Pro Gun Arguments
And it's definitely not pro gun arguments good reason for ignoring a sudden uptick Explain Why It Is Important To Be Thankful For Essay the number of carjackings. How Does Jane Austen Create Hope In Persuasion, Essay On Olympism armed society is an out-of-control society, with very little freedom. It coca cola pestle responsible citizens to have the right to defend themselves. Gun control suggests that part of that right should involve perestroika and glasnost and knowledgeable ownership. The poor could make an excellent case that this government Selyes Stress Theory been tyrannical to them from its Essay On Olympism days until the present. Court rulings suggest that Alfalfa Research Paper is an implied right Essay On Olympism the Second Amendment.
Pro-Gun Vs. Anti-Gun: Is There Middle Ground? - Middle Ground
What Are The Disadvantages Of Buying A New Home is an excellent example of why gun ownership is not a measuring tool as byatt possession use when Alzheimers Disease: A Short Story Harriet Tubmans A Great Raid Analysis the rate of suicide for a country. My The Real Villain In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein protects them. They are 18 times more likely to die because of a malignant pro gun arguments. Just civilian variants of military rifles yoga without clothes some people use for hunting. Gun control measures might make it more difficult to commit coca cola pestle of violence, but it will not change the heart at all.
And it's definitely not a good reason for ignoring a sudden uptick in the number of carjackings. Similarly, it is possible to stop some mass shootings, and to reduce the impact of those that do occur. We shouldn't ignore the tragic loss of life caused by mass shootings, just because more people die from regular, run-of-the-mill gun crimes that don't make the front pages or national news. If we can stop some mass shootings, and if we can minimize the number of casualties when mass shootings do occur, then we have saved lives and spared family members the awful ordeal of losing a loved one.
There's no question that the frequency and severity of mass shootings have been going steadily up the past few years, and certain patterns are emerging about these mass shooters and their weapons of choice. What are the tools of mass shooters? So called "assault rifles. Plenty of new stories and op-ed pieces have been written lately about how the AR the civilian equivalent of the military's M-4 or M16 has become the weapon of choice of mass shooters.
For these reasons, it makes sense that mass-shooters prefer the AR, so it should also make sense -- if we are really serious when we ask how to stop mass shootings -- that we would eliminate the opportunity for mass-shooters to get their hands on an AR Why does anyone need an assault rifle? But the real question is this: why does anyone need an assault rifle? For protection against criminals? Get real. Unless you are walking around town carrying your AR at the low ready, your weapon won't be very effective against the type of predatory criminal assaults that typify violent crime in America.
Most people who own assault rifles keep them at home, where they are more likely to be stolen while the homeowner is away than they are to be used to defend the home against intruders. The fact is, assault rifles are not defensive weapons; they are offensive weapons. That's why in the military, infantry are issued M-4s and Ms assault rifles, not M-9 pistols; the military police MPs in garrison are issued pistols. Just look at the first half of the term "assault rifle. If you want a weapon for self defense, use a pistol or even a revolver. If you need to fire rapidly at people who are to yards away, then it is very unlikely that you are acting in self defense.
Your best weapon against criminals is your own mind: i. After all, the most effective way of surviving criminal violence is by not being there when it happens. But if you leave your situational awareness at home easy to do in our multi-tasking, ADHD, gadget-driven society , you can have your AR in your car or even slung across your shoulder, and you can still become a victim of violent crime. The best rifle in the world won't do you much good against a criminal predator who catches you daydreaming in the wrong place at the wrong time. So why do you need an AR? To hunt? Ok, so some people actually do use the AR to hunt for various reasons. But I am pretty sure there are alternatives out there which may not feel as cool and fun to use, but which would also not be as quick and easy for a sociopath to use to go on a mass-shooting spree.
Nobody's talking about banning all hunting rifles -- or even most hunting rifles. Just civilian variants of military rifles that some people use for hunting. So why else do you need an AR? To ward off government tyranny? To keep America from becoming a military junta or third-world-style banana republic? Two points in reply to this concern. First, as in the "First Amendment," your political awareness, involvement, and engagement is much more meaningful than your weapons cache at home. Much more meaningful. Use your freedoms of speech, press, and assembly to keep the powers that be in check.
