Free Essay

The Great Gun Debate


Submitted By KAMECK4114
Words 3335
Pages 14
The Great Gun Debate

Introduction Among the more diverse issues in an already polarized society is a national perspective of guns (Hargrove & Perdue, 2015). The gun debate in the U.S. dates back to the 18th century, when the nation’s founders were crafting the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted in 1791 (Smith & Ross, 2013). All gun control debates turn on interpretations of the Second Amendment, the worst written and most bizarre part of the constitution (Eichenwald, 2015). The Second Amendment gave Americans the right to “bear arms;” however, for more than 200 years, people have disagreed over how to interpret the amendment (Smith & Ross, 2013). Heated debates over guns have created division among “we the people.” On one end of the divide are pro-gun extremists. On the opposite end of the divide are anti-gun extremists. Then, there is the rational middle—the group that is often left out of the debate. This group typically consists of average law-abiding citizens who do not believe that Americans should be stripped of their rights to bear arms, but, rather, that some laws should be tightened up to ensure that guns and deadly accessories, such as high-capacity magazines, stay out of the wrong hands. Over the years, numerous mass shootings in schools have forced lawmakers to assess and tighten gun-control laws, which has also reignited the fiery gun debate. This assessment will attempt to uncover a proper course of action via a rigorous analysis of constitutional law and ethical theories in order to restore the peace to a divided nation.
The Issue Historically, the issue of gun violence seems to have haunted the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms, especially when connected with schools (Arnold, 2015). The multitude of mass school shootings over the years has only proven this statement true. After several school shootings – from Columbine to the more recent Arapahoe High School shooting – the question emerges: what can be done to prevent, or at least limit the destruction and horrendous loss of life that occurs when madmen shoot at schools (Arnold, 2015)? The gun-free school zone act of 1990 made it a federal offense for any individual to knowingly possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a school zone (Arnold, 2015). Although the gun-free school zone act does not go against constitutional rights, the law does make gun-free zones viable targets for criminals who do not abide by the letter of the law. The overarching issue is that our schools should be armed in some manner so that potential shooters know that they will face resistance if they attempt to go into the school with guns blazing. Utah is an example of how arming the good guys actually works better than stripping them of their armor. In Utah, citizens that have been issued concealed carry permits are allowed to carry weapons at any public school as well as any state college system (Arnold, 2015). The data from Utah campuses reveal no incidents of the slightest misuse of a firearm by a person with a legal permit; in addition, there have been no instances of attempted mass murders at any school in Utah (Arnold, 2015). This premise provides strong evidence that deterrence can be provided by arming the good guys rather than disarming them (Arnold, 2015). Rather than disarming our schools through the gun-free school zone act, lawmakers should instead focus on the repeal of that law and find ways to arm the good guys. Empowering people to defend themselves against evil is the heart of the Second Amendment, and that right should be sustained (Arnold, 2015). Ethical Theories For the purposes of this assessment, the writer will compare a worldview with a religious view. The two theories contrasted will be utilitarianism and religious fundamentalism. Under utilitarianism, the ultimate good is defined as actions intended to bring about the greatest utility (or greatest good) for the greatest number of people (Seaquist, 2012). The government and anti-gun lobbyists like to use the utilitarian perspective (Essays, 2013). However, the utilitarian approach does not respect that each individual has an inalienable right to life and liberty and a moral right and obligation to defend oneself (Essays, 2013). On the flip side of the debate is a religious perspective, which favors stricter gun laws. Christians have good biblical, theological, and philosophical reasons for favoring stricter gun laws (Austin & Gleason, 2013). This theory was chosen, as it is interesting to see two different sides of the Christian spectrum revealed. Austin takes more of a nonviolence stance, in support of stricter gun laws, based on theological views and scripture, while Gleason takes more of a pro-gun stance, in support of individual liberties, based on commandments and scriptures. By dissecting both pro-gun and anti-gun perspectives, the writer will be able to objectively analyze the great gun-control debate from an ethical standpoint.
