In “Just Take Away Their Guns,” by James Q. Wilson, Collins Professor of Management and Public Policy at the University of California at Los Angeles, the author shows what is wrong with each side of the argument. In the first paragraph, he says, “The president wants still tougher gun control legislation and thinks it will work” (Barnet and Bedau 124). But, he continues on to say how this will not affect the illegal use of guns. About 200 million privately own a gun and one-third of that 200 million own a handgun (Barnet and Bedau 124). Only two percent of the citizens are using them in unlawful acts (Barnet and Bedau 124). The number of people who defend themselves outnumbers the amount of arrests for crimes committed. There are many issues with gun control, such as, whether a citizen should be able to own a gun or not, law enforcement confiscations, and punishment for criminals who use guns.…
The article “JUST TAKE AWAY THEIR GUNS” written by James Q. Wilson gives a detailed look of why people may take an anti-gun control stance. Reading the title, you may expect this article to be for gun control, but in the first paragraph it’s clear what side the author is on. Furthermore, he continues that getting guns out of the hands of Americans would be an impossible task. Providing evidence for that claim he states that “There are some 200 million guns in private ownership” (Wilson 1). Knowing this information, it gives us an insight on how large America’s gun collection is, and how hard it will be to retrieve all those guns.…
In The second amendment is a recipe for police killings Michael Wood explains how the Second amendment is a danger to police officers. Wood used the shootings in Baton Rouge as an example of how the Second amendment, which grants Americans the right to be armed, is a threat to police officers due to the easy access everyone has to all different types of weapons, guns especially. Anyone can simply walk into a store and purchase a gun, of course there is a process you are required to go through before you can receive your gun, however training in weaponry similar to law enforcement is easily accessible which could possibly be harmful to police if a gun was placed in the wrong hands. The author also made a point about how some people see the…
In the article “The Accessibility of Guns Lead to Gun Crime,” written by Alan M. Ruben apprises us that firearms have one sole purpose and that is to cause harm, meaning committing an injury, homicides, or suicides. Most people believe that owning a firearm gives the reassurance that they are protected and no harm can come to them. Ruben shows statistics that guns are not the most secures ways of bringing protection, but it can actually bring danger. “States with the highest level of gun ownership have 114 percent higher firearm murder rates and 60 percent higher total homicide rates than states with the lowest gun ownership”(Ruben). Gun ownership has shown that there is more danger being brought upon rather than protection. Statistics have made an estimate that not every gun owner is capable of having the responsibility of a firearm. “It is estimated that over 40 percent of gun acquisitions occurs in the secondary market. That means that they happen without any background whatsoever… guns show rank the second to corrupt dealers” (Ruben). Not every person who purchases a firearm are trustworthy, some may have a negative use instead of a greater purpose.…
Americans that support strict weapon control have achieved the conclusion that this change guarantees the benefit of the states to claim guns. Firearm control laws specifically damage this privilege and accordingly should not be under thought. Regardless of the possibility that the issue is ignored, weapon control advocates express that with a specific end goal to diminish gun related viciousness, firearm control laws must be executed to expel the savagery created by guns. In spite of the fact that this may appear to be sensible, the outcomes of such laws are unexpectedly counterproductive; they worsen the issue as opposed to settling it. Other than the way that the Constitution ensures its residents the privilege to remain battle ready, possibly…
Why do most of 19 different major varieties of gun control laws appear to have no impact, with a few exceptions, on the types of violence which frequently involve guns? Many explanations are suggested by both our own results and those of prior research. First, some gun laws are intended to have their effects by reducing gun ownership levels, so some gun laws may fail because they do not achieve their proximate goal of reducing gun ownership (Table IVA). However, our results also generally indicate that gun prevalence levels do not have a net positive effect on violence rates (top row, Table IVB). Consequently, gun laws may fail simply because, even if they did reduce gun prevalence, this would not produce a reduction in violence rates.…
Secondly, because there is no limit of guns a person can own legally, gun dealers are now as common as drug dealers and this increases the unlicensed gun ownership. I think that, lots of people with uncontrolled number of guns cause so many problems for police departments for the reason that, it is so difficult to identify guns and their owners during a case. For instance, a common type of gun and ammo is difficult to identify in addition, it is easy to purchase it from dealers. Normally, guns are joined together to a license of a person and policemen check the license to find the owner of the gun, but if you purchase it from a dealer, it doesn't join to your license. Therefore, policemen are only able to check the first and the only…
