On April 28th 1996 a gun men armed with a semi-automatic rifle shot and killed 35 people wounding 18, after this the government decided that maybe their gun laws needed to be re-looked at. They implement stricter gun laws and even had gun buyback programs for guns that were decided illegal so that no one was losing money. This lead to lower gun related suicides as well as gun related homicides these dropped 65% and 59% respectfully. This was in Australia of course not is America, because in America we hold the
In America we have the right to bear arms written into our constitution as the second amendment. "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." …show more content…
You actually have to know how to safely use it before you are allowed to buy one. In some countries you even have to get references to show that other people would be okay with you owning a gun and or notify your spouse or ex-spouse before buying a gun. Some countries have a wait period before you can get a gun and then make sure that you properly store it afterwards. Finally to obtain a gun in many countries you need to have a good reason, which does not include "for protection". Although it is hard to prove direct causation, countries with stricter gun laws do have lower gun deaths.
A major argument against gun laws is that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I find this ridiculous of course it is true that by itself a gun cannot hurt anyone. The purpose of these laws is to keep it out of the hands of the people that kill people. If you have nothing to hide and are not planning anything nefarious then you would still be able to own a gun, you would just have to abide by the laws and regulation while purchasing and handling the …show more content…
They will not accept that your reason for needing a gun is to kill anyone. This makes since to me why would a government who has made it illegal to kill someone then sell a gun to a person who plans to use it to kill someone. The silliest argument against gun control I’ve heard is that you don’t need a gun to commit murder, which is completely true. People kill each other with knives and rocks and even their own hands. These objects have something in common they’re initial purpose is not to kill they also are not able to kill multiple people quickly. A gun was invented for the sole purpose of death whether it was of an opposing soldier in war or an animal during a hunt they were used for killing. They are killing machines and we are handing them out like tic tacs. The scariest part of the lack of gun control in America is that 20% of gun owners own 65% of the guns in America. This means that most of the guns in America are owned by people who have way too many than are necessary for “protection” or “hunting”. In Australia if your reason for owning a gun is hunting rabbits and you already have two rifles for that reason then you will not be allowed to get another because it would be unnecessary and nobody needs that many
In America we have the right to bear arms written into our constitution as the second amendment. "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." …show more content…
You actually have to know how to safely use it before you are allowed to buy one. In some countries you even have to get references to show that other people would be okay with you owning a gun and or notify your spouse or ex-spouse before buying a gun. Some countries have a wait period before you can get a gun and then make sure that you properly store it afterwards. Finally to obtain a gun in many countries you need to have a good reason, which does not include "for protection". Although it is hard to prove direct causation, countries with stricter gun laws do have lower gun deaths.
A major argument against gun laws is that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I find this ridiculous of course it is true that by itself a gun cannot hurt anyone. The purpose of these laws is to keep it out of the hands of the people that kill people. If you have nothing to hide and are not planning anything nefarious then you would still be able to own a gun, you would just have to abide by the laws and regulation while purchasing and handling the …show more content…
They will not accept that your reason for needing a gun is to kill anyone. This makes since to me why would a government who has made it illegal to kill someone then sell a gun to a person who plans to use it to kill someone. The silliest argument against gun control I’ve heard is that you don’t need a gun to commit murder, which is completely true. People kill each other with knives and rocks and even their own hands. These objects have something in common they’re initial purpose is not to kill they also are not able to kill multiple people quickly. A gun was invented for the sole purpose of death whether it was of an opposing soldier in war or an animal during a hunt they were used for killing. They are killing machines and we are handing them out like tic tacs. The scariest part of the lack of gun control in America is that 20% of gun owners own 65% of the guns in America. This means that most of the guns in America are owned by people who have way too many than are necessary for “protection” or “hunting”. In Australia if your reason for owning a gun is hunting rabbits and you already have two rifles for that reason then you will not be allowed to get another because it would be unnecessary and nobody needs that many