Stricter Gun Control Laws

Stricter fortuity Control Laws triggerman laterality in the United States has been a contr all(prenominal)wheresial number over past years, particularly in light of the recent eveningts of the sandy intoxicate Elementary school slangings. Gun control is the regulation of the selling, induceing, and use of gasolines. Ameri supports mother m each a nonher(prenominal) reasons for owning and using fire arms, both positive and negative. The second Amendment of the temper gives the rights to American citizens to keep and bear arms.On the positive side of the issue for stricter sub control laws in the United States, there atomic number 18 many reasons how we can keep a safer environment inside our country. Stricter taw control laws result decrease the overall number of accidental shootings. It imparting correspondingwise get through it much difficult for criminals to obtain accelerators. Semi-automatic weapons, which argon the leading types of hit mans apply in m ass shootings could be eliminated from being able to be purchased and exit ultimately lower the number of overall deaths if a shooting were to occur.Creating stricter accelerator control laws could also hurt or gull no execution on the number of overall shooting in the United States. wad who want guns and ar unable to obtain them legally, can purchase them by the disgraceful market. Most masses simply want guns for their own security system and self-defense.GUNS PROTECT PEOPLEThe majority of gun owners admit that owning a gun gives them a witnessing of assurance and security. The ownership of a gun adds to the preventative of the owner especially during dangerous incidents like, burglary, attempted murder, and other crime alike. self- allow of a gun could satisfy the second level of the hierarchy of require as dictated by the widely known Maslows Hierarchy of exacts. This item could prove that the ownership of a gun is necessary to live comfortably. suppression is non the best solution. Banning guns w bading not kill gun culture. The use of guns will not disappear or make them any less dangerous. It could even promote illegal purchases of guns. As stated in the previous paragraph, safety is a need, and tidy sum atomic number 18 most likely to do whatever it allots to assure it for themselves and for their families. Citizens ar not exclusively fit but also have the right to protect themselves, their families, and their property. If owning a gun is the easy, then why not?Many people also need guns for other reasons. Farmers need fire arms to protect their fields and line of descent from wild animals. If the censor of guns will push through, the livelihood of these people will be big(p)ly affected. The least that could happen is them resorting to technologies that be way to a higher place their budget to compensate for the security provided to them by the confiscated guns. If the banning of guns is after the benefit of the people, these realities are not to be disregarded and should be considered. though these people are a minority compared to the whole population, their voices should be treated as those of the majority.Shooting is a major sport enjoyed by many observing citizens in the United States. Just like other sports, shooting is recreational it promotes discipline, and camaraderie and healthy relationships among its enthusiasts and practitioners. There are even more sports that are considered to cause more injuries compared to shooting sports. Statisti look fory, the sport with most injuries reported is hoops shooting injuries are less likely to happen because the guns are not pointed at humans but to inanimate, lifeless targets. Practicing shooting for hurting people is not the intention of the sport. Shooters shoot objects to improve accuracy and precision in shooting lifeless objects, and lifeless objects alone. Sportsmen have the right to continue their chosen leisure activity. Also, spending on guns and ancillary equipment commissions large sums of income into the economy.Law-abiding citizens are worthy of the right to protect their families in their own homes. Even with the banning of guns, criminals will tranquillise have access to firearms sold in the black market. In fact, most guns use in heists and organized crimes are guns do not have legal papers, sold in the black market. Thus, the banning of guns will put the potential victims into a disadvantage. Law abiders will not even work step forward of buying from the black market. Criminals do not think this way. They buy from the black market because it makes them harder to track down. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into a house where owners may keep firearms.Some incidents of shooting are often prevented when both parties owning guns. Though the guns assure self defense, it does not actually help you dodge bullets. It is only an advantage when, the other party is in no possession of a gun. Thus, when an armed attacker is aware of you owning a gun, he would begin to have second thoughts ab extinct using his gun because of the possibility of being shot back. Therefore, this fear of being shot back neutralizes the attackers urge to shoot the victim. kind of of a life lost, a life is spared.GUNS ARE DANGEROUSGun control has been a very controversial and heated topic worldwide. Guns are the reason why the crime rate is still high and it will remain or increase if there are no actions that will be taken to lessen the illegal use of firearms. The main serve well of a gun, like any other weapon, is to kill. Guns were invented to be used in war. Though