In a time where there seems to be a continual push for stricter gun control and regulation, it is evident that shootings will inevitably occur, regardless of gun regulation. Law-abiding citizens are not the ones who should have to bear the brunt of strict gun regulation. The Second Amendment right is under attack; a right many would argue is the cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution. Stricter gun regulations by the U.S. Government, and the attempt to ban guns in general will not prevent shootings from occurring since criminals do not obey laws. Why does strict gun regulation not help prevent or consistently lower shootings from occurring? A problem cannot be properly addressed if only the surface level issues are dealt with. It is important
…show more content…
Although, the United States to some extent cannot be compared to other countries due to its unique governmental structure, it may be helpful to see how effective or ineffective gun regulation has been in other countries. The 1996 Port Arthur Massacre is one horrific instance in particular that seemed to spark policy change in Australia. This thesis proposes that strict gun regulation by the U.S. Government, and banning guns in general, will not prevent shootings from occurring since criminals do not abide by laws. This paper will seek to prove that lawful gun owners are not the problem, and gun laws are not the solution by highlighting the history of gun control in the United States; mass shootings that occurred both in the United States and other countries; analyzing historical and Constitutional documents that support Americans’ right to bear arms, landmark court cases, certain myths of gun control, and finally the underlying ideology of gun …show more content…
Interestingly, the Australian Government implemented a policy to exchange money for semi automatic firearms. The argument could be made that the Australian Government should not have responded so quickly with a national gun regulation. Governments tend to wield and exploit power in times of crisis too quickly.
According to Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran, authors of a journal focused on whether Australian Gun Laws of 1996 made a difference said,
Briefly, the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which was ratified by Federal Parliament in 1996 and implemented across all States and Territories by the end of 1997, prohibited certain types of firearms, in particular semi-automatic rifles and semi automatic and pump action shotguns. To facilitate the removal of these firearms, a government-funded buy-back scheme was designed, whereby owners were compensated for handing in their firearms. Over 600,000 firearms were subsequently destroyed by
Although, the United States to some extent cannot be compared to other countries due to its unique governmental structure, it may be helpful to see how effective or ineffective gun regulation has been in other countries. The 1996 Port Arthur Massacre is one horrific instance in particular that seemed to spark policy change in Australia. This thesis proposes that strict gun regulation by the U.S. Government, and banning guns in general, will not prevent shootings from occurring since criminals do not abide by laws. This paper will seek to prove that lawful gun owners are not the problem, and gun laws are not the solution by highlighting the history of gun control in the United States; mass shootings that occurred both in the United States and other countries; analyzing historical and Constitutional documents that support Americans’ right to bear arms, landmark court cases, certain myths of gun control, and finally the underlying ideology of gun …show more content…
Interestingly, the Australian Government implemented a policy to exchange money for semi automatic firearms. The argument could be made that the Australian Government should not have responded so quickly with a national gun regulation. Governments tend to wield and exploit power in times of crisis too quickly.
According to Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran, authors of a journal focused on whether Australian Gun Laws of 1996 made a difference said,
Briefly, the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which was ratified by Federal Parliament in 1996 and implemented across all States and Territories by the end of 1997, prohibited certain types of firearms, in particular semi-automatic rifles and semi automatic and pump action shotguns. To facilitate the removal of these firearms, a government-funded buy-back scheme was designed, whereby owners were compensated for handing in their firearms. Over 600,000 firearms were subsequently destroyed by