Criminals are not known for following the rules so all law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves by any means needed. You could be going through a tough area of town and having that self defense on you makes you feel a bit more comfortable and safer, protecting oneself and family is a personal duty and the government should not impede the ability of responsible adults to defend themselves from potential harm. You got to take the good with the bad
The stricter our state is with its punishment, the more people will know not to commit murders. American citizens need to know that chastisements are proportionate and fair. For each killing that occurs, 8 possible victims are spared. We can't risk the chance that execution does not save the lives of potential victims. Since the United States does not have an official religious code to interpret right from wrong, we have to depend on our criminal laws.
(Bureau of Justice Statistics) If the justice system fails then any crime can be committed such as rape, burglary, murder, driving under the influence, etc. Criminals would walk away freely with no type of punishment and think that it is okay to keep on committing crime and making their communities unsafe. In our justice
The second amendment states “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.” (U.S. Const., amend. II.). Opponents of gun laws say that any laws that are used by the government to control or regulate gun control is infringing on their second amendment right (Issues & Controversies, Online). A gun control initiative to be focused on would be stricter gun control laws and measures which would help crack down on gun crimes while encouraging responsible gun ownership and the use among civilians.
First of all, laws only apply to law abiding citizens. This means that anyone who is morally okay with breaking laws, will still get a gun if they want. Making anything illegal, whether it be guns or drugs, means that the government is giving away any control that it has over said items. The government can't stop criminals from getting guns, whether they are illegal or not. Now, most of the shootings reported by the
Even if it did while it may reduce murder from gun crime criminals would still have the option of other deadly weapons. These new laws would not stop criminals from obtaining a fire arm as most criminals don’t own a their guns as legal weapons anyway, they get them through the black market. Further restrictions would only make it harder for the citizens who would have a proper use for it but not for criminals. This is why many believe that gun control laws in our state do not need to be changed as they would make no difference to those who get them illegally. Putting down more restrictions would only serve to make law-abiding citizens who would have a purpose with it harder to obtain, and it go against our right to bear fire arms.
They lied about getting a warrant and in turn let a killer walk away from the situation with no punishment. Like I said previously if they would have used the ethics of virtue system they would have went about things in an honest manner and even though it might not have saved the life of Detective Griffiths it would have put his killer in jail. Ethics training for our officers is very important to maintain order (Papenfuhs,2011). However, when really spending some time and thinking about this situation I wish our legal system could in some way take into account the pressure we put on cops and when we know for an absolute fact a serious crime as been committed that the criminal could still be punished regardless of the mistakes of cops. I don’t think the people should be able to get off that easy simply because of a legal mishap and in fact disgusts me that his has happens numerous times every year.
Labeling a particular crime as special or different does not deter criminals from their true intention. If we place a "special" label on certain types of murder, rape or vandalism we are not preventing the hate that is the motive for such crimes. This is not the true goal of society. Helen Dodge makes a compelling argument to shun the members of such hateful communities in her article "Special Crimes Need Special Laws", when she says that the public should band together against such forces (Dodge 140). However, even she had to admit that these special laws won't deter the criminals who practice these violent acts.
They go to work alive and they want to come back the same way.”(Tim Delaney). This goes to show that police officers need protection so that they can provide the same protection to you. Using the stop and frisk techniques the local police can go into that high crime area and stop and frisk suspicious people, which would reduce the number of guns in that area also reduce the chance that the police officer would be ambushed before he gets to your door. While this could still happen with or without stop and frisk, the chance is more likely without this tactic. I for one feel safer if the police can reduce the crime rate and number of guns in any area, especially high crime
Gun Violence Essay I believe if the government started banning guns and other weapons it would not limit gun violence. Just trying to ban a weapon or guns, wouldn’t stop the person from trying to commit the crime he or she is wanting to commit. I believe the only way they could reduce it is if they actually go door to door to every house in the United States and take every gun that that person has, and that still wouldn’t be enough. People will eventually find out that that’s what the government is doing and most likely try to hide their weapons if they wanted to keep them that bad. That’s why I think it would only reduce gun violence, not make it go away completely.