Gun Control: Deciding Who's Pulling the Trigger
Atrocity and guns, these two phenomena seem to be closely associated with one another. However, how significantly do they actually correlate with one another, and do guns always mean violence? If so, does the current system help the people in the communities around America feel safe and protected? These are some of the questions that are asked in the early stages of trying to reform the current gun control system. Guns have been a significant part of American society, as they are used for self-defense and it are used for recreational purposes; such as hunting and target practice. Despite the fact that there are some harmless uses that exist with the possession of guns, there also coexists many …show more content…
The first, and most debated reasoning for not effectuating these reforms is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment that is written in the U.S Constitution 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" (“Right to Bear Arms”). The opponents believe that this Amendment guarantees the personal right to keep firearms, and some say that it protects the “general militia” who are different from the “state militia” as that is controlled by the state and its government. Statistics have shown that about 50% of the American population owns a gun in their household, and many of these people who were surveyed about this said that they will certainly not give up their right of owning a gun (Rosen). Second, the opposition states that with new laws, there will be no reduction of crime because a crime is the action of breaking laws, and what will stop criminals from breaking these newly implemented laws. The last, common, argument made by the disputants is that people should have access to guns, because if they are in a violent situation in which they feel threatened, they can defend themselves. They say that the prevention of this possession of guns by the public could possibly be endangering to their lives as they say, “most of the guns are used for …show more content…
However, “Guns are rarely used for self-defense. Of the 29,918,300 violent crimes committed between 2007-2011, only 0.79% of victims protected themselves with a gun” ("Gun Control ProCon). This idea of allowing citizens to bear arms to “defend themselves,” is not going to help in reducing crime, but make it even more prominent in societies around America. Additionally, the criminals who are charged for crimes, and are sent to jail, sometimes find a way out. Many lawyers have found out ways to get their clients out of this mess with loopholes that are embedded into our law system. These loopholes tie the hands of the law enforcement, so that they can’t do anything. However, if we toughen gun laws, then we can put restrictions on who guns can be sold to, and reduce the number of crimes caused. Additionally, we can implement laws that would toughen the consequences of crimes that are caused by guns, making criminals think about their actions before executing
Atrocity and guns, these two phenomena seem to be closely associated with one another. However, how significantly do they actually correlate with one another, and do guns always mean violence? If so, does the current system help the people in the communities around America feel safe and protected? These are some of the questions that are asked in the early stages of trying to reform the current gun control system. Guns have been a significant part of American society, as they are used for self-defense and it are used for recreational purposes; such as hunting and target practice. Despite the fact that there are some harmless uses that exist with the possession of guns, there also coexists many …show more content…
The first, and most debated reasoning for not effectuating these reforms is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment that is written in the U.S Constitution 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" (“Right to Bear Arms”). The opponents believe that this Amendment guarantees the personal right to keep firearms, and some say that it protects the “general militia” who are different from the “state militia” as that is controlled by the state and its government. Statistics have shown that about 50% of the American population owns a gun in their household, and many of these people who were surveyed about this said that they will certainly not give up their right of owning a gun (Rosen). Second, the opposition states that with new laws, there will be no reduction of crime because a crime is the action of breaking laws, and what will stop criminals from breaking these newly implemented laws. The last, common, argument made by the disputants is that people should have access to guns, because if they are in a violent situation in which they feel threatened, they can defend themselves. They say that the prevention of this possession of guns by the public could possibly be endangering to their lives as they say, “most of the guns are used for …show more content…
However, “Guns are rarely used for self-defense. Of the 29,918,300 violent crimes committed between 2007-2011, only 0.79% of victims protected themselves with a gun” ("Gun Control ProCon). This idea of allowing citizens to bear arms to “defend themselves,” is not going to help in reducing crime, but make it even more prominent in societies around America. Additionally, the criminals who are charged for crimes, and are sent to jail, sometimes find a way out. Many lawyers have found out ways to get their clients out of this mess with loopholes that are embedded into our law system. These loopholes tie the hands of the law enforcement, so that they can’t do anything. However, if we toughen gun laws, then we can put restrictions on who guns can be sold to, and reduce the number of crimes caused. Additionally, we can implement laws that would toughen the consequences of crimes that are caused by guns, making criminals think about their actions before executing