GUN to keep and bear Arms, shall not

Published by admin on

GUN CONTROL
Gun Control can be called the ‘acid test’ of liberalism. All true liberals must favor stricter gun controls. After all, doesn’t the United States have the most heavily armed population on the earth? Are we not the world’s most violent people? Surely these facts must be at least casually connected. Therefore the apparently desperate need to “do something” about the vast quantity of firearms and firearms abuse is obvious.

Guns are employed in an enormous number of crimes in this country. In other countries with stricter gun laws, gun crimes are rare. Many of the firearms involved in crime are cheap handguns, so-called Saturday Night Specials for which there is no legitimate use or need.
The public is polarized on the issue of gun control, Anti-gun control activists believe that it is each and every American’s individual right to bear arms. After all, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states that:
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.

Advocates of gun control say that even with 20,000 gun control laws already in existence, the serious problems due to firearm misuse continue. Obviously, the controls that have been designed have not been sufficiently effective. Therefore the pro-gun controllers argue, we need more uniform legislation, more extensive gun controls, and effective enforcement.
Various pro-gun control organizations disagree on methods of gun control needed. For example, there are individuals who would ban all handguns’ as well as those who take a less radical stand and who would simply increase the controls on firearms. The moderate gun control groups propose measures such as requiring an individual to successfully complete a firearms safety course before being allowed to possess a gun, or to wait for a mandatory period of time before taking possession of a gun.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Today, there are approximately 20,000 different gun control laws in existence, ranging from those enacted by municipalities and states, to those enacted by the federal government. Gun control is ineffective and tougher sentencing of criminals and stricter parole policies would do far more to combat crime.

Statistics show that Canada is less violent than the United States. Fewer guns are only part of the story. The inner-city slums of the United States are murderous, bombed-out-looking places. American visitors to Canada’s big cities often ask where the slums are. The answer is that there really aren’t any slums, and the lack of violence there reflects it.

Canada’s more generous welfare benefits and universal health insurance have made for safer cities. The contrasts between extreme wealth and extreme poverty are fewer and less striking. Poor inner-city families do not disintegrate to the extent they do in black American ghettos. Canadian murder rates in big cities are about the same as in isolated rural areas.
According to ‘THE ECONOMIST” magazine; Blacks, 12% of the United States’ population, account for 48% of murders, mostly when inner-city blacks kill each other. (The Economist July 10-16,1993, pg 38) Few of these guns if any are purchased from retail gun stores. Gun laws will not keep guns out of these ghettos.

The founding fathers included Second Amendment to the Constitution because they were very aware of the fact that there might once again come a time when American Citizens would have to fight for their freedom. Patricia Lee of Balch Springs, Texas was running for the Texas House of Representatives in 1992 when she wrote the following about gun rights.

When the British marched toward Concord in 1775, it was not to collect taxes or suppress the press; it was to institute gun control. They were not after hunting or target shooting guns; they were after military cannons (clearly “assault weapons, with no sporting purpose”). How did the citizens of Concord and Lexington respond to this reasonable, moderate gun control proposal? With their guns! With a battle that killed hundreds of people and began years of vicious war!
Why were our ancestors so “unreasonable”? Because they knew that once their guns were taken, the rest of their rights would soon follow. History has proved them right time and again; the citizens of Hitler’s Germany

Categories: Canada

Gun control

Published by admin on

The US is among the most liberal countries in the world. In most of the states anyone who is above 21 years old is allowed to carry a licensed gun. The right to own a firearm is found in the second Amendment of the US constitution. This clause states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (Magoon 2008).

The second amendment provides for certain grounds that allow people to keep gun; however, this has been a subject of intense debate.

Those advocating for gun control point out that it is very easy to get a gun. They claim that only 60% of guns are bought from licensed dealers. The remaining percentage gets their guns from gun shows or internet sources. Hence this makes it very easy even for criminals who are not allowed by law to possess guns to easily access them.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Hence, advocates for gun control require that governments set tough rules, which would make it harder for people to own firearms. The government should also limit the number of firearms which one can buy monthly.

These people also feel that guns pose a big threat to public safety. Suicides or murders happen more often in homes, which have guns than in homes that do not have guns. Pro gun control lobbyists also feel that most gun sellers do not give background checks on their customers mental health and criminal background( if there is any) as required by law.

This they feel makes it easy for people who are prohibited by law to possess guns to easily access them and later use them to commit felony. Most of these arguments used by pro-gun control lobbyists are genuine. However some of the arguments have also be used by people who are against gun control.

Anti gun control lobbyists believe that if more people were allowed to own guns gun related deaths would decrease. This is because these people would use their guns for self protection hence reducing the fatalities which would have occurred if they had no guns. These people also believe that criminals will always find ways of getting guns no matter how strict the laws are to prohibit them.