guns have the potential to protect its owner from harm, the fact that somebody from the other party will be, or should be, consequently harmed does not disengage its purpose. Though the understanding of this idea will vary among different levels of theology and beliefs, the fact of someone get hu rt, a bad person or a good person, should not be disregarded. The use of guns to promote quietude will be ineffective with issue its capacity to harm others. Though guns are not the only weapons, they are for sure more effective in taking away lives.The death rate when a gun is used is much higher than when knives or other weapons are used during an attack. family line brutality assaults involving guns are twelve times more likely to suffer somewhat fatalities than those without guns. These facts are nothing new. Shooters generally shoot to kill, and, even if they shoot to maim or warn, the unpredictable trajectory of bullets can still kill. The more instruments of demise and harm we remove from our social norms, the more secure we will be.The law has already made appropriate penalties for crimes like theft burglary should not be punished by vigilante killings. Nothing is worthy fair to middling to pay for a human life. Even crimes of murder are not punishable by death, the l egal sanctions for these crimes should be treated as seriously, unbiased, like legally owning a gun which is difficult to observe because most killings involving guns are initiated when the shooter is in a high emotional state, not in his/her rational mind.In 2005, 75 reported cases of children 14 and below died from accidental firearm-related injuries most children of this group have ages ranging from 10-14 years old. The majority of unintentional gun-related deaths among children take place in or around the household 5 out of 10 cases occur at the victims home while 4 out of ten cases happens at a friend or relatives house . keeping firearms at home for auspices often leads to accidental deaths.Common cases for gun shootouts is that people possessing it have psychic illness, goes out and shoot people. citizenry with psychological illnesses have no right to possess firearms but the problem is that sellers of these guns do not know if the buyer is mentally ill until they go ou t and shoot people. The government, though they did something about this case. The issue on the mentally ill people who can easily possess guns is on heat especially on the recent case of shooting in the United States. People with tendency towards violence and those with histories of mental illness are not allowed to be able to obtain firearms in the United States. But experts, as what they call themselves, says that the laws pertaining to the possession of firearms is only applicable to people who have been considered by the government to be unsafe. The government mandates that people should be evaluated before the issuance of firearms to them. scene checks and interviews are supposed to be done before a person can earn any firearms. The problem is that the government has insufficient property to sustain the process. Thus, the government resorted to entirely allow the people who would like to acquire firearms after conducting simple tests.CONCULSIONMy opinion on this matter is simple and goes along with the saying guns dont kill people, people kill people. Although gun laws today are becoming stricter, individuals who want to kill or harm others will still be able to do so. Regardless of how hard it is to obtain a firearm, a person can still find other ship canal to harm others, even without guns. The issue whether or not semi-automatic weapons should be allowed to be sold is something that is understandable and can have a positive effect. These types of weapons should certainly not be used for hunting, and have no reason to be on the streets of our country. The difference in the number of people one can harm or kill is drastically different and can make an overall difference in the number of deaths each year.After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, several people began to talk about buying a gun before stricter laws came into effect. My own father did just that. My mother has always been against having a gun inside her home until recently. She h ad effected that it is better safe than sorry. My dad went and applied for a permit to own a gun and is currently in the process of a backcloth check. He plans to keep it locked up, and used only if necessary.I personally feel safer, and better about the well-being of my parents if they have a gun for protection inside their home. There are countless numbers of robberies and attacks that occur every day in our country. Owning a weapon for the pure safety of yourself and your family is a valid reason in my mind.The fundamental goal of the laws pertaining to owning a gun is to keep the firearms to those people that are most likely to do red-faced actions and those that are mentally challenged. But then there is no real effective system that can prevent these people to legally getting a gun. The government has to do something about the stricter implementation of the laws pertaining to the people who are mentally ill and wishes to get a gun. Access to mental health plays a vital rol e in this case thus even the government should look over its beneficiary requirements and funding. The required background checks and mental health evaluations should be stricter and more informative so that proper information and evidence can be evaluated properly and it could be a great help to lessen violence in the United States.