Amnesty International: Amnesty Internation Against Gun Violence

Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. Many citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would reduce the threat of crime. People have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting and recreational activity. With the recent events involving firearms and mass shootings, people are skeptical whether to increase or decrease gun laws. Americans have a constitutional right to own handguns and stricter laws and licensing will not effectively save lives.

People might think their rights are being taken but in reality we are making the U.S a safer place for all our citizens. “They say that since Congress stopped banning assault rifles in 2004, violent crime in America has fallen significantly, and shootings are also down slightly.” There are positive consequences for having new gun control laws and the safety of the citizens increases with each new law. Those positive consequences are not enough to convince everyone that we need improved gun control

Gun control is what restricts people from buying and using guns, but these laws are not strengthened at the extent they need to be strengthened. This leads to many people getting these guns and using them to cause mass shootings all over the U.S. For example, according to the Council on Foreign Relationship, a news article that covers major world issues, in 2017, mass shootings at a music festival in Las Vegas and at a church near San Antonio have rekindled the gun control debate (“U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons”). The fact that gun control is still not tightened is a huge margin and error, and still causes mass shootings as we just covered. Many people have said that we should not allow guns to be purchased, which would seem like the logical option. However, according to the same source, Council on Foreign Relationship, some states, such as Idaho, Alaska, and Kansas, have passed various laws attempting to nullify

In pursuit of this vision, Amnesty International 's mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights. Its stated objective is "to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated” Its work entails investigating and exposing the facts, whenever and wherever abuses happen, to lobby governments,

Human rights, something that was written down for the world after the catastrophic second world war. Most know of the genocide of ethnic groups that were deemed inferior to Nazi Germany more specifically Jews, which were senselessly exterminated in camps such as Auschwitz and Birkenau. After the war the newly formed United Nations voted and passed The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, under this declaration lists thirty unalienable rights shared by all human beings. However, these rights can’t be actualized for everyone on the planet, both before and after the UDHR was written. The reasons being is that firstly, when people are pressed into a survival situation they are not thinking about the rights of everyone, but instead

The Second Amendment says, “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.” Gun rights has become the subject of intense political, social, and cultural battles for much of the last century. The pro-gun right side has asserted that the right to arms was absolute, and that any gun control laws infringed that right (Kopel, 2013). This right has been supported by the Supreme Court who has reinforced what has become the American consensus that the Second Amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, especially for self-defense, and that it is a fundamental individual

The question on whether the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. should be changed or not has become a widely discussed and argued topic as of recent, due to recurring incidents of shootings occurring on U.S. soil by its own inhabitants. While many would be in support of the right to bear arms, including myself, I do believe that the current gun laws need to be made more restrictive than they are in their current state, for the sake of the country and the safety of its people. I’m well aware that I am not a U.S. citizen and that I have no say in what decisions are made there regarding the country’s constitution, but I feel that what I have to say is shared by many of America’s people and that it’s not only Americans that are affected by guns but also those who are visiting the country from abroad. There are many problems regarding America’s very unrestrictive gun laws at present, whether it’s the fact that there is no federal minimum age for possession of a long gun, or the fact that individuals don’t

Like the ACLU. The ACLU, which stands for American Civil Liberties Union, is a way of the US showing

Gun control also limits our constitutionally derived right to own firearms. If gun control is enforced, law-abiding citizens will be forced to give up their guns and their right to own guns, while many criminals who own guns may illegally keep theirs. As the saying goes “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Guns are an important aspect of our society in many ways. They allow for protection, recreation, and hunting.

AS a citizen-based group, NGOs in South Africa help to establish and strengthen relationships between the citizens and the state. Thus in a post-Apartheid atmosphere, they broker the expansion of indigenous rights.

Guns are just a tool, like knives and hammers and it completely depends on the people on how they use it. People who support guns and arms say that the Second Amendment secures individual’s right to carry guns with them and that gun rights is needed for self-protection, and was intended for military to have peace and defend the country if needed (Spitzer, 70). Most of the Americans use guns as a source to protect themselves and they believe that gun ownership prevents crime. A study conducted on November 26, 2013 showed that bans on weapons did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level (Lane, 5). Moreover, even if the rules and regulations are executed on gun control, not all criminals obey the law.

Majority of the people who oppose gun control believe that it violates the Second Amendment. The Revere Journal says that “In terms of the substance of the Second Amendment, the notion of a militia has no practical meaning today relative to what that term meant in the late 18th century. We are long past the days when farmers left the fields to become de facto soldiers, or when posses were rounded up to chase outlaws, or when settlers were on their own in a hostile environment. Some pretend that a lifestyle that no longer exists still has meaning in the America of the 21st century.” The people that agree on needing strict gun control laws will find a stronger connection to this image compared to the people who oppose

To begin with, the second amendment of the US constitution gives citizens the right to carry or possess a gun. As a result, gun violence in America has increased drastically over the years due to guns being utilised in a reprehensible manner and people getting wedged in the crossfire, hence why stringent law enforcements need to be put in place regarding guns in the US. “Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms; in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally”.

Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for international recognized human rights for all. With more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries, they conduct research and generate action to prevent and end abuses of human rights and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated that is according to their website: www.amnesty.org. It was founded in 1961. It devote much of its work to the protection of the freedom of conscience and expression and freedom from discrimination. It has also given major attraction to prisoners of conscience, torture and the death penalty.

I chose the International Humanist and Ethical Union, because I noticed they were an avowed atheistic group. The overwhelming majority of International NGOs which dedicate themselves to human rights are either neutral or explicitly theistic in their statements of motivation and purpose. IHEU, however, is explicitly atheistic, and a member organization must assert agreement that "It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality” (International Humanist and Ethical Union, 2009). I found this very interesting, because in many parts of the world, being a moral person is still conflated with being a theistic person (Pew Research Center, 2014), and I wondered if their projected stance would at all hinder their efforts.