February 26, 2012 marked a highly controversial day in history; a day in which an unarmed African-American, 17 year old, Trayvon Martin, was fatally shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman of a gated neighborhood in Sanford, Florida. The essence of the case was that Martin way walking home from a 7/11 store, after purchasing a skittles and drink, it was during that time that Zimmerman saw him and called 911 reporting a mysterious young black male in a hoody who looks like he was up to no good. Zimmerman was instructed by the 911 operator that they do not need him following the suspicious male (Martin), however, Zimmerman continued his pursuit, and later reported that he only got out of his car to give the authorities a physical/location address. He claims to have been jumped and pummeled, by Martin, who repeatedly knocked his head into the ground. Martin was alleged to have reached for Zimmerman’s firearm and at that point was shot once in the chest.
This argument can be compared to if a police officer shoots an innocent man, the country should purge police officers of their weapons. When reviewing at the examples, one argument cannot be made without including the other. For the good of the country, some sacrifices must undeniably be made. The Death Penalty system needs to be revised to produce positive results and deliver justice promptly. The death penalty must remain a valid source of punishment because with the court system we have today, most sentenced for murder do not receive a life sentence and are released back into the public after a couple years.
Kendo Lyn Cline 10-07-14 Dre-098 Stand your ground law promotes vigilantism and provides loopholes for murderers. The stand your ground law states that,” A person may use deadly force in self-defense without the duty to retreat when faced with a reasonable perceived threat.” Stand your ground laws should be outlawed nationwide because of inability of understanding regards of the law, inability of writing effective laws, and inability of common individuals to make life and death decisions. Stand your ground laws should be outlawed because of the inability of understanding regards of the law. People seem to not understand what the word threatens really means. A simple fist fight can lead to a person being shot over absolutely nothing.
He mentions the relating between shrinking the stock of legally purchased guns and people self defend. The public opinion in this point is dangerous to shrink that. They believe should not be to reduce the carry of firearms, but put an end to them being carried by criminals. The government and public goal
Critical Analysis on “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate.” Dan Gardner’s publish, “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate”, is strongly controversial in his position against increasing enforcement of drug laws, and boosting penalties for violators. He believes that you should actually limit enforcement and hardship of sentencing when it comes to drugs. Was his argument persuasive enough in the essay to actually influence his wishes into society? Personally, I don’t think so. Gardner’s ideas are too drastic and I believe he didn’t have enough support in his argument that his plans would actually decrease the murders in gang violence.
They are just like us, but for what they have done to become a felon must have been hard for them to make a choice like that. People; don’t interact with them, because they have that view on them as being a murder. So Do you believe felons should
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 two individuals that are on opposite sides of the death penalty are Edward Koch and David Bruck. The mayor Edward Koch believes that the death penalty is necessity for todays society. David Koch is saying that the death penalty is another form of murder. If someone were to kill another person, the authorities have all the rights to sentence them to death and to guarantee such a horrific crime would not happen again. Mayor Edward Koch claims that to help the penalty for murder would be a huge insult to the victims, other than David Bruck correctly argues that justice is not served by creating another victim accountable for the things that he or she have done.
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
Sure, guns fire out bullets that can injure and possibly kill others, but who makes the guns fire? The people who pull the trigger do. What the people of the U.S. need to is to stop focusing on stricter gun control laws and focus on the topic on hand. Mass murderers such as James Holmes of the Aurora shooting and Seung-Hui Cho, who committed the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, have mental illnesses. Funding should be given to research of how to cure mental illnesses that lead to destruction.