Gun control is a highly debated and controversial topic in the United States. Proponents are urging for the U.S. to ban assault rifles, extended clips, and to make laws for extensive background checks on gun buyers. While opponents of gun control argue that the second amendment gives them the right to have firearms and extensive background checks would only prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining a firearm. My viewpoint on this subject has always been in favor of gun control, the reason I am for gun control is the U.S. experiences mass shootings on a regular basis and nothing is changed to prevent future shootings.
The main argument that gun rights activists use against gun control is that it would infringe on the second amendment, which allows the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court ruling on McDonald v. City of Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller stated that the right to bear arms is a “fundamental right”. Gun rights activists also argue that even if a ban were to be put in place, it would still not stop someone from obtaining a firearm it would only prevent law abiding citizens from owning one. Another issue pertaining to a ban on assault rifles is if a ban were to be put in place, how …show more content…
Their claim is that if someone with ill intent went to purchase a firearm the legal way and were denied, then that person would go buy a firearm illegally. In 2010 the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) denied 76,000 would-be buyers. Only 44 of those 76,000 were prosecuted and 13 out of 76,000 were convicted. Making the conviction rating 0.02%. Gun rights advocates raise the question if background checks worked then why did not all these 76,000 would be buyers get convicted? They believe that some of these would-be buyers were unjustly denied by background checks and some were able to avoid punishment (Levy,
The main argument that gun rights activists use against gun control is that it would infringe on the second amendment, which allows the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court ruling on McDonald v. City of Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller stated that the right to bear arms is a “fundamental right”. Gun rights activists also argue that even if a ban were to be put in place, it would still not stop someone from obtaining a firearm it would only prevent law abiding citizens from owning one. Another issue pertaining to a ban on assault rifles is if a ban were to be put in place, how …show more content…
Their claim is that if someone with ill intent went to purchase a firearm the legal way and were denied, then that person would go buy a firearm illegally. In 2010 the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) denied 76,000 would-be buyers. Only 44 of those 76,000 were prosecuted and 13 out of 76,000 were convicted. Making the conviction rating 0.02%. Gun rights advocates raise the question if background checks worked then why did not all these 76,000 would be buyers get convicted? They believe that some of these would-be buyers were unjustly denied by background checks and some were able to avoid punishment (Levy,