What Are The Pros And Cons Of Gun Legislation

Passing gun control legislation that creates a universal background check and gun database system as well as passing mental health legislation that improves the health care system’s protocols and policies for assisting people with mental health disorders and that enacts counseling programs in communities and schools will decrease the likelihood of mass shootings in schools. The United States is bitterly divided. Issues of great concern, such as the rise of mass shootings, are partisanized. Both sides of the debate will not comprise or listen to what their opponents have to say. Groups from both sides can only agree that one innocent life taken from gun violence is one too many.

The article helps bring in a different perspective on why gun control would benefit

1st Amendment: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridg-ing the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” In short, this amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion, protects freedom of the press and speech, and protects the right to assemble and petition the government. The establishment clause enforces the separation of church and state and prohibits the government from restricting a citizen’s religious practices and forbids the government from forcing religion onto its citizens.

Throughout history, especially recently, the question of whether gun control violates the 2nd Amendment has been a question which many people claim they know the answer to, but it may not be that transparent. I believe gun control is constitutional, and it deters crime and makes society safer, meaning I side with the pro-gun control ideas. Within the topic of gun control, there are many factors in which people must take into consideration when proposing an answer such as whether it deters crime, what the economic impact is, and what should be changed. NEW PARAGRAPH... Gun control can date way back, but what really made it controversial was the court case of Heller vs DC in 2008.

Will banning of assault weapons reduce crime? The production, sale, and possession of assault weapons for private citizens should be banned in the U.S. According to “The Washington Post”, banning assault weapons will not reduce crime. It will only lead to banning of guns. In the post, they state, “It 's only real justification  not to reduce crime, but to make the ownership of weapons to the public less.” By making the ownership of weapons less, the crime rate will most likely decrease, individuals will feel more comfortable walking out-side.

Around 80 million americans own about 223 million guns. Therefore Assault Rifles should not be banned from american citizens. Banning assault rifles would interfere with the second amendment of the United States of America. Within the second amendment, it states citizens have the “Right to bear arms.” “It is a constitutional right to bear arms.”

As the ideal utilitarian approach focuses on the concept that the good will outweigh the bad, the good through gun control is easily identified through the way it will reduce the amount of violence as the restrictions of guns will reduce casualties. This has become the fundamental argument for the proponent camp where it is also seen how proponents argue the fact that “guns kill people” following cases of gun violence. As seen in the example of the cases that are ongoing in Baltimore, Maryland and Compton, California, these represents the clear fact that gun control is needed. The society will be a better place and it will be in the interest of the overall society for gun control to be needed. The clear advantages and good will be shown through the reduction of gun violence.

Gun control is a rising issue in the United States, it is heard about in the news, social media and among the public. Before choosing a side, look at the facts: “Beginning with Columbine in 1999, more than 187,000 students attending at least 193 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus during school hours, according to a year-long Washington Post analysis.” (COX 2018) “That could never happen in my school” is what all students, teachers and parents say when they watch a news report on another school shooting. Nowadays, children are so accustomed to the idea of school shootings, even children of ages that don’t know how to do long division.

They use the pros and cons of gun control laws to their full extent showing no bias on either side of the argument. The writings are written in a properly formatted structure, consisting of a statement claim and evidence to support what is posited alongside credible sources that were consulted. These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words to influence the reader’s opinions. The reporting is factual and shows a high lack of appeal to emotion, making it objective. This article is completely reliable due to its lack of emotional appeal and its unbiased arguments of both

As Americans we are no longer safe. Instead of more gun control, we need to strongly look at concealed carry laws. This law has the potential to reduce crime, and prevent mass shootings. Most importantly, it is our constitutional right. First and most importantly, it is clear that concealed carry laws reduce crime.

As the gun control debate rages on and continues to be a substantial topic among our presidential debates, do we need a little bit of reform to an outdated constitutional amendment? The second amendment was adopted over 200 years ago in 1791. Since then there have been many changes in our culture and advances in firearm technology. Year after year, decade after decade, one shooting after another, our gun laws have hardly kept up. Our closest allies and most similar foreign counterparts surpass us in their updated firearm laws.

The law is never something to take lightly especially when the specific law is set in place to prevent the loss of human life. Gun control laws have a basis set by the federal government and are expanded upon by each individual state as they deem fit. Federal gun laws and state gun laws have their similarities and differences, but both are set in place as a barrier of protection against those who could cause bodily harm to others if equipped with such power that a gun holds. The U.S federal Government has its own set of regulations concerning firearms and the state of California builds upon them to create a stronger gun policy, meaning both sets of codes and regulations have similarities and differences, but no matter the differences, these laws are set in place to prevent massacres like the Las Vegas, Nevada shooting, and while California gun laws are built upon federal laws, they can be improved for a safer more controlled environment. Federal gun laws are the foundation for state laws and the building blocks for more advanced restrictions set by individual

The Gun Control Debate In recent years, there’s not many topics on the political spectrum that aren’t absolutely polarizing. This essay will attempt to show each side’s generalized opinions, and find flaws in each of their arguments, as every ethical argument has flaws. Analyzing each side will help anyone understand their own opinions better, because without the demonization of the opposite party, ethics get much more difficult. Gun control is everywhere in the news right now, as three months into the year, the country has had12 school shootings in 2018. Exploring the ethics of gun control can get messy and emotional, but it’s important to understand all sides of a subject.

"’Make no mistake -- they 're coming for our guns. And we freedom-loving gun lovers are totally defenseless! Other than, you know, the guns’ -Stephen Colbert” (Kurtzman 1). There are as many people who advocate for pro gun laws as the people who are opposed, which is the reason why gun control has become one of the most controversial topics as of right now. America is truly split between those who advocate for gun control and those who are opposed.

What does it mean to have ownership of a car as compared to having ownership of have a gun? Both of them could be considered as weapons but only one of them is recognized as a weapon. A gun is considered to be a weapon but a car is not. In reality, a car could be considered a weapon as well because it kills people just like guns do. Therefore, the pro of having a gun ownership and a car ownership from the governments point of view is not having to rely on them all the time and the con is the risk of someone dying to an accident or murder.