Jeremy Bentham was a British philosopher who created the moral theory of Utilitarianism (Bush, 2013). Utilitarianism is the belief that true moral values derive from creating the most happiness for the greatest amount of people (Bush, 2013). At the heart of Utilitarianism is the moral belief that all individuals are governed by their own pain and pleasure, which ultimately creates their unwavering perspectives regarding gun control. Bush (2013) summarizes that pain is found in seeing the effects of allowing the wrong people to get ahold of guns. But, pain is also realized when victims stand helpless because they were not properly armed or able to protect themselves. Pleasure is found in ensuring that guns are inaccessible to those who intend to use them for evil, but also is found in the security of knowing that homes can be protected. Bush (2013) also asserts that Bentham further explains pain and pleasure and how they tie in with morally right and wrong actions. Bentham states that mankind is governed by pain and pleasure and that these two factors will determine not only what we ought to do, but also what we shall do (Bush, 2013) in terms of right and wrong and causes and effects. Therefore, the government could utilize pain and pleasure/causes and effects in order to create some peace between pro-gun and anti-gun extremists by creating a middle ground through the law. Under utilitarianism, the government implements gun control policies that limit the legal rights of individual gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms with the intent to reduce gun-related crimes. Although the government has sincere intentions to protect the greater good, such gun control policies actually dismantle the individual rights of gun owners that the Second Amendment grants. Therefore, it may be considered legal to regulate guns, but it is not necessarily ethical on utilitarian grounds (Essays, 2013).
Religious Fundamentalism Just as there are various ethical interpretations based on worldviews, two Christian theologians also took different positions on how biblical perspectives might relate to the gun control issue. Austin argues that we need to address the culture of violence and death in the United States not only legally, but also at the social, individual, and spiritual levels with the gospel of Jesus Christ – the gospel of life that also has important implications for the issue of gun control (Austin & Gleason, 2013). Austin’s (Austin & Gleason, 2013) argument is centered on the following assumptions:
1. Jesus is the exemplar for the Christian (Phil. 3:17; 2 Peter 1:3-11; 1 John 2:6; and 3 John 11); we are to model His examples via the application of virtues and moral values acquired through His teachings in scripture.
2. The ethics of the kingdom of God affirm the value of each human being as being made in the image of God, and because of this, Christian ethics essentially include a strong resistance to killing (p. 14).
Austin also uses three premises to solidify his assumptions. First, he argues that God longs for and works toward the realization of peace, justice, and compassion for all in our world (Isa. 32:15-18; 4:10; 60:17-18; and Rom. 14:17; p. 15). Gun violence is prominent in cases of economic struggle and domestic violence, which give Christians good reason to support stricter gun laws and limited accessibility to guns (Austin & Gleason, 2013). Second, Jesus insists on antiviolence in His teachings and examples all throughout scripture. As New Testament scholar Richard Hays puts it, “From Matthew to Revelation, we find a consistent witness against violence and a calling to the community to follow the example of Jesus in accepting suffering rather than inflicting it,” (Austin & Gleason, 2013). Third, Christians should consider the nature of courage based on biblical and theological information (Austin & Gleason, 2013). Austin describes that Christian courage is compared to that of a martyr rather than an action hero. Therefore, a thorough understanding of Christian courage would force one to reconsider the use of force and violence when aspiring to live courageously like Jesus. Austin recognizes that certain situations may require violence, and he also does not advocate for a total ban on firearms. However, given the scriptural foundation and an understanding of Christian courage, Christians should work toward a realization of nonviolence in their lives and the social structures in which they live and move (Austin & Gleason, 2013). Gleason assumes more of a reformed Christian perspective on the issue of guns and the Second Amendment. He asserts that guns and the Second Amendment are among many emotionally charged ethical matters. But, rooted in the gun debate is the question of whether or not self-defense and weapon use are biblically permissible, and if so, to what measure? In addition, what the Second Amendment clearly states is that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right granted by the Creator (Austin & Gleason, 2013). However, the government is attempting to disbar this right through the institution of harsh gun laws and possibly gun bans in certain cases. The current assumption is that if we ban assault weapons, such as the AR-15, America will be a safer place (Austin & Gleason, 2013). But Gleason testifies that this is not the case as the AR-15, or the like, was not the weapon of choice when Cain slayed Abel. Additionally, the first biblical murder account did not cause God to abolish any other potential weapon (stones, sticks, etc.). Studies have also shown that stricter gun laws and bans have not necessarily curtailed gun crimes. For example, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and their gun violence is astronomical (Austin & Gleason, 2013). Gleason leverages the biblical truth about total depravity to satisfy the answer as to why one would require a weapon to protect oneself. His examples about where crimes occur in America as opposed to Great Britain are due in large part to the number of legal guns in America. The crime rates in Great Britain are double the rates of those in America because Great Britain has been completely disarmed by the government. The point that Gleason is making is that an armed society is a polite society, and also that it provides a necessary deterrent to criminals (Austin & Gleason, 2013). Gun-free zones and bans do not deter criminals—they make things worse. It is stated that these laws and regulations do not help because criminals do not abide by the letter of the law. Therefore, Gleason believes that every law-abiding citizen should have the ability and accessibility to protect themselves. Gleason argues that a common misconception among Christians is that Jesus was a thoroughgoing