Persuasive Essay On Gun Control

Every day in America an average of 93 are killed people due to gun violence. One of the biggest concerns today in American policy is gun control. This is a very controversial and complicated topic for both pro-gun and anti-gun supporters. American policy makers need to make it harder for the wrong people to obtain firearms and the fact that Second Amendment and gun control can co-exist. Mental illness constantly emerges in relation to mass shootings and shooters a like, as well as day to day homicides and suicides. America doesn’t necessarily have more crime then other developed countries the crime is just much more lethal. Right-wing Republicans constantly use the Second Amendment as shield to use firearms, the fact is the document is

Every so often the media and news feeds flood with reports of a mass shooting. Families mourn. In the days that follow, calls to action can be heard, and there is a demand for change. Sometimes minor legislation passes, but in the United States extreme change is rarely seen. Other developed nations provide an opposite comparison. Following the Port Arthur shooting in Australia and the shooting in Great Britain, both countries organized for significant gun reform.

According to Nicholas Kristof’s article “our blind spot about guns” gun control is a lot like cars regulation such that if we can regulate cars we can regulate guns. It took a lot of time and effort but thanks to regulations cars are safer than they were many years ago, and the same is very possible with guns. We need to keep our country safe. The first steps to gun control are improving on background checks and also requiring trigger locks on all guns.

There is a huge epidemic that is taking place in the United States and our government has to put a stop to it. This issue is the mass shootings that take place in America. There has been numerous amount of mass shootings in the United States and many of them could have simply been avoided if there were stricter gun laws. This last decade has made Gun Control an unavoidable topic in society for Americas citizens and politicians. Our politicians must take a stand against these senseless crimes and ban these pointless weapons once and for all.

October 1, 2017 marked the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. With almost 500 injured and 58 killed, not only did Las Vegas feel the tragedy of a personal loss, but the incident had rippling effects that shook all of America (Flaherty). With the fresh wounds of the recent Las Vegas shooting, politician's initial reaction is to implement more strict gun restrictions and "lay down the law" to prevent a similar event from happening again. Due to the drastic laws being carried out, the topic of gun control is a current issue in society. Is the solution to implement more firm restrictions on gun ownership or can the government allow the people to be their own advocates? While the opposing views of pro-gun restrictions argue that is up to the discretion of the government, they are often narrow-minded resolutions with no hope to finding a real solution. This particular shooter obtained his guns legally and passed all background checks, going unnoticed until his plan unfolded. Establishing more strict firearm restrictions would not have stopped the Las Vegas shooting from occurring. The number of gun restrictions can not increase, the government needs to either fix the existing laws or do away with gun restrictions entirely. Gun restrictions are not the solution because guns are not doing the killing--people are, the laws only attack the law-abiding citizens, and the gun restrictions add another infringed upon right that the government controls. While voting against additional gun rules will not completely eliminate the controversy behind this topic, voting against these laws will be a milestone to regaining the rights we have already been promised.

From 1988 to 2001, the usage of anti-depressant drugs in the general public increased by four-hundred percent (Swanson). The mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary took place in December of 2012, and during 2014, firearms were used in 88 percent of teen homicides, and 41 percent of teen suicides (“Suicidal Teens”). On February 28th, 2017, the Trump administration repealed a firearms regulation that prevented mentally disabled persons from owning guns. At the same time, teenage mental illness is on the rise, specifically in cases of depression and anxiety. A report from the Surgeon General shows that over 90 percent of adolescents that committed either suicide or homicide have or had a mental disability. Mental disabilities such as depression and anxiety put teenagers at a high risk for homicides and suicides. Teenagers who are stressed due to school, lack of parenting, puberty, bullying, and other factors can develop depression, anxiety or another mental illness. Allowing these teens easy access to firearms proves time and time again to be very dangerous. In some cases, the families of these teens have never been assessed to see if they can responsibly store firearms. The only background check performed is on the owner of the firearm, meaning that a person may own the weapon even if another family member living with them legally cannot. Loose gun control laws allow families with physiologically ill children to have access to firearms, without first checking to see if the disabled children in the home are responsible enough to be around said firearms. Repealing gun control laws instated by the Obama administration will cause an increase in adolescent firearm-related homicides, suicides, and tragedies similar to the one at Sandy Hook Elementary.

