Guns are a weapon. A dangerous one. I cannot name a single country which bans them outright, but I can name many whose gun control laws have made a quantifiable impact on the violence committed. Why does America struggle to change its views on guns? Gun control has been proven to make a serious impact on murder rates. Gun ownership, contrary to popular belief, is not an infallible right. And they cause more crime than they prevent. I do not suggest that guns be banned outright, but it is imperative that they be controlled- and controlled more than they are.
In 2004, there were 0 intentional homicides reported in Hong Kong.1 This number is not infallible, of course- there are significant differences in what constitutes as an “intentional homicide” …show more content…
They cite the words, “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.” The second amendment of the Constitution was written at a time in which the militia was what kept America safe. The military did not exist the way it does today. Guns were necessary for civilians to own, because civilians protected America. Today, it is the police and the various branches of the Armed Forces who serve that job the Militia did. Do we still have the right to bear arms when we no longer have the right to a militia? Even if your answer is “yes”, there are even more things to consider. Firstly, amendments can be overturned. They have been. The 18th Amendment, which banned the production, sale, and transportation of alcohol was overturned by the 21st Amendment. Congress can repeal the 2nd Amendment, or make changes to it. Changes in its enforcement have changed, even. Assault weapons are prohibited to all private citizens. People with certain criminal convictions or deemed “mentally unfit” by a psychiatrist cannot own any firearm. Gun laws exist. They are enforced by the US Government. But are they good
In 2004, there were 0 intentional homicides reported in Hong Kong.1 This number is not infallible, of course- there are significant differences in what constitutes as an “intentional homicide” …show more content…
They cite the words, “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.” The second amendment of the Constitution was written at a time in which the militia was what kept America safe. The military did not exist the way it does today. Guns were necessary for civilians to own, because civilians protected America. Today, it is the police and the various branches of the Armed Forces who serve that job the Militia did. Do we still have the right to bear arms when we no longer have the right to a militia? Even if your answer is “yes”, there are even more things to consider. Firstly, amendments can be overturned. They have been. The 18th Amendment, which banned the production, sale, and transportation of alcohol was overturned by the 21st Amendment. Congress can repeal the 2nd Amendment, or make changes to it. Changes in its enforcement have changed, even. Assault weapons are prohibited to all private citizens. People with certain criminal convictions or deemed “mentally unfit” by a psychiatrist cannot own any firearm. Gun laws exist. They are enforced by the US Government. But are they good