pacifist and that His views differed significantly from prophets and disciples (Austin & Gleason, 2013). But it was noted that the Israelis participated in wars, with weapons in hand, like any other nation would in the current day. Gleason also noted that the sixth commandment is quite explicit in that Christians are to protect themselves, their loved ones, the innocent and defenseless, and their property; that commandment prohibits murder but not killing (Austin & Gleason, 2013). Gleason’s governing point is that Christians should be able to protect and arm themselves if they so choose. After a thorough review of utilitarianism and religious fundamentalism, the writer believes that the theory that actually satisfies the greater good is Gleason’s form of religious fundamentalism. It could be acceptable to create stricter laws for non-law abiding citizens or those with serious medical conditions that limit common sense and reasoning. But people who follow the law and commandments should be punished for wanting to protect themselves and others. After all, murder and killing out of self-defense are two completely different things.
Law Review While the gun control issue relates to criminal law and tort law, the bulk of the debate revolves around interpretations of the Second Amendment and our constitutional rights. According to the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” (Vernick, Rutkow, Webster, & Teret, 2011). In 2008, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment guarantees a right of law-abiding, responsible adults to own firearms for self-defense; it therefore struck down the District of Columbia’s bans on keeping defensive firearms as violating that right (Kates & Moody, 2012). It thereafter struck down Chicago’s handgun ban, holding that the same right applies to states and localities (Kates & Moody, 2012). However, it has been emphasized judges’ previous decisions that individual rights are not unlimited. Although the Second Amendment confers on citizens the right to keep and bear arms, this right is not absolute (Dwarika, 2015). States are free to pass laws and regulations that promote public safety, as long as those laws do not unconstitutionally burden a citizen’s Second Amendment rights (Dwarika, 2015). Although the Heller and McDonald cases represent hallmarks in the gun debate, the Supreme Court failed to determine the level of scrutiny to be applied to such cases, which left lower level courts with minimal guidance. The Supreme Court’s ambiguity in both Heller and McDonald with respect to limiting and restricting Second Amendment rights not only led to confusion among the circuit courts regarding which level of scrutiny to apply, but also presented challenges for state courts when interpreting state laws and regulations (Dwarika, 2015). The uncertainty and ambiguity, in regards to reviewing Second Amendment cases, gives judges too much authority in determining which laws should be sustained. Dwarika (2015) asserts that the application of strict scrutiny across the board would give judges less power to invoke their personal policy preferences.
What We Miss & How We Can Improve Given the multitude of gun crimes an important question remains—how can we lower gun-related crimes while preserving the rights afforded to law-abiding citizens via the Second Amendment? A couple of reasonable actions would be to limit the amount of mass media attention and national exposure towards the criminals that commit such hateful gun crimes. According to Manson (2014), school shootings only account for 4% of all mass shootings, and yet they dominate the news media and get the entire country talking about them for weeks on end. All of the criminals have the same basic formula to generate fear and uncertainty because it will, in turn, generate more attention for the criminal. Additionally, for a country that is single-mindedly obsessed with terrorism, it is jaw-dropping that almost nobody recognizes that school shooters use the same exact strategies to disseminate fear and their twisted agendas throughout society (Manson, 2014). Terrorists use violence and mass media coverage to promote political or religious beliefs; school shooters use violence and mass media coverage to promote their personal grievances and glorification (Manson, 2014). Manson goes on to argue that we treat school shooters in the same manner as terrorists, yet we never see the next one coming. We fail to spot shooter after shooter because they are so close to us; they are our friends, neighbors, classmates, or even family members (Manson, 2014). Our blinders are usually on towards these people, and we miss the obvious signs and leakage of pertinent information. Manson (2014) affirmed that an FBI study concluded that most shooters do have serious mental health or emotional issues, but they all plan their attacks months or even years in advance. They all almost always leak important information prior to the criminal act. The point that Manson is trying to get across is that we almost always ignore the signs that something is wrong. Manson asserts that having empathy could potentially lower the mass shootings and related crimes experienced in our society. We have come to live in a culture where it is taboo or unacceptable to simply check in with people emotionally and offer some empathy and understanding (Manson, 2014). Perhaps if our callous culture learned how to be more empathetic, the number of mass shootings could have the potential to exponentially decrease. Aside from empathy, it could be time for the government to consider arming the good guys (school zones and other public institutions) so that they can have a hand in possibly lowering the number of mass shootings that occur. We do not necessarily need stricter laws against law-abiding citizens, but, rather, laws that empower “we the people” to defend ourselves when the going gets tough.

