A. Guns are meant for killing, this is the truest statement ever recorded.B. Gun rights began in 1791 when congress approved the second amendment, which states that “ the right or the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (Bowman). For a century the amendment stood free until 1837 when Georgia tried to ban handguns which congress shut down. The time period between 1920 and 1990 the government was very busy regulating and trying to control guns ( Targeted News Service). Starting in 2007 (Bowman) massacre shooting became more and more popular, leading people to want to control guns rather than the people buying them. C.Which raises questions about the second amendment and the state and federal actions. However, many others in
…show more content…
Gun laws are ineffective (Shelby), everyone know this, whether they believe it or not is a little different. Richard Shelby, an Alabama senator, makes a senate floor speech opposing a new gun control law. F. Shelby starts off with stating that “ no amount of government intervention can prevent irrational people from doing terrible things” (Shelby). G. Later in his speech he uses the data from a series of nonpartisan studies that show “no correlation between the low expired assault weapons ban and the decrease in crime rates” ( Shelby). In the speech Shelby also points out that Chicago’s murder rates, as of 2013, were incredibly high, but they have some of the most strict gun laws in the country (Shelby). Gun laws aren’t minimizing the number of shootings. In the past few years there have been more school shootings than we have had in the ten years before legislation started passing more gun laws. Shelby also points out that. H. In another document by Franklin Zimring, an American criminologist at Berkeley, he explains that controlling guns is really only affecting law abiding citizens, and not the criminals activists are trying to stop.I. Something people against guns say is that gun laws prevent high risk buyers from buying a gun. J. However, the new stations are showing the exact opposite. As I said before there have been more school and other public shootings in the past couple of years, than almost ever. K. Yet there is still more to say about opposing gun …show more content…
Gun laws don’t only affect our right to own and use guns, they also affect where our money goes. F. In same speech by Richard Shelby to the legislation, the senator points out that all of these background checks, and restrictions are going to cost money, upwards of “ 100 million dollars annually” (Shelby). G. As if to shut down any other possibilities of finding the money,Shelby quickly explains that “ the amendment prohibits the FBI from charging federally funded licensed firearm dealers to run these background checks”(Shelby). H. The government wants to run all of these programs for gun control, and they also need to fund it. Shelby uses this fact to also say that there are “300 million” (Shelby) guns in the United States. When you put all of these facts together it ends up The government wants gun control, it is unconstitutional to charge dealers, and there are at least three million guns in the nation. It all comes down to the government needing to raise taxes. I. A possible argument could be that putting money towards gun control, could save money in hospitals or toward police funding. J. However said so many times in a number of different articles gun laws restrict the law abiding people and not the criminals, so no matter how much money we spend on laws and background checks criminals will still get ahold of guns, and the only difference is that there will be less protection from the police.K.Of course there is more to say about gun control, from both sides of
Gun laws are ineffective (Shelby), everyone know this, whether they believe it or not is a little different. Richard Shelby, an Alabama senator, makes a senate floor speech opposing a new gun control law. F. Shelby starts off with stating that “ no amount of government intervention can prevent irrational people from doing terrible things” (Shelby). G. Later in his speech he uses the data from a series of nonpartisan studies that show “no correlation between the low expired assault weapons ban and the decrease in crime rates” ( Shelby). In the speech Shelby also points out that Chicago’s murder rates, as of 2013, were incredibly high, but they have some of the most strict gun laws in the country (Shelby). Gun laws aren’t minimizing the number of shootings. In the past few years there have been more school shootings than we have had in the ten years before legislation started passing more gun laws. Shelby also points out that. H. In another document by Franklin Zimring, an American criminologist at Berkeley, he explains that controlling guns is really only affecting law abiding citizens, and not the criminals activists are trying to stop.I. Something people against guns say is that gun laws prevent high risk buyers from buying a gun. J. However, the new stations are showing the exact opposite. As I said before there have been more school and other public shootings in the past couple of years, than almost ever. K. Yet there is still more to say about opposing gun …show more content…
Gun laws don’t only affect our right to own and use guns, they also affect where our money goes. F. In same speech by Richard Shelby to the legislation, the senator points out that all of these background checks, and restrictions are going to cost money, upwards of “ 100 million dollars annually” (Shelby). G. As if to shut down any other possibilities of finding the money,Shelby quickly explains that “ the amendment prohibits the FBI from charging federally funded licensed firearm dealers to run these background checks”(Shelby). H. The government wants to run all of these programs for gun control, and they also need to fund it. Shelby uses this fact to also say that there are “300 million” (Shelby) guns in the United States. When you put all of these facts together it ends up The government wants gun control, it is unconstitutional to charge dealers, and there are at least three million guns in the nation. It all comes down to the government needing to raise taxes. I. A possible argument could be that putting money towards gun control, could save money in hospitals or toward police funding. J. However said so many times in a number of different articles gun laws restrict the law abiding people and not the criminals, so no matter how much money we spend on laws and background checks criminals will still get ahold of guns, and the only difference is that there will be less protection from the police.K.Of course there is more to say about gun control, from both sides of