More Related Content
What's hot (20)
More from Emily Butcher (20)
Gun control
- 1. Emily Butcher FYS 100 Gun Control Points of View Database In control there are basically two sides. These three articles: Gun Control: An Overview, Point: Controlling Gun Violence is more important than Controlling Guns, and Gun Control Saves Lives, are written on the top of gun control. The first article, Gun Control: An Overview, is discussing exactly that (an overview of gun control). It converses the facts about gun control. There is history about it, definitions to help the reader understand the discussion of gun control, and about control of gun today. Point: Controlling Gun Violence is more important than Controlling Guns, the second article, talks more about it is not the guns that cause the problems. It is the people. The third article, Gun Control Saves Lives, is written about how if gun control restrictions were tighter, then there would be less gun violence. I would say the underlying issue of these readings would be gun violence. Supporters of stricter gun control do believe there are some possible advantages in supporting of the issue. It is talked about getting child locks, having to keep the guns in a safe, and not having an automatic. Some people would consider it to be against rights as an American citizen that guns could be taken away, if the laws were to get stricter. It would make a lot of people very angry.
- 2. There is a fallacy within the people who want stricter gun laws. There is a misconception that just because people can own guns that he or she will do crazy, unsafe, or bad things with this weapon. There is also a fallacy that taking away the guns will prevent the crimes preformed with them. That is not true. If someone cannot use a gun for a crime, there are other weapons that could be fairly easily found to use. A policy that is recommended is that the guns are kept locked up by something a child could not open. It would have to have a child lock; it would need to be inaccessible at all times it was not used. I guess one implication could be a family losing a child or just a loved one if guns are not safely locked away. Another implication could be someone who is not mentally stable enough getting access to a gun and causing harm. No More Restrictions The definition of gun control in the US is referred to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase safety, and us of handguns and other types of firearms. The resolution to this tension is not gun control, but controlling gun culture (Point, pg 1). I believe that quote states directing the approach that should be taken with gun control. According to the second amendment of the United States, 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 (Carrying Guns, pg 1). Since this amendment was made, it had never been questioned until recent years. The amendments in the Constitution are the rights of American
- 3. citizens. With our country being considered a country of freedom, how can these rights just be taken away? States are left scrambling to define the line between a legitimate exercise of their police power and infringement on the fundamental rights of their citizens (Responsible Gun Ownership, pg 2). States are trying to individually decide whether the amendment is interpreted differently among each separate states. Guns are owned by citizens for multiple reasons. Most commonly, the reasons are for activities such as hunting, but also for protection. No one wants to feel as though he or she could protect his or herself or his or her family if someone would happen to break into his or her house. People break into houses usually to murder or steal. If a person is mentally unstable and is plotting the murder, or suddenly has the urge to murder, then he or she could kill with nearly anything. A gun is not always what is used for murders. Often times a knife is used. Sometimes someone is beaten to death with nearly anything. If a knife is used so often times, why not just make greatly restrictions on knives, too? How could you look at a father seeing his daughter about to be kidnapped and take his gun away? Although that is not how the situation would actually be, that is an implication. Taking away someones protection is not something the government should do. The government is supposed to give us freedom and protection. How could they just take the protection away? The government should take away everything that could be a danger to humans if they are going to take away guns. Taking away one danger does not take away all dangers. Taking away the right to bear arms is taking away the right of self-defense. If it is all about danger, then the government might as well invest in a plastic bubble for everyone. Everybody would stay
- 4. inside his or her bubble all day every day, and nobody would have to worry about getting hurt. Is taking away someones right to protect themselves really a good decision?
- 6. Works Cited Vernick, Jon S. "Carrying Guns In Public: Legal And Public Health Implications." Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics 41.(2013): 84-87. Criminal Justice Abstracts. Web. 12 Feb. 2014 McGovern, Owen. "The Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance And Novel Textual Questions About The Second Amendment." Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology 102.2 (2012): 471496. Criminal Justice Abstracts. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. Gagliardi, Pete. "Transnational Organized Crime And Gun Violence. A Case For Firearm Forensic Intelligence Sharing." International Review Of Law, Computers & Technology 26.1 (2012): 83-95. Criminal Justice Abstracts. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.