Concluding Thoughts The great gun debate will always be a prominent issue for our society until we decide to step up to the plate and give the good guys the power to protect themselves against harm. Stricter gun laws that limit law-abiding citizens are not necessarily the answer. Safe-zones, or gun-free zones, are not actually 100% safe in that they are easy targets for shooters or other kinds of terroristic threats and acts. Lawmakers should instead focus on how we can safely and responsibly arm the good guys to provide a certain level of resistance in such tragic scenarios. Criminals do not keep the law, so stricter laws would essentially be ineffective to boot. The aforementioned example of Utah is a shining example of how arming the good guys could serve to be effective. When such an example preserves the greatest amount of life and liberty, the decision to arm does not seem like a terrible idea. References
Arnold, G. (2015). Arming the good guys: School zones and the Second Amendment. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (2), 481.
Austin, M., & Gleason, R. (2013). The gun control debate: Two Christian perspectives. Christian Research Journal, 36(6), 12-23.
Bush, J.M. (2013). Possible gun control laws and moral values. Retrieved from
Dwarika, L. (2015). Analyzing second amendment challenges: Getting strict with judges. Touro Law Review, 31(4), 723-741.
Eichenwald, K. (2015). The bullet initiative. (Cover story). Newsweek Global, 165(4), 36.
Essays, UK. (November 2013). The ethics of gun control. Retrieved from
Hargrove, D. S., & Perdue, R. P. (2015). A broader perspective of gun control. American Journal Of Orthopsychiatry, 85(3), 225-227. doi:10.1037/ort0000066.
Kates, D. B., & Moody, C. (2012). Heller, McDonald, and murder: Testing the more guns = more murder thesis. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 39(5), 1421-1447.
Manson, M. (2014). How we all miss the point on school shootings. Retrieved from
Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Smith, P., & Ross, B. (2013). The gun debate. Junior Scholastic, 115(14), 6.
Vernick, J. S., Rutkow, L., Webster, D. W., & Teret, S. P. (2011). Changing the constitutional landscape for firearms: The US Supreme Court's recent second amendment decisions. American Journal Of Public Health, 101(11), 2021-2026. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300200.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Crime and Guns