October, 1st 2017 has marked the latest in a now all too familiar trend of tragedies; a mass killing of civilians by a sick individual. In the wake of this tragedy, there is a mass of human emotion, grief, anger, sadness, and a demand for justice to right what has been wronged. In looking for justice, one needs an antagonist to blame, in this case an object, the gun. While it is true that firearms are the weapon of choice for many violent tragedies across the United States, will a ban on firearms truly solve the problem of violence for the country? Although a firearm ban may seem like a preventative for violence in the United States, a comparison of violent crime in other countries with varying levels of gun control, the lack of

“A series of terror attacks that killed more than 120 people, ISIS claimed responsibility for the horrific Paris attacks,” (Castillo and et. al.). Even though more guns will give more chances of murders, will more gun control laws stop people by getting them, will we be safer without legal guns, and why should we give up our right to bear arms.

Lately, there has been a controversy about gun control due to an increase is gun crime. With all the crimes throughout the years, many people don't know if we should have more laws for firearms or no more than what we have now. Within the last year, there has been about 53,000 incidents alone, but the year before was about 52,000 so not much of a difference of the two years. With mass shooting between the years 2014-2015 here is the only difference of eighty that had occurred and been reported, but yet with the accidental shootings, they are about equal with 2,000 that were reported (Past summary ledgers). The number of deaths that happened in 2015 was around 13,000 and in 2014, it was 1,000 less than that within the year gap. The new laws not only affect the people who oppose firearms but

The modern world is and extremely diverse place. Together with the process of globalization, the society has met the increasing amount of problems in social, economic, political and cultural aspects, which appeared to be the other side of all the benefits of the mentioned process. First of all, the globalization has led to the standardization assimilation of cultures as well as trends in lawmaking and juridical processes. First of all, it could be notable in the activity of international organizations, which recommend the countries to proceed with some legal initiatives, which would be beneficial for the world. However, there are still some issues, which can not be solved either on the international or the national level. One of the most notable problems, which was described above is the question of gun usage for individuals. The thoughts about this option are diverse in the society. Some people claim that free access to guns is the key to democracy and total freedom and would decrease the number of committed crimes drastically. At the same time, their opponents state that if people have access to guns, the world will become a total disaster with blood and violence all around the street. There are also less radical thoughts about the issue. To understand all the aspects of the problem and define whether the freedom of gun usage is appropriate it is necessary to conduct research on this topic.

Are firearms on campus, safe or dangerous? More than 4,320 colleges and universities in the United States permit students as well as the faculty to carry guns on campus. The idea of allowing concealed guns on campus came about after the several campus shootings especially the deadliest one that occurred at Virginia Tech University in 2007 (Hope, 1). But what is the need of increasing guns on campuses while the society and the government are doing all they can to avoid violence? Concealed guns on campus should not be allowed because it will only increase the rate of crime as well as escalate confrontations. Proponents of gun control feel that according to the Second Amendment, only militia groups which include security agencies such as police officers should be allowed to carry weapons for the protection of the nation's freedom. They support the theory of the by citing the Supreme court ruling in the United States v. Miller, that the militia referred to in the Second Amendment represents a group of regulated people in the security agencies in the country. The court ruled that the “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument” (Reynolds, 411).

One of the most heated topics in Politics today is gun control. In the wake of the Texas Church Massacre which left 26 people dead and the Vegas Shooting that claimed the lives of 58, there is a push to pass legislation to reduce access to weapons. Both sides of the political spectrum-conservatives and liberals-have held strong to their beliefs as there seems to be no progress made. It’s not to say that the views on gun-control have changed much in the past couple years, as conservatives reiterate their right to bear arms in case of self-defense and ancestry while liberals argue for the sake of the harm that weapons inflict upon individuals. Yet only after several massacres in the United States does Congress start to compromise on gun control issues.

Kenneth Hammond, an off duty police officer, stopped the rampage of an armed gunman on February 12, 2007. He stalled the criminal until a police officer and a SWAT team showed up on the scene. This man was credited with saving countless lives. This was in part due to the fact that he was carrying his gun.

With the protection from the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. According to a 2007 report by the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey, the United States has about 35-50 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns. It ranks number one in firearms per capita where it also has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among the world’s most developed nations (Masters).

In the United States, thirty-three thousand people die each year from gun violence. Roughly two-thirds of those gun deaths are from suicide, and the remaining are from homicides. The vast majority of the country believes in stricter gun control; for a number of reasons, Congress can’t pass gun control laws. Rather than focusing on the weapon and stricter background checks, focus on the ammunition instead. Metal bullets are unnecessary and overpowered – you only need them when you have the intent to kill. We should ban metal ammunition for civilians and move to non-lethal ammunition.