Gun Control Rogerian
Guns are an integral part of life in America, as they have been ever since the start of the nation. With the second amendment of the Constitution stating that all men have to power to bear arms, America embraces its difference from other nations such as England and Australia. While we have this right given to us, the proper usage of said weapons should be implied. Owners of such weapons should know and be taught not to inflict harm on others without legal purpose, not the other way around…right? I feel that guns in the right hands are useful and in the whole case a common ground is able to be reached between the two sides of this argument of gun control.
The proper usage of guns is something that is wished on this nation, and one day will hopefully be achieved. However, over the last decade an average of over 100,000 American people are shot annually by guns. This is obviously a problem that is needed to be solved, and the government is finally trying to put a foot down. Gun control obviously is a way to limit the attainability of weapons that cause harm, thus limiting the injuries that occur from improper gun usage. Having extended background checks, removing certain types of automatic weapons from the market, and taking away the second amendment to the Constitution all benefit toward a common goal of eliminating unneeded deaths. Using countries such as England and Australia to spearhead the gun control movement, the government provides a valid argument saying that “assault weapons won’t save you.” (listverse) With certain tragedies such as the Newtown shooting and the Aurora movie massacre, gun control will limit normal people from getting access to these weapons, thus eliminating these occasions in theory. Even if it is only taking away assault weapons from the market, there should be a distinct impact.
Gun control however is in essence a destruction of rights. This country was founded on the basis of our sound constitution, stating that we have the right to bear arms. Taking away our weapons that are used to defend ourselves is a desecration of the promises we were given. Maybe in a perfect world gun control would take away all possibility of having guns, but face it, lawbreakers will always have guns. There is no way to simply eradicate all forms of weapons in the United States, therefore by doing this the government is taking out the self-defense factor of guns, and just implementing the fear factor of killing the innocent. If you really want a gun for the reasons of hurting someone, there will always be a way to get a weapon, no matter what limits the government puts on them. We can see a distinct reference to history in this whole matter…the prohibition of alcohol. When alcohol was eradicated, certain black-market mafia groups rose to power and started much more trouble than was happening ever with alcohol. Who’s to say that the same could not happen with assault weapons? Even though weapons are against the law in Australia and England, both of the countries still have incidents with gun violence.
I have always expressed my views on gun control in a simple phrase; you have two people, the robber who has as many weapons as he sees fit and the innocent person trying to protect their family. At the start they both have guns so the innocent person actually has the ability to protect himself, take away the gun from the innocent man only, where do we end up? Taking away our rights for the second amendment destroys the little ability we have to protect ourselves. Lawbreakers will always have the access to weapons, and law-abiding citizens will not. I feel that this is a complete patronage of the grounds that this country was founded off of.
In the end, I feel that there is an ability to reach a common ground between the two sides to this argument. I feel as if weapons should be allowed based on the constitution and everyone’s rights in the country, but there should be more effort put into gun education and gun awareness. I feel that if people are knowledgeable about what they are using, they will be less inclined to go on rampages as they see fit. Also, I agree with the taking away of fully automatic weapons, but still allowing for people to keep weapons such as pistols and shotguns. Things of that nature have the ability to be used for sport, not just to attack others with.
Works Cited
"10 Arguments for Gun Control." Listverse. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
"Just the Facts: Gun Violence in America." NBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
Guns are an integral part of life in America, as they have been ever since the start of the nation. With the second amendment of the Constitution stating that all men have to power to bear arms, America embraces its difference from other nations such as England and Australia. While we have this right given to us, the proper usage of said weapons should be implied. Owners of such weapons should know and be taught not to inflict harm on others without legal purpose, not the other way around…right? I feel that guns in the right hands are useful and in the whole case a common ground is able to be reached between the two sides of this argument of gun control.
The proper usage of guns is something that is wished on this nation, and one day will hopefully be achieved. However, over the last decade an average of over 100,000 American people are shot annually by guns. This is obviously a problem that is needed to be solved, and the government is finally trying to put a foot down. Gun control obviously is a way to limit the attainability of weapons that cause harm, thus limiting the injuries that occur from improper gun usage. Having extended background checks, removing certain types of automatic weapons from the market, and taking away the second amendment to the Constitution all benefit toward a common goal of eliminating unneeded deaths. Using countries such as England and Australia to spearhead the gun control movement, the government provides a valid argument saying that “assault weapons won’t save you.” (listverse) With certain tragedies such as the Newtown shooting and the Aurora movie massacre, gun control will limit normal people from getting access to these weapons, thus eliminating these occasions in theory. Even if it is only taking away assault weapons from the market, there should be a distinct impact.
Gun control however is in essence a destruction of rights. This country was founded on the basis of our sound constitution, stating that we have the right to bear arms. Taking away our weapons that are used to defend ourselves is a desecration of the promises we were given. Maybe in a perfect world gun control would take away all possibility of having guns, but face it, lawbreakers will always have guns. There is no way to simply eradicate all forms of weapons in the United States, therefore by doing this the government is taking out the self-defense factor of guns, and just implementing the fear factor of killing the innocent. If you really want a gun for the reasons of hurting someone, there will always be a way to get a weapon, no matter what limits the government puts on them. We can see a distinct reference to history in this whole matter…the prohibition of alcohol. When alcohol was eradicated, certain black-market mafia groups rose to power and started much more trouble than was happening ever with alcohol. Who’s to say that the same could not happen with assault weapons? Even though weapons are against the law in Australia and England, both of the countries still have incidents with gun violence.
I have always expressed my views on gun control in a simple phrase; you have two people, the robber who has as many weapons as he sees fit and the innocent person trying to protect their family. At the start they both have guns so the innocent person actually has the ability to protect himself, take away the gun from the innocent man only, where do we end up? Taking away our rights for the second amendment destroys the little ability we have to protect ourselves. Lawbreakers will always have the access to weapons, and law-abiding citizens will not. I feel that this is a complete patronage of the grounds that this country was founded off of.
In the end, I feel that there is an ability to reach a common ground between the two sides to this argument. I feel as if weapons should be allowed based on the constitution and everyone’s rights in the country, but there should be more effort put into gun education and gun awareness. I feel that if people are knowledgeable about what they are using, they will be less inclined to go on rampages as they see fit. Also, I agree with the taking away of fully automatic weapons, but still allowing for people to keep weapons such as pistols and shotguns. Things of that nature have the ability to be used for sport, not just to attack others with.
Works Cited
"10 Arguments for Gun Control." Listverse. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
"Just the Facts: Gun Violence in America." NBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.