The second amendment declares that all citizens have the right to bear arms. Many people believe that guns should be banned all together, others might argue and say why? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. A gun is most definitely a hazard, but is it really the gun doing all the talking? A gun sitting on a counter for instance isn’t going to pick itself up and do any sort of damage. The damage caused by a gun is on the person bearing it. Therefore, I feel that owning and possessing a gun should be legal. The topic of gun control has been talked about and touched on a lot lately especially with more shootings around the united states and some of the incidents with the police force. Some may say that yes, gun control would reduce the
…show more content…
“of 62 mass shootings in the united states between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally” procon.org,2016). This says that even if the laws were stricter anyone can use a gun in a harmful way showing it’s not the gun that’s the bad, it’s the person. Many persons also eel that its not the gun control that is needed, it is the gun safety and education that is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. Many people feel that there is a lot fewer deaths when citizens know the safety behind bearing a gun and the responsibilities that come with that. Another con of gun control would be preventing citizens to protect themselves from foreign invaders. If gun laws became stricter and didn’t allow citizens to bear arms how are they supposed to protect themselves from a foreign invasion if it were to happen a responsible well-armed citizen is the best protection against domestic crime and any threat of foreign invasion. Many say the second amendment was intended to protect gun ownership of all able-bodied men so that they can keep the peace and defend our country. With a stricter gun control law this infringes on this amendment and is invading the constitution that we have lived by. This amendment was made for the lawful purpose, such as self-defense within the
“of 62 mass shootings in the united states between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally” procon.org,2016). This says that even if the laws were stricter anyone can use a gun in a harmful way showing it’s not the gun that’s the bad, it’s the person. Many persons also eel that its not the gun control that is needed, it is the gun safety and education that is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. Many people feel that there is a lot fewer deaths when citizens know the safety behind bearing a gun and the responsibilities that come with that. Another con of gun control would be preventing citizens to protect themselves from foreign invaders. If gun laws became stricter and didn’t allow citizens to bear arms how are they supposed to protect themselves from a foreign invasion if it were to happen a responsible well-armed citizen is the best protection against domestic crime and any threat of foreign invasion. Many say the second amendment was intended to protect gun ownership of all able-bodied men so that they can keep the peace and defend our country. With a stricter gun control law this infringes on this amendment and is invading the constitution that we have lived by. This amendment was made for the lawful purpose, such as self-defense within the