Gun Rights
There’s two sides you can believe about gun control. You can believe that guns create crimes or that guns can prevent crimes. People on the side that believe that guns create crimes, want to increase gun control; make more laws that restrict gun possession in certain locations, type of guns and ammunition that can be purchased. People on the side that believe guns can prevent crimes, want a decrease of gun control; less restrictions considering the possession of guns, type of guns, type of ammunition, and locations. Some people believe that certified citizens with their conceal carry license are still not certified to protect themselves or others, that they might mistake someone for a criminal or shooter, and that it will produce …show more content…
They think that the more guns there are the more crimes and shootings there will be. Even though a law abiding citizen has a concealed weapon on them, they will not be able to prevent a mass shooting around them. But if you as a citizen are experiencing a mass murderer shooting up the streets, are you just going to watch him do it? Or be walking in the park with your family and have someone try to rob, kidnap, or kill one of your kids or wife at gun point, are you going to just let them do it? Tanushree Ghosh of the Huffington Post believes that even if she had a gun, she would not be able to counter an attack from a mass shooter, and possibly inflict more harm on the public. She says the shooter would probably have a more powerful weapon, that would inflict more damage in a shorter amount of time, and that she wouldn’t be able to counter the shooters attack even if she had an automatic assault rifle because there would be a possibility of causing more damage(Ghosh, 3-4). I agree that there is a possibility of causing more damage, but are you just going to let the shooter kill you and everybody else? What’s worse 1 to 4 dead verse 10 to 15 dead? Just because there is a possibility doesn’t mean you can’t try to save …show more content…
It is one of our Amendments. The Second Amendment states, “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.” This means that it is our right to have guns to protect ourselves and our family in any event that the government would turn against us, the people, and that our right should not be altered in anyway. Congressman Paul Gosar believes strongly in the second amendment. He provides a strong statement of why it was created, in which I stated above. And he states, “The founders intended the second amendment to function as a citizen check against overreach in the event that the government started to take away civil rights guaranteed in our Constitution(Gosar, 2).” This quote is important because it shows why the amendment was created, and provides context of one of our congressmen supporting it. The second amendment proves that politicians or the government can’t take away our right to keep and bear arms. This proven claim shows my thesis is correct in the case that citizens SHOULD have a weapon available to them to protect themselves and
There’s two sides you can believe about gun control. You can believe that guns create crimes or that guns can prevent crimes. People on the side that believe that guns create crimes, want to increase gun control; make more laws that restrict gun possession in certain locations, type of guns and ammunition that can be purchased. People on the side that believe guns can prevent crimes, want a decrease of gun control; less restrictions considering the possession of guns, type of guns, type of ammunition, and locations. Some people believe that certified citizens with their conceal carry license are still not certified to protect themselves or others, that they might mistake someone for a criminal or shooter, and that it will produce …show more content…
They think that the more guns there are the more crimes and shootings there will be. Even though a law abiding citizen has a concealed weapon on them, they will not be able to prevent a mass shooting around them. But if you as a citizen are experiencing a mass murderer shooting up the streets, are you just going to watch him do it? Or be walking in the park with your family and have someone try to rob, kidnap, or kill one of your kids or wife at gun point, are you going to just let them do it? Tanushree Ghosh of the Huffington Post believes that even if she had a gun, she would not be able to counter an attack from a mass shooter, and possibly inflict more harm on the public. She says the shooter would probably have a more powerful weapon, that would inflict more damage in a shorter amount of time, and that she wouldn’t be able to counter the shooters attack even if she had an automatic assault rifle because there would be a possibility of causing more damage(Ghosh, 3-4). I agree that there is a possibility of causing more damage, but are you just going to let the shooter kill you and everybody else? What’s worse 1 to 4 dead verse 10 to 15 dead? Just because there is a possibility doesn’t mean you can’t try to save …show more content…
It is one of our Amendments. The Second Amendment states, “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.” This means that it is our right to have guns to protect ourselves and our family in any event that the government would turn against us, the people, and that our right should not be altered in anyway. Congressman Paul Gosar believes strongly in the second amendment. He provides a strong statement of why it was created, in which I stated above. And he states, “The founders intended the second amendment to function as a citizen check against overreach in the event that the government started to take away civil rights guaranteed in our Constitution(Gosar, 2).” This quote is important because it shows why the amendment was created, and provides context of one of our congressmen supporting it. The second amendment proves that politicians or the government can’t take away our right to keep and bear arms. This proven claim shows my thesis is correct in the case that citizens SHOULD have a weapon available to them to protect themselves and