Gun Violence Debate

There has been a debate on what to do about the problem of gun violence here in the U.S. The second amendment of the Bill of Rights states that “ 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 statement is interpreted many different ways depending on the person. I think the second amendment states that you have rights to own a firearm, but to protect yourself and your property. It is unconstitutional to take their right to own a gun away, but it is constitutional to change the laws to protect other people. According to the U.S constitution, it is legal to own a firearm to protect yourself and your property. In 2013, there was six hundred eighty-one justifiable homicides from firearms, which is a small fraction of the eleven thousand homicides from firearms recorded that year. People think if guns get taken away from people, less crimes with firearms will occur, but that is unconstitutional. Citizens of the United States have rights to own a firearm. If people's guns were taken away, people would not …show more content…
There shouldn't be gun free zones. In gun free zones, there's unarmed, unprotected people who are vulnerable to be attacked by people who are armed. Armed people attack gun free zones, like schools and movie theaters because they know that they won't be stopped easily. From 2007 to 2015, there has been 8 mass shootings. 112 people died and 161 were wounded. Six of the eight mass shootings occurred in gun free zones, like movie theaters, and schools. There shouldn't be gun free zones for this very reason, but some people argue that gun free zones are a good idea because then people in gun free zones like schools and movie theaters aren't armed, so no one gets hurt. Clearly, mass shootings occur mostly in gun free areas because everyone is unarmed and the shooters can't be stopped