Persuasive Essay On Gun Control
More and more citizens travel the streets armed and ready incase of a confrontation with a crook. Many would say this is wrong and needs to stop. In retrospect, what could possibly be done to stop occurrences such as an encounter with someone dangerous without a tool to fray the danger off? Some feel that the government should guarantee safety to all but these people rarely present a possible solution to the problem. With that being said, gun laws should not be tightened on law abiding citizens because it would cause the United States to be a more thriving environment for criminals. It would also cause the government to have a control over the people like never before, going against what our forefathers tried to prevent. A government that controls the people with no way for the people to fight back. Many people would say, if gun laws were made more stiff, there would be less mass murders. When citizens are not allowed to carry guns other citizens feel safer. At least
…show more content…
that is what is said in the article “Pro/Con: Gun Legislation”, “Americans feel less safe as more people in their community begin to carry guns” (Bito, Dana, Elisa Juliano). As one person carries a gun it puts others in a state of defense and makes people uneasy. This sounds logical until one bring about the other viewpoint. One would truly be more safe in a location with many people that are armed opposed to a location of unarmed civilians.
As said in “Pro/Con: Gun Legislation”, “‘With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since, at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns’” (Bito, Dana, Elisa Juliano). Even if one does not feel as safe with many people carrying firearms, they truly are safer. If gun laws are added, it will make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain guns where as it will be just as easy as it had always been for the criminals to obtain guns illegally. As gun laws are tightened, less people that truly use a weapon for protection will be able to carry a pistol. When this happens, crooks will still be obtaining weapons through illegal ways such as the black market. The criminals would be more feared in the communities and would not be as afraid as before when committing a crime because the threat of anyone carrying a gun would no longer be
there.
Most citizens that do stand for gun restrictions expect the government to take care of the people and protect each other from one another. When one relies on the government for protection it gradually becomes easier for others to do so and for the laws to become increasingly more strict. This can be seen when Hitler begins his reign using the German government to remove all weapons from anyone opposing his plans and the Jews. Hitler did not do it all at once though he began by slowly disarming small groups of people such as politicians and then finally took the last step of completely disarming all Jews (Halbrook 484). After this happens, there is no one in the country left to stand against him and his actions. This proves the point of why civilians would need the right to bear arms. If one is attacked it would not be sensible to expect an agent from the government to come and save the day. Civilians are allowed to have guns for self protection and for any other reason such as overthrowing a faulty or corrupt government.
When looking at the bigger picture, The people that are for tighter gun laws expect the government to protect every single one of the three hundred million people in the United States from physical harm. It is highly uncertain that any government would be capable of providing a service like so. With that being said, citizens need a way to protect themselves when the government is not there to protect and serve, or even worse when the government turns on the people.
that is what is said in the article “Pro/Con: Gun Legislation”, “Americans feel less safe as more people in their community begin to carry guns” (Bito, Dana, Elisa Juliano). As one person carries a gun it puts others in a state of defense and makes people uneasy. This sounds logical until one bring about the other viewpoint. One would truly be more safe in a location with many people that are armed opposed to a location of unarmed civilians.
As said in “Pro/Con: Gun Legislation”, “‘With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since, at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns’” (Bito, Dana, Elisa Juliano). Even if one does not feel as safe with many people carrying firearms, they truly are safer. If gun laws are added, it will make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain guns where as it will be just as easy as it had always been for the criminals to obtain guns illegally. As gun laws are tightened, less people that truly use a weapon for protection will be able to carry a pistol. When this happens, crooks will still be obtaining weapons through illegal ways such as the black market. The criminals would be more feared in the communities and would not be as afraid as before when committing a crime because the threat of anyone carrying a gun would no longer be
there.
Most citizens that do stand for gun restrictions expect the government to take care of the people and protect each other from one another. When one relies on the government for protection it gradually becomes easier for others to do so and for the laws to become increasingly more strict. This can be seen when Hitler begins his reign using the German government to remove all weapons from anyone opposing his plans and the Jews. Hitler did not do it all at once though he began by slowly disarming small groups of people such as politicians and then finally took the last step of completely disarming all Jews (Halbrook 484). After this happens, there is no one in the country left to stand against him and his actions. This proves the point of why civilians would need the right to bear arms. If one is attacked it would not be sensible to expect an agent from the government to come and save the day. Civilians are allowed to have guns for self protection and for any other reason such as overthrowing a faulty or corrupt government.
When looking at the bigger picture, The people that are for tighter gun laws expect the government to protect every single one of the three hundred million people in the United States from physical harm. It is highly uncertain that any government would be capable of providing a service like so. With that being said, citizens need a way to protect themselves when the government is not there to protect and serve, or even worse when the government turns on the people.