In America, that will work much better than stockpiling assault rifles and body armor. Believe it or not, there are Middle Eastern countries where the civilians are much more heavily armed than the civilians in the United States are. Does that mean they are more free from tyranny? Not at all. The saying "an armed society is a polite society" must have been uttered by someone who had never been to Iraq, Syria, or Lebanon in the last few decades. Sometimes, an armed society is an out-of-control society, with very little freedom.
Second, which is more likely to happen in the next year: a military takeover or a mass shooting? You can sit in your bunker with your AR, waiting for the thought police or the Illuminati or Freemasons to try to take over the world, and the odds are really very low 1 that such a takeover will happen and 2 that you will be able to stop it from happening if it does. America, let's do a simple cost-benefits analysis here. What is the cost of allowing free and easy access to military-style weapons, and what are the benefits?
A speculative safeguard against some far-off possibility of a military takeover, on one hand, versus the repeated tragedy of mass-killings of schoolchildren across America. Which is more likely to occur? Is the cost really worth the benefit? If you were to name one of the top hot topics in the US right now, one of them would probably be gun control debate. There have been multiple recent highly publicized issues that make people wonder whether the right move is to arm more citizens with guns, or put more restrictions on gun ownership so that the likelihood of people who will do harm with them is lessened.
Personally, I am pro gun control. And that is a controversial position, I realize. So instead of just saying why I am pro gun control, I will instead explain why I am against everyone having easy access to guns. First, gun control statistics. A lot of people argue that people intent on doing harm will obtain guns through illegal methods, and that the only effect of getting rid of guns would be that innocent people have no real way of defending themselves against illegally obtained guns and the criminals who wield them.
It is a convincing argument, and yet the concept of illegal guns is not hypothetical. Many countries have stronger laws concerning gun ownership than we do. And for multiple countries of all different sizes and varying levels of criminal activity, the results of the gun control statistics are clear. The easier it is to legally obtain guns, the more people are shot, every day. Over the course of a year, this adds up to a higher death toll of hundreds of people.
Why might this be, considering the logic of the first group seems reasonable? Supply and demand is probably a large factor. Even if it is possible to obtain guns illegally, it is far more difficult, and comes at a greater expense. Gun control statistics indicate that many gun deaths are the result of impulses rather than planned attacks. Many people who are looking for a way to arm themselves at the last minute, or who cannot afford a thousand dollar black market gun, might still attempt to be violent, but will engage with weaponry that is less likely to be fatal in the way that guns often are. To add to this, I would also point out that there is a reason that police is an occupation and not a role for all citizenry.
Gun control statistics show that people not trained in how to shoot guns are more likely to injure themselves or other innocent bystanders. Gun control is currently the subject of a lot of national debate. Many recent shootings have offered us conflicting feelings on gun control. Is it better to limit access to guns so that potential killers are not as likely to receive them, or make sure that people can protect themselves? There is no easy answer. Many people agree that future tragedies could be prevented by responsible citizenry having access to guns.
There are several issues that pro gun control advocates have with this, however. One issue is that gun owners are more likely to shoot and injure, or kill, people they know rather than intruders. This often has to do with people acting on panic and instinct rather than logic when it comes to disarming a potential intruder. Often times a child coming home at late, a spouse rummaging for a late night snack, or having poor aim, result in a too quickly pulled trigger and an unnecessary injury.
Pro gun control advocates will point out that the chances of a school shooter coming to any particular college lecture hall are incredibly low, while the likelihood that a scared armed student will accidentally hit someone who is unarmed and mistaken for a shooter, is a lot higher. People acting on impulse is one reason pro gun control advocates desire education and stricter licensing. Several big headline cases lately have shown that white people often perceive black men to be dangerous, especially if they fit a thug stereotype by wearing hoodies and loose jeans. This fact probably surprises few but is a racial issue that becomes exacerbated when white people acting on this socialized fear shoot first, and ask questions about why someone was in a neighborhood later.
