criminals of the country, and guns are not only used for bad to hurt innocent people. Americans have the constitutional right to own hand guns and stricter laws and licensing will not effectively save lives.