The second amendment protects the right of the citizens of the United States of America to keep and bear arms. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 and was viewed as a positive amendment within the Bill of Rights. Although in recent debates, this amendment has been questioned on whether it is suitable for the welling being of American citizens; creating the regulation of guns, which is also known as gun control.
Hugh LaFollette considers multiple arguments in analyzing the subject matter on gun control, one being “The right to bear arms is not a fundamental right and guns cause harm to innocent people. Therefore, the government should endorse stricter gun control measures.” LaFollette comes to the conclusion that people have a prime …show more content…
There are several cities that have tried this and the results support my argument. September 1976 Washington D.C. allocated a ban on handguns, which was soon overturned due to its lack of effectiveness. During this time in which the ban on handguns was in effect, the murder rate in Washington D.C. averaged 73% higher than before the ban was enforced (Agresti & Smith, 2010.). As it is clearly shown, banning handguns did not reduce the murders committed, in fact the amount of murders dramatically increased. Supporters of gun control would argue that the statistics collected are misleading and that other factors such as changing of times could have impacted the murder rates. However, during that same time period the United States murder rates decreased 11%, which complicates their arguments. Another city’s results that support my claim are Chicago, Illinois. A ban was passed on all guns, except for those that have been registered with the police department prior to the ban. With the ban still being in place, around 70% of murders were committed with a gun (Agresti & Smith, 2010.). Supporters of gun control also state “The more widely available guns are, the more murders there are” (Lecture notes). These studies have obviously shown that this statement is not true and not a good reason to claim that stricter gun control measures should be endorsed. The laws passed by these cities made it illegal to own a firearm and yet the murders committed by a firearm increased, showing how ineffective they are and also how they did not protect the people in any
Hugh LaFollette considers multiple arguments in analyzing the subject matter on gun control, one being “The right to bear arms is not a fundamental right and guns cause harm to innocent people. Therefore, the government should endorse stricter gun control measures.” LaFollette comes to the conclusion that people have a prime …show more content…
There are several cities that have tried this and the results support my argument. September 1976 Washington D.C. allocated a ban on handguns, which was soon overturned due to its lack of effectiveness. During this time in which the ban on handguns was in effect, the murder rate in Washington D.C. averaged 73% higher than before the ban was enforced (Agresti & Smith, 2010.). As it is clearly shown, banning handguns did not reduce the murders committed, in fact the amount of murders dramatically increased. Supporters of gun control would argue that the statistics collected are misleading and that other factors such as changing of times could have impacted the murder rates. However, during that same time period the United States murder rates decreased 11%, which complicates their arguments. Another city’s results that support my claim are Chicago, Illinois. A ban was passed on all guns, except for those that have been registered with the police department prior to the ban. With the ban still being in place, around 70% of murders were committed with a gun (Agresti & Smith, 2010.). Supporters of gun control also state “The more widely available guns are, the more murders there are” (Lecture notes). These studies have obviously shown that this statement is not true and not a good reason to claim that stricter gun control measures should be endorsed. The laws passed by these cities made it illegal to own a firearm and yet the murders committed by a firearm increased, showing how ineffective they are and also how they did not protect the people in any