In Texas, it is obvious that most people want to feel protected, especially in their own home. The best way we would feel protected would be to possess a gun, because there is just something about guns that calm our peace of mind. However, it has been stated that the democratic party wants to put restrictions on allowing us to have control over such weapons. Personally, I believe that the restrictions they are applying are both beneficial, yet can have some consequences as well.
Definitely one major factor in owning any type of gun, is to have it registered. I strongly agree with this decision of the democrats, because if there is some sort of conflict between two individuals up to the point where gun fire is involved, there are ways to track …show more content…
Here is where there is a bit of hesitation on both sides for my opinion about it. I truly believe that this constraint will help protect people who have mental problems and when in possession of a gun, or any weapon for that matter, can be dangerous to not only the individuals around them, but to themselves as well. I strongly believe that this will help prevent many regretful situations, however, this may be only in the beginning before purchasing a weapon. What I am trying to explain here, is that although people may pass the test before acquiring the weapon, but what about after the person already has possession of the weapon? Would it not be more logical to have owners take the mental health test annually? As we do not know what happens in people’s lives over time, complications are a possibility of happening to a person and in some cases can even alter the individuals state of mind. Therefore, it would be more suitable to have annual checkups on the mental health of gun owners.
In conclusion, my arguments listed above, regarding my opinions on either agreeing or disagreeing with the allegations on owning guns applied by the democratic party, are mixed emotions. There are cases in these where I strongly agree, yet there are still great consequences in doing so. But for the most-part, these are reasonable and understandable altercations the democrats want to apply to the people of Texas in order to acquire ownership of a gun, which is why it is difficult to either just agree or
Definitely one major factor in owning any type of gun, is to have it registered. I strongly agree with this decision of the democrats, because if there is some sort of conflict between two individuals up to the point where gun fire is involved, there are ways to track …show more content…
Here is where there is a bit of hesitation on both sides for my opinion about it. I truly believe that this constraint will help protect people who have mental problems and when in possession of a gun, or any weapon for that matter, can be dangerous to not only the individuals around them, but to themselves as well. I strongly believe that this will help prevent many regretful situations, however, this may be only in the beginning before purchasing a weapon. What I am trying to explain here, is that although people may pass the test before acquiring the weapon, but what about after the person already has possession of the weapon? Would it not be more logical to have owners take the mental health test annually? As we do not know what happens in people’s lives over time, complications are a possibility of happening to a person and in some cases can even alter the individuals state of mind. Therefore, it would be more suitable to have annual checkups on the mental health of gun owners.
In conclusion, my arguments listed above, regarding my opinions on either agreeing or disagreeing with the allegations on owning guns applied by the democratic party, are mixed emotions. There are cases in these where I strongly agree, yet there are still great consequences in doing so. But for the most-part, these are reasonable and understandable altercations the democrats want to apply to the people of Texas in order to acquire ownership of a gun, which is why it is difficult to either just agree or