The United Kingdom banned handguns in after a man shot 16 elementary students and then shot himself. Init rose to 1. Inthe rate rose even further to 1.
Make Sure You Know Your Gun Control Arguments For and Against Share The gun control debate is fueled by opposing sentiments, between those who support gun rights and individuals with anti gun sentiments.
The arguments are rooted in different philosophical applications as well as statistics and facts regarding how firearms can impact society.
It is important to keep mind that even though there are strong and valid points to be made for both sides of gun control issues, this has proven to be one of the most debated and intense battles that has been fought on the political forefront.
Though minor advances and pitfalls have been taken by both factions, the debate of gun control issues is one that is still deadlocked, and will probably continue to remain stagnant in taking significant steps toward either side of the argument.
At the crux at both arguments are underlying questions as to what is to be ultimately accomplished in choosing either side of the debate.
Firstly, how are firearm restrictions to be implemented without violating the Second Amendment of the Constitution is one that is considered central in terms of political and legislative in determining how to approach gun control issues.
Secondly, a more recently considered aspect is how gun control limit or restrict crime, if at all. Empirical evidence and statistical facts have proven valid points for both sides of gun control issues, making it extremely difficult to determine an obvious effect or answer.
The right to bear arms has proven to be somewhat of a thorn in the side of the gun control debate for both sides, but particular those who favor gun control.
Anti gun control factions are unwavering when it comes to interpretations of the Second Amendment that do not coincide word for word as it is written in the Bill of Rights. The National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America are two groups that defend the constitutional provision with all of their resources.
Gun control activists will often pose three concepts regarding the Second Amendment as it is written: The provision is outdated and obsolete; furthermore, its ambiguity lends for confusion and different means for interpretations of the provision, and must therefore, be amended to coincide with the times and be more explicit or simply be eradicated.
Regarding the inclusion of "regulated militia," arms are to be kept for the sole purpose of defense of tyranny or militaristic attempt by the government to suppress the people. To that extent, firearms should otherwise be restricted from other uses with few exceptions.
The right to bear arms is not absolute; it should be subject to regulation under certain requirements, such as when the commonwealth may be possibly threatened.
This provision does not support the use of military-style weapons--such as semi- and fully automatic weapons--by regular civilians because they are not needed in the realms of self-defense and protection or hunting and recreational use.
Though this interpretation may serve to have applied logic in an organized and well-thought out manner, anti gun control supporters will claim that the violation of the Second Amendment is a reason why such a clause was introduced in the Constitution; for the people to protect themselves from any form of violation of civil liberties and freedoms.
Though the interpretation of the right to bear arms is subject to bias and convenience, the arguments posed by each faction have strong and valid points that must be considered to the full extent in order to understand all of the gun control issues.
One of the arguments that is getting the most attention in recent times is gun violence and children or minors. Whether it would be that children have access to firearms and acquire them with malicious purpose or intention to commit a crime, or simply accidental discharge of a weapon by a small child finding a parents handgun and playing with it, firearms are becoming more of a serious concern in regards to children finding ways to get their hands on them.
Events as the Columbine High School and Virginia Tech shooting made this argument become more of a national awareness of the gun violence by young people.
Gun control supporters subsequently rallied to propose more restrictions and laws to further limit the availability of firearms.
Anti gun control factions responded by making it a responsibility for parents to educate their families of the dangers of firearms and guns, particularly if they were firearm owners themselves.
They claimed that laws and regulations would not bar children from acquiring guns if the education was not there in the first place. Though certain provisions may be taken, such as storing guns in gun safes or applying trigger locks to the weapons, it is more important to educate people about firearms, especially children.
Anti gun control supporters stressed that it is the responsibility of the parents to educate their children about guns, and even go as far as teaching them how to appropriately handle firearms so as the can develop a personal sense of fear and respect for them, ant not regard them as toys.
Another common argument posed by gun control activists is that the government has a duty to society and the people to keep firearms away from those individuals that should never be in possession of firearms.
There are already laws in place listing restrictions placed on certain people, such as convicted felons, that prohibit their possession, purchasing, and carrying of firearms.
Though these restrictions may infringe on some slight level upon civil liberties, the cost will prove worth the price if guns are kept out of the hands of criminals. Gun rights supporters will argue that more restrictions placed upon already strict gun laws will simply prove to be useless; criminals will always find other means in obtaining what they want or need, that is why they are criminals and operate on the fringe of society.Home > Opinions > Politics > Does there need to be stricter laws for gun control?
Add a New Topic. Does there need to be stricter laws for gun control? Add a New Topic; Add to My Favorites France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States.
We had 30, gun. When did the gun control debate begin in this country? Some say it started shortly after November 22, when evidence in the assassination of President John F. Kenned y increased public awareness to the relative lack of control over the sale and possession of firearms in America.
An Argument Against Gun Control Hundreds of law-abiding citizens were able to take up study finds.” The article discussed gun control laws in states with stricter laws tend to have lower rates Nancy Cassano Essay 2 2/13/ Gun Control in America The United States government should have the authority to restrict and regulate.
The debate over gun control in the United States has waxed and waned over the years, stirred by a series of mass killings by gunmen in civilian settings.
In particular, the killing of Nov 18, · Chief Culp is definitely in the against column — and he used the official Facebook page of his police department to let everyone know it. All of them included upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States of America.
Police Chief Refuses To Enforce New Strict Gun Control Laws – ‘I’ve Taken 3 Public. Instead, it’s the U.S. Constitution — and he says his refusal to enforce new state gun control laws is part of that. According to KXLY-TV, the Chief Loren Culp says neither he nor his department will be enforcing Washington’s new Initiative , arguing the strict new gun control legislation violates the Second Amendment.