Restrictions on Guns for the Sake of Life
Jasmyne Isaac
October 28, 2010
Criminal Justice Special Topics
Restrictions on Guns for the Sake of Life
Guns or no guns, that is the question. Guns convey violence across the globe, and though some countries have abolished them, America continues to allow the procession of arms in the country even though shootings have occurred. I believe that citizens should not have the right to carry or own handguns, except for the higher authorities such as, security personnel and police officers. Regulation of guns is a necessary action that needs to be taken in order to save lives. A good definition of gun control is needed to understand the sides and issues. Gun control is an effort to stop the rise in violent crime by strengthening laws on the ownership of firearms.
"Our cause is just, our cause is real, our cause is now!" cried out Denver's Mayor Wellington Webb. Recently while watching the television news, I heard the mayor say this. I also found out that over the past five years (2005- 2010) one hundred and fifteen homicides occurred each year. (Deakins) The news show was about gun control. If the mayor of Denver, Colorado, the government, acknowledges that there is a problem, we as the citizens should also.
Restricting the right to bear arms will undoubtedly make any community safer. However, to do so would take a lot more than just prohibiting the sale of guns. Many people, at least in my community, own guns. Granted, many of these guns are used for hunting, but they are still guns. I believe that it would make a community safer because guns kill, accidentally and on purpose. Many people argue that they have guns for protection--protection from the other people who carry guns. They defend their possession of guns saying they can use their guns to kill an intruder. They also argue that their guns are used to hunt and feed their families. Although these defenses may be true, I am brought back to an incident that occurred three years ago where I lived.
October 28, 2010
Criminal Justice Special Topics
Restrictions on Guns for the Sake of Life
Guns or no guns, that is the question. Guns convey violence across the globe, and though some countries have abolished them, America continues to allow the procession of arms in the country even though shootings have occurred. I believe that citizens should not have the right to carry or own handguns, except for the higher authorities such as, security personnel and police officers. Regulation of guns is a necessary action that needs to be taken in order to save lives. A good definition of gun control is needed to understand the sides and issues. Gun control is an effort to stop the rise in violent crime by strengthening laws on the ownership of firearms.
"Our cause is just, our cause is real, our cause is now!" cried out Denver's Mayor Wellington Webb. Recently while watching the television news, I heard the mayor say this. I also found out that over the past five years (2005- 2010) one hundred and fifteen homicides occurred each year. (Deakins) The news show was about gun control. If the mayor of Denver, Colorado, the government, acknowledges that there is a problem, we as the citizens should also.
Restricting the right to bear arms will undoubtedly make any community safer. However, to do so would take a lot more than just prohibiting the sale of guns. Many people, at least in my community, own guns. Granted, many of these guns are used for hunting, but they are still guns. I believe that it would make a community safer because guns kill, accidentally and on purpose. Many people argue that they have guns for protection--protection from the other people who carry guns. They defend their possession of guns saying they can use their guns to kill an intruder. They also argue that their guns are used to hunt and feed their families. Although these defenses may be true, I am brought back to an incident that occurred three years ago where I lived.