Therefore making it hard for people to get guns only makes it even harder for honest law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, hence exposing them from the risk posed by gun-trotting criminals.

These people believe that stricter access to guns cannot prevent suicide. This is because people who would like to commit suicide can use many other different means if they are unable to access guns. Some anti-gun control advocates believe that regulations are meant to discriminate against people who are perceived to be of a lower social status from getting guns (eg African-Americans during the 1960s).

Hence, this makes it easy for them to be oppressed by the state. These people also believe that background checks do not work as they are poorly enforced by the government.

The arguments presented by both the people who are opposed to gun control and the people who advocate it are somehow true. But it is important to note the fact that there is a direct relationship between the number of gun related crimes and the availability of firearms.

Gun related crimes are usually higher in countries where it is easy to get a gun than in countries which have stringent rules governing the possession and use of firearms. A good example is comparing the crime rates of the US, which does not have stringent regulation governing possession and use firearms with Japan which has very stringent rules governing the use and possession of firearms.

In Japan there were 22 crime incidents for every 100 people whereas in the US there were 43 crime incidents for every hundred people in 1999. The rate of gun murders for Japan in the year 2000 was 0.2 for every 100,000 people in 2000, whereas that of US was 3.72 for every 100,000 people.

This comparison clearly shows that the lesser the regulation the higher the rate of crime. The banning of all privately owned handguns in mainland Britain after the Dunblane shootings, which occurred on 13th march 1996, led to a continued decrease of handgun related crimes in Britain. This is a clear example that availability of guns fuels gun-related crime. In America guns have been used to kill some of the most influential people.

Martin Luther king Jr was shot and killed by a gunman as he stood from the balcony a motel in Memphis. J.F Kennedy was also shot and killed while he rode on the back of his convertible car. These are examples of prominent people who have been killed by gunmen who could easily access guns and hence used them for evil motives.

The argument posed by anti-gun control advocates that criminals would always get ways of acquiring a gun with or without stringent regulation must not be used to make governments make it easy for people to obtain guns for self-protection. This is because making it easy for people to get guns would aid people with a criminal mind to easily be involved in crime. Otherwise more stringent regulation would have made it harder for them to get access to guns hence reducing the probability of them committing a crime.

The government usually has many arms involved in the protection of citizens. These arms include the police and the military. These are people who are paid by taxpayers for the sole purpose of protecting them. Therefore by allowing citizens to easy access guns in the excuse of self protection, these citizens would be performing the work of the state.

This can fuel impunity in the government arm entrusted with protection since their work would be performed by citizens who they are hired to protect. Easy access to possession of firearms for self-protection also proves a lack of confidence in the arms of the government entrusted with protection of its citizens.

Generally, criminals, children and people of unsound mind are prohibited from possessing certain kinds of high risk military firearms. These firearms include machine guns and some semi-automatic assault weapons. However barring these people from possessing this firearms does not really prevent them from committing felony since they can easily access other types of guns which are just as lethal as the other types of guns as they can also be used to kill.

Regulation requiring that people who sell guns provide records of all the people that they sell their guns to is in my view not effective in controlling the use of the guns in crime. This is simply because the authenticity of the information provided by the gun sellers is not easy to verify.

These sellers can easily collude with the criminals to enable them get whichever guns they want for them to use as they please. This is because the sellers are entrepreneurs who can easily bend existing laws to suit them as long as they are making money out of it.

However the most traumatic effect of easy access to guns is usually exhibited in some parts Africa which continue to be ravaged by war. In most of these countries guns are imported from countries where there are no stringent regulations governing the use and possession of firearms. This guns fuel the wars in those countries. Therefore people who are against gun control should know that people are the ones who kill but not the guns, however guns make killing to be far much easier such even a child can kill.

Works Cited

Magoon, Kekla. Gun control. Minnesota: ABDO. 2008. 25 October 2010.
http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=EWYYnHOfKpkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Kekla+Magoon,%E2%80%9DGun+control&hl=en&ei=IWnGTNWtG8qNjAfHx8xB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Categories: Government

