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,
There are definitely pros and cons for individual(s) being able to have a concealed weapon but in this case I am for people being able to carry a concealed weapon. Criminals are less likely to target a person if they know that person is armed. Second I don’t feel the government can 100 guarantees the safety of all of its citizens. Third reason why is criminals are going to carry a concealed weapon legal or not. So why shouldn’t law abiding citizens be able to do the same and be able to protect themselves.
Banning guns will take away yet another piece of people’s liberty, which is another step to socialism and totalitarians (Messerli). Some individuals say that just because there is a gun control does not mean that criminals will actually not use guns. Carrying a concealed weapon increases the chance of a confrontation escalating and becoming lethal. When afraid, intoxicated, or untrained in conflict resolution is when most firearms are being used
The application of stricter gun control laws will in fact hinder law enforcement agencies across America. During the Brady Band law enforcement agencies, although approved, had complications getting what is considered to be an assault rifle for official duties. Many law enforcement agencies had to settle for a less superior weapon than the combatant they faced. This event is a far too common on street patrol across America. When our trust is put into someone else’s hands do you want these everyday hero’s to be out gunned by superior weaponry.
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 ?
GUN CONTROL “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment has created a debate for the United States, which has caused controversy throughout the American people. Some argue that the amendment creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" clearly states that citizens should be able to bear arms for protection. Under this "individual right theory" the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively
These gun owners maintain that an unregulated right to bear arms is guaranteed to citizens by the 2nd amendment and this position received support in a Supreme Court decision issued in 2008 which disallowed a Washington D.C. complete ban on handguns. Opponents of gun control argue that gun owners often use their weapons to deter crime and that handguns are most commonly used for this purpose. “Research also shows that many laws do not significantly diminish the number of guns used in violence, although many advocates of gun control assumed they would” (Zimring 48).Some studies have shown that such defensive use of weapons occurs at a much greater rate than the extent to which weapons are used in criminal activity although the validity of these studies is in dispute. Gun control opponents are generally law abiding citizens who put greater trust in individualism than in the government to protect their safety. They are concerned that each step toward greater gun control will lead to the eventual confiscation of all firearms.
An Argument For Gun Rights Everyone should have the right to own a gun. Forget the little fact that the Second Amendment grants us the right to own a firearm for one second. Most of us can agree that a gun is a useful tool. After all, law enforcement and the military swear by theirs. It also doesn’t make sense to blame an inanimate object rather than the individual behind it and the reasons why gun violence occurs.
Summary of “Ban The Things. Ban Them All.” In the essay, “Ban The Things. Ban Them All,” written by Molly Ivins, she expresses concern about society’s ownership of guns, and how they have grown to be used more of a weapon for show, than for protection. Ivins also argues that the argument of “guns don’t kill people,” doesn’t exist, because she believes that they do, and that that may be all they ever do. Ivins states that she supports the Second Amendment: “A well–regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed,”(437) and that adolescents in our society are NOT part of a well-regulated militia: “[there are] teenage drug dealers…cruising the cites of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles” (437).
Morgan Wolfgang September 13, 2012 English Mrs. Meister Is The Constitution Still Relevant? How would you answer the question “Is our Constitution still relevant to this day?” Well I would say that yes it is still relevant but there are rights that have been stretched and should be defined, such as The Right to Bear “Arms.” Are we misusing this liberty given to us by our founding fathers? I believe this is a God-given right to defend ourselves, our liberty and our families, but there is no reason that civilians should have bombs or grenades in their homes, that is what we have our military, to protect our country in major ways. All governments, dictatorships, and monarchies have the right to protect their families and liberty, but under the International Small Arms Control Standards made up by the United Nations the Right to Bear Arms is not given to us by our government it is just an American right, it’s a Human right to self-defense. Our founders understood that this right was essential to our self-defense as the children of God.