...Crime and guns. The two seem to go hand in hand with one another. But are the two really associated? Do guns necessarily lead to crime? And if so do laws placing restrictions on firearm ownership and use stop the crime or protect the citizens? These are the questions many citizens and lawmakers are asking themselves when setting about to create gun control laws. The debate over gun control, however, is nothing new. In 1924, Presidential Candidate, Robert La Follete said, “our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions.” Clearly this debate still goes on today and is the very reason for the formation of gun control laws.  Guns are extremely powerful weapons. They can cause destruction, harm or even death. They can be used to defend and protect or to threaten and kill. Any way you look at it, guns are powerful tools, not only physically but socially. As college students it is important to stay abreast of the current events and issues circulating our country today, one of which is the controversial issue of gun control. It is extremely important to pay attention to where gun control laws are headed. The directions they take not only affect our nation and society but our future as well as we all move to communities and begin to raise families.  So why is gun control such a hot debate? Perhaps to answer this question it would be important to look at some key statistics concerning handguns in our society. In...

Words: 2118 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Week2 Summarry Debate

...Debate Topic Summary – Should Teachers Be Allowed to Carry Firearm in Schools? Should Teachers Be Allowed to Carry Firearm in School? Choosing a topic for Team C debate summary encompass an extensive amount of communication. It started with team members presenting several topics of interest in the forum. From same sex marriage, cable television, disrespect to president of the United States, juvenile accountability of crime after age 18, raising legal age to purchase alcohol, outlaw abortion, and teachers carrying firearm in school. The team narrowed it down to two topics. The team members discussed via teleconference which topic would be most favorable to write about then selected one. Each member shared why she agreed with the chosen topic “Should teachers be allowed to carry firearm in school?” to debate. Why the need? Why do teachers feel the need to carry a firearm to work? Are we letting the students know that there is a fear in the teachers? Many people think that it is ok to bring the firearm to the school. Personally, it will hurt more than it will help. Students will fill more superior over the teacher, because they will think that teachers are scared. If teachers cared more about the students education and demanded respect the students will respect the teacher more and do the work that needs to be done. Students would be aware that the teacher cared for them as an individual. What message is being sent? What message are mentors, coaches...

Words: 897 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Gun Ban

...Gun Ban Debate Gun ban debate In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, to hunt for food and to engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control takes on a proportion of extreme magnitude. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. So what is gun control?. Gun control is the effort to restrict or limit the possession and use of guns. The gun control debate may be one of the most important issues in our society. Regardless of whether people support it or not, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the 2nd Amendment restrains the government’s ability to limit the kind of immediate ban of handguns that has existed in some parts of America such as Washington DC. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" That's the campaign that the National Riffle Association made. It's a compelling argument whether it might be right , or it might be wrong . ...

Words: 936 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Gun Control

...According to the Second Amendment in the Constitution, the citizens have the right to possess and bear arms. But, this has remained an important issue since decades. Issues such as gun control and gun rights have remained a matter of debate and have been lobbying around in the Congress meetings. It has been depicted that the Congress is forced to draft a specific legislation in order to come up with a strict law against unlawful use of arms, and only possessing them for safety purpose. The following paper gun control and gun rights in the United States of America; I want to talk about the economy, necessity, and legitimate use. Due to unfortunate and very violent gun crimes involving deadly shootings, recent action by the Federal Government has acted to begin serious debate and possible reform in support of major gun control laws. Several enactments such as a ban on assault rifles, and a ban on regular and extended magazine clips have been a huge topic of debate. Such reform can have a huge affect on businesses and the United States economy. Recently there has been a great surge in sales and revenue for gun manufacturers and firearm store-fronts and businesses as spooked consumers fear stiff gun control laws are soon to come. However, if a firearm ban is to be the final result of government gun reform, these same manufacturers and store-fronts will most likely close their doors for good. According to the National Sports Shooting Foundation, the firearm industry is responsible...

Words: 657 - Pages: 3

Free Essay


...With gun control on the fore front of almost every political debate after the tragedy at Newtown the debate on gun control laws is as pressing as ever. Trying to find any information on this topic that is not skewed or biased in some fashion is very hard as each side firmly believes that their side is the correct side. Having to think critically when reading these articles is paramount so you do not take someone’s opinion as fact. The article from I believe as is unbiased as an article can get on this sensitive subject. It is not leaning in one direction or the other but posting the views and thought of each side and letting the reader decide what views are best for them. The article was very clear and well written and facts from either side were not left out to skew the view. The article was not written in a worldly manner as this is a topic that deals with just the United States. The article did cover both major perspectives on the matter and even covered some material that people who are in the middle ground on this topic. More information on those in the middle ground needed to be explored. The article although unbiased on the two main views only features the two extreme sides. Both a total ban on guns or those with no type of restrictions at all is not the only views that people have and the middle ground needed to represented better. The point of the article is to get information about details of the two proponents of the debate and see what side one is more...

Words: 405 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

The Great Debate

...consecutively for crime. This has sparked the debate of whether gun control is necessary to diminish crime and many pro gun advocates, look at Switzerland as proof that it is false. To get into this heated debate, it is important to understand the term gun control. Gun control is defined as laws that control the selling, owning, and use of guns (Webster's Dictionary). Like in any debate there are always two very different stance on this topic. PRO Pro gun control advocates argue that having strict gun laws will decrease the nation's crime rate. They also point out that having tougher gun laws will save lives by avoiding any more public massacres. To the eyes of a gun control advocate, it seems like a no brainer. After all, the less guns on the street will result in less gun related deaths. In the United States, 33,636 people have died due to a firearm in 2013 (Alpers, Philip).That number accounts for murders, homicides and suicides across the country. Thousands of people that year lost their life due to a firearm incident and the number keeps growing each year. Many gun control advocates wonder why it is so difficult to implement stricter gun laws in the world's greatest democracy. The misinterpretation of the second amendment is what's holding back the U.S. Many people that are against gun control throw around the Second Amendment a whole lot. What many have failed to realize is that the Second Amendment protects the right of militias to own guns, not the individual. Let's take a look...

