The Fallacy of Gun Control in America COM/215 The Fallacy of Gun Control in America Proposed gun control laws that ban gun ownership are a violation of every American’s Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and should be rejected. The debate concerning gun control has recently become a major point of contention in America. Any federal law that affects the nation must be made using rational and logical analysis. These analyses should be based on individual rights and perhaps even a little common sense. Although these ideals seem simple to many people, they are lost on the majority of the Democratic Party in America.
Whenever this law is being used as a defense there should be an extensive investigation into the case in order to root out if it was really self defense or not. This would eliminate cases like the Martin case, where the accused “attackers” were actually the real victims. Nothing is more valuable than human life. Citizens must be able to protect themselves without fear that self-defense will be legally problematic. The Stand Your Ground Law allows for this.
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.
Although “ ‘searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable,’ ” Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U. S. 398 , this presumption may be overcome when “ ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment ,” Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U. S. 385 . One such exigency is the need “to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” Brigham City, supra, at 403. Pp. 5–6. (b) Under the “police-created exigency” doctrine, which lower courts have developed as an exception to the exigent circumstances rule, exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search when the exigency was “created” or “manufactured” by the conduct of the police.
Stand Your Ground Law The “Stand your ground” law allows individuals the right to use deadly force to defend themselves without having to retreat or evade an attacker. This law has been in play for quite a while. I have seen the effect this law, particularly ‘no need to retreat’ has had on several innocent individuals. Currently the stand your ground law is based mainly on the fear someone senses in a situation. Based on sociological facts, I believe this law will continue to have adverse effects.
Such incident would definitely support the writer’s point of view and give her a clear justification for her argument, particularly in a situation where using a personal gun against the attacker might save a family member’s life. On the other hand, and because Chavez is depending on her personal experience for not having a weapon to defend herself in couple of incidents, she was only expressing the situation as a victim. She is assuming that the victim will be able to protect him/herself more efficiently with a gun in case of criminal attack, therefore, she ignores the fact that the chances of escalating the situation when the victim has a weapon is considerably high. Unlike the victim, the attacker is usually more prepared for using a gun, and in most cases, he
A person can either allow a person to harm them or fight and in some cases even kill. The stand your ground rule is very controversial. Many argue that just because a person is being attacked does not give them the right to kill. Although, two wrongs don’t make a right, but when protecting yourself, the only thing that is on a person’s heart is making it out of the situation alive. In my opinion, the rule does not lead to more crime, simply because "There's nothing in the statute that provides for any kind of aggressive action in terms of pursues and confront”.
Patrice Foster Professor Hayaud-Din Government 2301-2406 Summer I 2012 Extra Credit Abolishing The Exclusionary Rule Word Count: Patrice Foster The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule is a senseless rule. We should get rid of it and the police and prosecutors should be able to use the evidence even if it’s obtained in violation of the rule, because we could potentially let criminals go to satisfy this rule. This rule is so full of controversy, that it is hard to support. How can we as citizens embrace this rule? A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made.
Consent can be a defence to all non-fatal offences and possibly even to homicides, however a person cannot consent to their own death. In the majority of cases, it is assumed that all physical contact is an assault unless a specific defense is applied, whereas the minority state that you cannot consent to an assault. The approach differs depending on the theme of consent that is being investigated. In cases relating to sexual activity and sadomasochist behavior, the law tends to take a more paternalistic approach protecting individuals from themselves, as seen in Boyea where it was held that the victim could not possibly consent to such serious harm, even though she consented to the original act. However when it comes to married couples there seems to be a more laissez faire approach as illustrated in the case of Wilson where a husband branded his initials onto his wife’s buttocks, yet it was held that sexual activity between husband and wife in the privacy of their own home is not matter for criminal investigation.
These kinds of events were not supposed to happen at a simple high school in Colorado. They especially were not supposed to happen at Columbine. The events just described occurred on April 20th, 1999 at Columbine High School. Two high school students possessing illegally obtained guns barged into the high school and opened fire, killing fifteen people including themselves and injuring twenty-four others (Carter, Gun Control: Overview). Up to that point, this was the most significant school shooting massacre in American history.