Government assumes that if society confines gun control that criminal activity will be reduced, however, offenders generally aim for victims who are unarmed. This would make it effortless for the criminal to assault a bystander while it leaves the victim vulnerable.Controlling weapons will not keep them out of felon’s hands. Each individual has the entitlement to protect themselves against unjustified acts. Righteous residents would have a sense of security knowing that firearms could be carried legally for his or her own protection and safety. A decrease in rifle sales, along with ammunition, will damage a state’s economy. Aside from criminal abuse, firearms are valued for friendly competitions and hunting purposes. Individuals who possess guns are put to a challenge to see if they can handle true responsibility. Besides regulating firearms completely, there are other alternatives to resolve gun…
In response to an article titled (Gun Debate: Where Is the Middle Ground?) written by Mallory Simon, writer and senior producer of online presentations for the Cable News Network (CNN) on January 31, 2013, the argument can be presented that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” The article highlighted the common topic of gun control. In that phrase alone it is proposed that somehow guns have a mind of their own and can somehow control themselves. The author presents the proposal that somehow there may be a common ground in maintaining the use and sanction of guns in our country by creating a medium of strict public policy in the form of background checks and security. It is with strong supported evidence that an attempt will be made to argue that the power to control the illegal, malicious and careless use of guns is to limit the power of people to obtain them with a…
Gun Safety has been a big topic that people are speaking of all the time. The Second Amendment says that citizens have the right to bear arms. That amendment was created for militias as America had become free and they didn’t want any surprise attacks from Britain incase they tried to take America back, now America and Britain are close allies. Everyday on the news there’s always a shooting and maybe it’s because guns are easy to access. I do not think that civilians need guns. Now some might argue that the police are corrupt and that they don’t want to rely on the police to do something that they can handle but that is their job. If guns are banned than their needs to be higher protection against smuggling as criminals will obviously not…
We have freedom and rights that no one can mess with, unless the government bans guns. “The second Amendment to the constitution is limited to protecting the state militia’ right to bear arms” (Buckley1). If we ban our citizens guns then we are violating their right to the second amendment. We will being restricting a form of freedom for them. “The basic right of the american citizen is to bear arms, whether to kill game, or to wound and kill human beings bent on murder or rape” (Buckley1). The right to bear arms is important because of this reason. We can hunt and we can protect our people, without that right the criminals would have the advantage not, not the citizens. “Our founding fathers saw guns to be such an important line of defense…” (Chadduck1). This is why the Second Amendment was made. It is the right of an american citizen to keep a gun for safety reasons. Gun were made to harm the enemies targeting us, so do not take that away from the…
Only through the blatant abrogation of explicit constitutional rights is gun control even possible. It must be enforced with such violations of individual rights as intrusive search and seizure and the most severely victimizes those who most need weapons for self-defense. With various gun control proposals on different agendas with the including of licensing, waiting periods, and bans on “Saturday night specials” are of little or if any value as crime-fighting measures because with the banning of guns to reduce crime makes more logic as banning alcohol to reduce drunk driving and with the persuasive evidence shows that civilian gun ownership can be a powerful deterrent to…
”Nearly three weeks after the latest mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people, 52% of Americans now oppose stricter gun control laws, 6 percentage points more than the 46% of Americans who support such laws.”(diamond,2015).In the past year, there has been many shootings. If the guns are taken away, some of these could have been solved but that’s only solving one problem. Taking them isn’t helping the helpless people that can’t defend themselves without them.…
“By restricting gun ownership only to law enforcement officers and the military, the government violates individuals’ rights to possess firearms that they might need to defend their basic freedoms.” When the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights they knew that giving the government our guns would be the equivalent of tearing the constitution in half. Guns are the only things that protect our rights. It’s what gives the people power, and it’s also what protects people.…
Prohibiting civilians from using guns can increase the effectiveness of the police in one’s state. When a person…