Do control, how much it is needed

Published by admin on

Do you ever worry when you wake up in morning that you might not live to see the next day? That giving someone the wrong look or cutting someone off on our dangerous roadways would take you to your grave. The problem that would cause this worry is guns. The focus of this paper is to inform you about gun control, how much it is needed and that it guns need to be much more difficult to obtain. A fact in the United States is that of the two hundred and seventy million people there are two hundred million guns. Murder is not the only form of death caused by guns; suicide is also an immense problem.
Accessibility to guns has grown over the years and causes such things as school shootings. For instance the Columbine High School shootings. The massacre at the Columbine High School in the Denver suburb of Littleton was by far the worst in a series of school shootings in the U.S. The generation of teenagers has changed over the years and little thing such as making fun of the way someone dresses or what the person looks like can result in things like this. Guns should not be available to any under the age of twenty-one. This is something that will probably never happen because of the black market, but it sure would save a lot of lives.
I also strongly believe that safety locks should also be put on every gun that is in existence. I also believe that since there are many guns out there that do not have locks on them because of when they were made or the manufacturer just did not put locks on the guns, those guns should be made illegal. Also there has been a proposed debate on whether or not electronic key pad devices be used as locks, by doing this the only way to use the weapon is by punching in the pin number. There have been too many instances where young and old children at home have got hold of a gun, simply unlocked the weapon and devastation occurs.
According to the April 21, 1999, Houston Chronicle, Republican Governor George W. Bush for the first time voiced support for a bill requiring background checks of people purchasing weapons at gun shows. The main proposal, HB 1199, which was supported by law enforcement across the state, was strongly opposed by the NRA and the Texas State Rifle Association. In 1998, Texas hosted 472 gun shows, far more than any other state in the nation. HB 1199 was killed in the House Public Safety committee the night before Bush’s comments. April 20 was also the day of the Littleton shooting. According to legislators, with the governor’s support, there would have been a chance of resurrecting the bill, or moving similar legislation in the Senate. However, the April 28 Dallas Morning News reported that Bush did not think there was time to close the loophole before the legislature adjourned on May 28. Instead, he called on the federal government to solve the problem. The Texas legislature adjourned without taking any action on closing the gun show loophole. Both the House and Senate passed NRA proposed legislation to preempt city lawsuits against the gun industry, despite the fact that no Texas City even planned to file a lawsuit. Governor Bush signed the bill on June 18, 1999. This year, Texas received a D- on Handgun Control Kids and Guns Report Card. Texas received a lower grade in 1999, falling from a D to a D- because it does not have a juvenile possession law, does not regulate secondary sales, does not allow cities and counties to enact ordinances to
prevent gun violence and does allow the carrying of concealed weapons. Governor George W. Bush failed to push the legislature to close the gun show loophole, while promoting and signing a bill that gives immunity from civil prosecution to the gun industry. The state does have reasonable restrictions on juvenile sales and a child access prevention law.
Miscellaneous

Categories: Industry

Everyone legal boundaries that have been set

Published by admin on

Everyone in the United States of America has an opinion on gun control regardless of their age, race, or religion. From within those opinions arguments are formed. People are arguing about gun control at their jobs, at their schools, and sometimes at their places of worship. On one side of things there are the people that support gun control like certain politicians or political organizations, teachers, police officers, and so on. On the other side of things there are the people that are against gun control, people such as hunters and various types of criminals. When it comes down to sensitive topics like gun control, there are very few people that do not choose a side. The Second Amendment, like all Amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, is not absolute. There are vague legal boundaries that have been set down thus far which answers some questions, but leave many more open (Sanders).

Over the past few years there have been many incidents when children bring guns to school and shoot their fellow classmate(s) and/or teacher(s). The most recent and probably most tragic happened in 1998 at Colombine High School in Colorado when a group of students entered the school and murdered several students and a teacher. The first thing that everyone wondered once they finally heard the news is how the children got the guns? Supporters of gun control believe that if there were harsher gun laws, a lot of the school shootings would have never taken place and a lot of lives could have been saved. In a Brooklyn, New York federal court case brought against gun makers by individual people, a jury found that 15 of the gun making companies had negligently flooded southern states with guns, where control laws that are lax, and fed a black market of guns to states with more stringent controls, like New York (Nesbitt). This proves that if gun control advocates can win in a place like New York with tougher gun control laws, they can win in almost any major city, which could also lead to the federal government passing more gun control laws.

In Georgia, pro-gun forces scored a victory when Governor Roy Barnes, a Democrat endorsed by the National Rifle Association while campaigning, signed legislation that keeps all the cities in that state from suing gun manufacturers (Nesbitt). Though it is not right, it is obvious that street gangs and drug dealers have a say in this argument. Starting from the bottom of the cycle to the top: if street thugs didn’t have guns, how would they be able to protect themselves and the drugs they sell in order to make a living, who would they intimidate, what authority would the police and drug enforcement officers have over criminals, and how would they protect themselves? Without guns the crime rate would decrease rapidly, crime fighters would be out of business, and many people would be unemployed. In rural areas and in farming communities there are also some people that like to hunt. Without a gun they would not be able to hunt, which could have a positive or negative affect on their community. The positive affect would be that some endangered species would be given the change to multiply and survive. The negative affect would be that the hunters would not be able to provide food for his family and a lot of over-populated and dangerous species would continue to grow.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

According to one Web site, every hour in the United States someone under the age of 25 dies from a gunshot wound. There are also nearly 200 million firearms in this country and a new one is produced every eight seconds (Gun Violence).


Social Issues

Categories: United States

x

Hi!
I'm Iren!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out