Many people who do not agree with pro gun control argue that bad people will always find a way to get guns, and the only people really being punished or limited by these laws are honest citizenry. To an extent, this is certainly true, since potential murderers are not likely to respect other laws. However, gun control statistics of other countries that limit or outlaw gun ownership completely, as well as state by state comparisons of where guns are and are not easier to purchase, are highly suggestive and there is a clear relationship between gun control measures that limit legal access, and a decrease in the amount of deaths and injuries by guns.
While gun control has been a controversial and divisive topic for decades, it has never been more so than at this very moment. Given the level of damage that can be done quickly by a single firearm, as epitomized by so many tragic events of the past couple of decades, pro gun control advocates have struggled to penetrate the seemingly impenetrable armor of gun rights groups. Although gun control statistics seem to provide more than enough ammunition to support a gun control offensive, the battle for gun control has been uphill, to say the least. The most difficult obstacle faced for gun control groups, is something called the Second Amendment.
Way back during the days of muskets and canon balls, the forefathers of the United States considered gun ownership important enough to warrant making it one of the fundamental rights of all law abiding American citizens. As such, gun ownership has been far and wide since the birth of the United States. However, as firearms technology improved, the potential devastation that became possible via a single firearm reached awesome levels.
Due to high capacity magazines and high tech ammunition, the number of high casualty tragedies has reached alarming levels. Thus, those who are in favor of gun control, can turn to gun control statistics to make their case with confidence. Consequently, gun control has gained considerable traction over the first quarter of Yet, a long battle lies ahead. Something somewhere failed that person, making a gunshot the only way out. If you combine these two actions, more people die from causes not related to firearms in this manner. Identifying people who are contemplating this action is the step we must take to provide them with the help they require.
If we only focus on gun control, then the other methods of suicide will see a surge of interest. Gun control actions are usually based on fear instead of fact. Fear is often what drives the gun control debate. A better solution than banning firearms would be to offer educational programs that help people to understand how it is a useful tool. People commit acts of violence against other for a variety of reasons, but it is a core issue of value that we must look at as a society to begin fixing the issues of violence that occur. We must think that all human life and its potential is priceless for us to begin moving beyond where we are at. Gun control measures might make it more difficult to commit acts of violence, but it will not change the heart at all.
Core attitudes like this one are what set us back — not the decision to pick up a gun to try to do something about the problem. Most incidents of violence that involve a gun are self-defense actions. People are four times more likely to use a gun for self-defense purposes than they are to commit a crime with the firearm. Defensive stories are everywhere when you look for them specifically. A father in Jonesboro, GA, was attacked by an armed robber while walking with his daughter. He shot the criminal in self-defense and did not face charges. Andrea McNabb shot two of the three men who tried to rob her business in A pharmacy manager fatally shot a robber and wounded another after they threatened to kill people who were in the store.
There are always stories of tragedy to find, but it is also important to review the stories of success where gun control could have prevented a successful outcome too. Gun control laws do not deter crime. A study published by Dr. John Lott, Jr, author of More Guns, Less Crime, found that in roughly 30 years of gun control bans, homicide rates at the state level were not significantly impacted by the legislation.
The states which had the highest rates of gun ownership actually had the steepest drops in violent crime. Homicide is only one violent action. Rape, armed robbery, and similar acts also decline when there are more legal weapons owned by private individuals in society. Laws that restrict gun ownership infringe on the rights of legal owners. About 14 million hunters purchase firearms and accessories for their activities each year. The guns that often provide the most fear for people are also the firearms that are used in marksmanship competitions.
The average gun is not more or less powerful than the average sporting or hunting weapon. Gun control laws put the power of ownership in the hands of the government. If a society does not have a way to protect itself, then there is nothing to stop a government from turning into a tyranny that could harm others. Even if the only measure passed is an expanded background check, then it creates more information for the government to use in one of their databases. If the government knows who owns all the guns and can keep that information indefinitely, then there is nothing that can stop them from targeting those people first.
Measures to control guns create a violation of privacy. Gun control measures may have the best interests of everyone in mind, but it is also an effort to reduce the amount of privacy that is available in society today. If microstamping efforts, licensing, or other forms of coding are instituted to track guns, then it would create a privacy issue where a database search could offer access to more information than anyone needs about a legal gun owner. More people die from other causes at a significantly higher rate than they do with firearms.