Words: 1584 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Argumentative Essay On Gun Control

...increase in the debate over gun control. A Constitutional right set forth by our forefathers is now seemingly being laid to rest by the leaders of our country. However, as a modern Democratic society the people of our nation are refusing to go down without a fight. By evaluating and analyzing recent gun control policies and the reaction of such policies by the general public, supported by a graphical representation of my theory, I will argue that through recent policy that the increase in the limiting of sale of firearms and ammunition and the attempted disarming of the American public has endangered the law abiding citizens of this country instead of saving them as many would have us believe. I hypothesize that with stricter...

Words: 1698 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Gun Control Argumentative Essay

...In the United States, gun control has been one of the most debated topics. This debate has shown to be social, political and economic effects of firearms. This issue has also caused an economic issue to the the United States, and this is also part of the debate if gun control should be accepted. The economic issue of gun control has also occurred and with the support of these statistics, the debate won’t have the ability to come to an end due to the support of this type of information. One part of the economic issue is the medical coverage of injuries and deaths because of guns. According to Natasha Bertrand of Business Insider, she states “American taxpayers pay roughly $12.8 million every day to cover the cost of gun related deaths and injuries”. This is showing how people of America are paying taxes due to the act that people are either getting injured or dying because of guns. A pro to situation would be the United States of America is receiving money from people so that the U.S doesn’t go completely in...

Words: 641 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Gun Control

...Arguments on Gun Control Arguments on Gun Control Introduction Gun control is law and policy which has been developed for the purpose of restricting the import, production, shipment, possession, use and sale of the firearms. There are variations in the laws and policies of gun control around the globe. There are strict gun control policies in United Kingdom. On the other hand, the gun control policies in United States are modest. Many people claim that the gun control policies are very effective and there should be strict control on the implementation of these policies. On the other hand, a group of people thinks that the gun control policies are not so effective and there should be no strict policies on the firearms. Thus, the both sides provide their arguments on the issue of gun control. The main aim of this paper is to persuade against the policies of gun control. The paper is comprised of both the arguments in favor and against of the gun control policies. Discussion It is so easy to understand that without guns or rifles, killing of criminals would have been much more difficult to consummate, which is sometimes hard to explain how it is possible that guns are legal in the largest and most powerful democracy in the world. But it is undeniable that easy access to firearms greatly facilitates this sinister task (Amo, 1989). The criminals have committed one of the latest killings with firearms that shook Americans, 14 Dead Colombine students in 1999...

Words: 2865 - Pages: 12

Premium Essay

Argumentative Essay: The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act

...Gun violence is not a new issue, nor is gun control a new argument. The “war on guns” dates all the way back to the infancy of the United States of America; the right to bear arms was guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and has been seen, in the more than two centuries since, as a cornerstone of American liberty. However, in the last few years, repeated mass killings have placed the gun control debate at the eye of the American political storm. In an effort to balance beliefs from both ends of the political spectrum - that gun ownership needs to be protected, while restricted enough to keep guns out of the hands of those who may do deadly harm with them - has come a lack of serious, effective legislation on the matter. The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act - seen at its enactment as a milestone in the gun control movement - has proven itself ineffective at preventing the type of mass shooting that is, unfortunately, all too common today. These killings, and the high rates of gun violence overall, challenge the core values of social work practice, and the short- and long-term economic impact of this violence is, at best, counter-productive. Based on the research outlined in this document, it is necessary as social workers to create a culture of safety, and as a country to enact sensible gun...

Words: 1428 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control

...first argument that stood out to me was the issue of gun control. Gun control has been a debate for many years, but in light of the heartbreaking event that took place in Parkland, Florida, killing seventeen people, it is ever so strong. The proponents of gun control argue there should be a change to the current gun control laws (, 2017). They contend if America had more gun control law, we could reduce gun deaths nationwide, not to mention the protection these laws would bring to the victims of domestic violence and stalking situations. Another stance is the necessity for banning high-capacity magazines because data illustrates “50% of mass shootings during 1982 and 2012 involved this type of weapon, and when high-capacity magazines are used, death rates rise 63% and injury rates rise 156%. That is definitely some alarming statistics, especially when the media continues to discuss the school shootings and casualties. Furthermore, proponents argue that the guns being used are those same legally owned guns that the current gun control laws allow individuals to have in their...

