I have, does that mean I lack common sense? I also disagree with some of the points Helen Smith made in her article. I do think she is right that the children who would use guns on fellow students have mental issues that separate them from the average child. But, again saying that guns are not part of that problem is something I would beg to differ.
If the Columbine students did not have access to assault weapons such as a Tech 9 and a shotgun, I doubt the outcome would have been the same. Because these two students had these guns, several other students were killed for no reason. Hearing the opinions of people that differ from mine bring many different questions to mind, such as why do we need guns in the first place other than in the National Guard and law enforcement?
The answer is to protect ourselves, but from what? Well, other people who have guns. Someone sees other people buying guns and decides that they also need one because so many others have them. This being the case, I can see people buying handguns to keep their families safe from a dangerous neighborhood. I can also see people buying hunting rifles for hunting purposes obviously, but I wonder, why assault weapons? Do some people buy these high-powered shotguns and machine guns with seemingly endless clips to hunt?
These guns were designed specifically to kill. Why are these weapons sold to the average law abiding citizen? This is the thing that bothers me the most. We now have a standing army, unlike when there were only state militias.
The second amendment was written to allow these militiamen to own weapons. The second amendment is now interpreted different ways, which creates a great deal of controversy. Others think that seeing how we now have a standing army, not a militia, there is no need for average citizens to bear arms, so it is no longer their Constitutional right.
There have even been Supreme Court cases to determine what the amendment means. Cruikshank case of , the first case involving the second amendment, decided that the right for Americans to bear arms was not protected by the second amendment, but it was not denied by the amendment either. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.
Cruikshank case in other cases that were brought to it. Even if people have the right to bear arms, whether it is constitutional or not, statistics should turn people away from owning a gun. The Chicago Police Department Murder Analysis shows an increase in murder rates every year by firearms.
This prompted the Australian government to think and implement strict rules regarding gun use. As a result, the number of mass killings in the Land Down Under has been reduced, if not completely eradicated. There are politicians in America who support stronger gun control, such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Both of them thought of Australia as the model for stringent gun laws.
Other people argue that they need firearms because they use it for self-defense. They acquire a license for it, and as such, they are expected to use their weapons only when the need arises. Burglars, hostage attacks, and other forms of violence require people to stand up and fight, preferably with their weapon of choice. Life is precious, they say, and they can only protect their lives if they have the proper equipment.
It is interesting to note, however, that despite this rather smart take on gun use, there are people who go beyond the set perimeters. Intoxicated men go out, shout their lungs out, cursing the heavens for whatever they are suffering, and would suddenly vent out their frustrations to their neighbors.
It is easy to say one cannot kill a person, or one will always use a gun only when needed. But when alcohol, drugs, or mental instability, or fury takes over, the lines between right and wrong fade. People forget their oath. They forget they have neighbors who have done nothing wrong to them. All they think about is the need to fire a gun. Owning a gun is a huge responsibility.
It takes more than sheer discipline to convince people that you would not use them for anything else other than self-defense. Those teenagers who massacred half a school used to be sons and daughters. They were not violent.
They were the safe kind, and probably those who promised their parents they would not touch any weapon. But then again, tables turn when you least expect it.
Is gun control the sole answer? Yes, America should step up and consider reviewing the laws on gun ban in each state.
Persuasive Essay: The Need for Stronger Gun Control Laws - Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws.
Gun Laws Argumentative Essay. 1, Gun Laws and Violence Each year, a number of people die from guns. The popular saying is “guns do not kill people, people kill people” which is true; however, guns are used to aid in violence and many would argue that eliminating guns through stricter laws would decrease violence.
The Pros and Cons of Gun Control - This essay will discuss the pros and cons of gun control. Some U.S. States have already adopted some of these gun control laws. Mar 24, · “Stricter state gun laws associated with fewer gun deaths, study finds.” The article discussed gun control laws in states with stricter laws tend to have lower rates of gun related homicides, and a suicide (ProCon para.
Argumentative Essay on Gun Control Gun Control Essay Gun Control A problem that has developed recently in our society is the debate over gun control. California’s Proposed Gun Laws Won’t Change Our Culture of Violence, But They Will Make Us Safer by LA Times Editorial Board. Process gun control essay. In a process essay, you explain how to do something – for example, how to solve a problem. You can talk about how gun violence can be confronted by imposing stricter gun control.