Regarding the fact that Dr. I am sure he has tripped and fallen or choked on his food before at least once. I have, does that mean I lack common sense? I also disagree with some of the points Helen Smith made in her article. I do think she is right that the children who would use guns on fellow students have mental issues that separate them from the average child.
But, again saying that guns are not part of that problem is something I would beg to differ. If the Columbine students did not have access to assault weapons such as a Tech 9 and a shotgun, I doubt the outcome would have been the same.
Because these two students had these guns, several other students were killed for no reason. Hearing the opinions of people that differ from mine bring many different questions to mind, such as why do we need guns in the first place other than in the National Guard and law enforcement?
The answer is to protect ourselves, but from what? Well, other people who have guns. Someone sees other people buying guns and decides that they also need one because so many others have them.
This being the case, I can see people buying handguns to keep their families safe from a dangerous neighborhood. I can also see people buying hunting rifles for hunting purposes obviously, but I wonder, why assault weapons? Do some people buy these high-powered shotguns and machine guns with seemingly endless clips to hunt?
These guns were designed specifically to kill. Why are these weapons sold to the average law abiding citizen? This is the thing that bothers me the most.
We now have a standing army, unlike when there were only state militias. The second amendment was written to allow these militiamen to own weapons. The second amendment is now interpreted different ways, which creates a great deal of controversy. Others think that seeing how we now have a standing army, not a militia, there is no need for average citizens to bear arms, so it is no longer their Constitutional right.
There have even been Supreme Court cases to determine what the amendment means. Cruikshank case of , the first case involving the second amendment, decided that the right for Americans to bear arms was not protected by the second amendment, but it was not denied by the amendment either. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.
Cruikshank case in other cases that were brought to it. Too many factors indicate its negative aspects. Of course, some of you might say that it is not the gun that kills people; it is people itself. You are absolutely right but the fact that those people have the gun is what leads them to such dreadful actions. We should take measures in order to reduce the amount of guns people possess, otherwise it may lead to a great number of tragedies. Rage, jealousy and anger are strong motifs and before you know it, somebody has already hurt the other person.
The government should be very careful deciding whether this person should or should not be allowed to carry a gun. Our reality is harsh and what seemed to be a measure of protection may turn into brutality.
All in all, the topic is quite complex and requires a lot of thinking. There have been arguments regarding the gun control in the United States where some people have been on the idea that laws on gun control should be enhanced while others supported the idea that they should be scrapped and there should no be rules governing gun control in the country.
The importance on gun control rules was emphasized due to the increase in insecurity whose main attribute is gun violence raised by the people who are in possession of the guns. The second amendment allows citizens to have the right to bear arms and can use them for self defense.
Therefore, when there are fights against people possessing firearms, it is an indication that people are trying to defeat the point that gave birth to the second amendment. There has also been an argument that violence will also be experienced in the absence of the guns.
There are other weapons that can be used to perpetrate violence, and other factors should be considered in controlling violence apart from confiscating guns and bringing other laws that control gun possession. For instance, there was reported a case where a young man stabbed his fellow student with a screwdriver in a high school.
He did not need a gun to commit the murder, yet there was crime in the school. People are also denied freedom of some activities such as hunting. For many people, hunting is a hobby, and a gun is used in hunting the wild animals. When there are gun control laws, it is very obvious that they are deprived of their interest in their hobby.
For these reasons, there should no be gun control laws, as people should be allowed to use the guns at their discretion Dixon, Most Americans cling to the second amendment that allows citizens to hold firearms wherever they go for their own safety. Most people also believe that the second amendment was placed so that the citizens would be protected from the tyrannical government that seemed to keep people in fear.
People would have the power to rebel in case the government introduced dictatorial policies for their people. However, though this was not the main aim why people were issued with guns, it served as a purpose as the power of the government would be regulated in a way that the people would be given a chance to make their own ideas and also be given a voice in the government.
This is because of the power they were believed to have after they were given the go- ahead to possess the firearms.
The second amendment states that the right of people to keep their arms should not be infringed by any means. The amendment mentions a well- regulated militia which is a phrase that means a group of citizens that act in position of an army. It continues to describe that it is necessary to the security of a free state. In this phrase, it means that the group will be in the frontline in making sure that it meets the goals and the interests of the citizen army.
The main objective of the citizen army is to protect the best interests of the country, as well as, protecting the government also from foreign intervention. This means that when the gun control laws are being introduced, the main intention of introducing the second amendment is being assumed. This means that the country would be left at the stake of only the military and the citizens would not have the power of protecting their government, as well as, the best interests of their nation Lott Another main reason why the second amendment was made was that the South would be able to control the slaves.
Guns would be essential in helping carry out slavery in the South at ease. Therefore, state militias served as slave patrols where they had to be given the mandate and responsibility to hold guns so that they would be able to control the slaves. The second amendment was also made because of the rebellions that used to take place in the country. For example, the whiskey rebellion caused the government to revoke the amendment as a way of controlling the militias in helping stop the rebellion.
The farmers were rebelling against the government for imposing a new tax, yet it had not been there previously. When the amendment was made, room for rebel had not been created against the government. However, such rebellions were experienced when the government was not in a position to meet certain needs of the people or it acted in such a way that people viewed as selfish or had corrupt intentions. For this reason, the state has been enjoying its democratic right because rebellions and demonstrations are respected because the government realizes the power within the people.
If such power had not been vested in the people, it would be difficult in the United States to stage rebellions and demonstrations in fight for human rights and freedom.
Persuasive Essay: The Need for Stronger Gun Control Laws - Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws.
Gun Laws Argumentative Essay. 1, Gun Laws and Violence Each year, a number of people die from guns. The popular saying is “guns do not kill people, people kill people” which is true; however, guns are used to aid in violence and many would argue that eliminating guns through stricter laws would decrease violence.
The Pros and Cons of Gun Control - This essay will discuss the pros and cons of gun control. Some U.S. States have already adopted some of these gun control laws. Mar 24, · “Stricter state gun laws associated with fewer gun deaths, study finds.” The article discussed gun control laws in states with stricter laws tend to have lower rates of gun related homicides, and a suicide (ProCon para.
Argumentative Essay on Gun Control Gun Control Essay Gun Control A problem that has developed recently in our society is the debate over gun control. California’s Proposed Gun Laws Won’t Change Our Culture of Violence, But They Will Make Us Safer by LA Times Editorial Board. Process gun control essay. In a process essay, you explain how to do something – for example, how to solve a problem. You can talk about how gun violence can be confronted by imposing stricter gun control.