Words: 801 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Second Ammendment

...Another heated Amendment debate This Amendment is very discussed because it is overseen by one of the largest lobbying groups. This group is the NRA (National Rifle Association). They have many faithful members and they will go to great lengths to make sure that what they feel are there given rights, have any chance to be seen as being forfeited. This whole group of people feels that the 2nd Amendment guarantees them the right to own and carry a gun. To enforce my later statements I feel I must add the 2nd amendment to this paper so I shall do so: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Eugene Volokh believes that this statement secures a "right of the people" not of the militia. I believe that we are able by our constitution to own guns. Under the 1956 Militia Act, it says anyone between 18 and 45 are part of the militia which is "the body of the people capable of bearing Arms" (Volokh). That to me constitutes that anyone capable of handling a gun has a right to possess one unless they have had a felony, mental illness, etc. Carl T. Bogus, a law professor at Roger Williams University in Bristol R.I., simply stated the whole reason for the second Amendment was because "James Madison merely wanted to win support for the Bill of Rights from southerners who wanted armed units to be able to control slaves" (Glaberson). This amendment I feel has become very...

Words: 632 - Pages: 3

Free Essay


...2015 Presidential Candidate Debate For the first democratic primary debate of 2015, a lot can be said about this year’s upcoming election. Anderson cooper, who is well known for appearing as a talk show host on CNN, was the debates moderator. The democratic candidates included: secretary of state Hilary Clinton, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, Maryland Governor Martin O’ Malley, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, and Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chaffee. From the beginning to the end, Cooper posed various questions to give the candidates, in relations to controversial issues that are prevalent in the United States. Although there were fine presidential candidates, the focus was primarily on the two leading democratic candidates, Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. When Clinton was asked about her stance on guns control, she passionately expressed that gun control should be very strict for U.S citizens. However, Sanders states that there should be some type of gun control, unlike Clinton; Clinton had stated in the debate, “Sanders is immune to the gun industry”. Another topic that was addressed was the access to private Internet servers for email. This topic up for discussion was strictly agreed towards Clinton herself. Before Clinton was able to discuss in detail about this topic, Sanders expressed that this “issue” was simply irrelevant compared to the other serious problems this country is facing. Other topics included national security threat, black...

Words: 385 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Gun Control

...Gun Control Research Gun control is an ongoing, heated debate in America. Various states have decided to take action against guns as a deterrent to crime. Nevertheless, are guns really the main factor in causing crimes, or are the criminals themselves to blame? There are two sides involved with the gun debate. The anti-gun campaign with supporters like Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Cease Fire, and Mothers Against Violence in America are pressuring the government to have stricter laws or ban guns all together. On the other side of the debate, the most prominently heard voice it that of the National Rifle Association or NRA. However, there are others such as Women Against Gun Control and Gun Owners of America. The pro-gun lobbyists are trying to convince the government that outlawing guns will not affect the criminals but leave the honest individual defenseless. Guns are a necessary form of self-protection because the majority of the gun control laws we have are ineffective, criminals are able to obtain guns no matter how many laws we have against it, and the new “smart” technology will only hurt us in the long run. Guns, when used and operated correctly, can be a very effective form of self-protection. “There is only one police officer on patrol for every 3,300 people” (Polsby and Brennen 3). This is probably one of many reasons that “about 83 percent of the population will be victims of violent crime at some point in their lives” (Polsby and Brennen 3). Statistics...

Words: 1439 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

How To Win An Argument About Guns By Nicholas Kristof Summary

...massacres, gun control has once again been thrust back onto the main stage in the United States. In a New York Times op-ed titled, “How to Win an Argument About Guns”, Nicholas Kristof takes on this very issue. According to his bio, Kristof has been a foreign correspondent and columnist for the New York Times since 2001. However, his bio says nothing about any involvement with firearm related topics. This makes his opinions less trustworthy than that of an actual expert on the issue. Kristof is very pro gun control and dispels five main myths from those that oppose his views on gun control. The author believes that greater restrictions and laws concerning firearms will lead to a safer country and far less casualties....

Words: 1268 - Pages: 6