Category: Gun Control

Annotated Bibliography: Gun Control Laws

Thesis: Gun control laws and whether they should be controlled or not have become a widely argued and controversial topic. Many people believe that we need stricter laws addressing and handling guns in our communities while others believe that it is their god given right to bear arms to protect themselves. The real issue is whether they are using their guns for protection or harm and the lack of control and monitoring possession and sales of arms in the United States.

Murray, Douglas R. ‘Handguns, gun control laws, and firearm violence.’ Social Problems 23.1 (1975): 81-93.Web.

Douglas R. Murray is a research analyst at the Wisconsin state council on criminal justice under the sponsorship of the University of Wisconsin. In his article, he states that gun laws are not effectively controlling access to firearms. Gun violence, handguns, and gun controls all have a closely tied cause-and-effect relationship with each other. Different types of access to handguns, strict or loose, have no effect on the rates of violent crime and accidents involving firearms, proving our current gun laws ineffective. This article uses statistics, surveys, and census materials to show the reader how unacceptable our current gun laws are.

Zimring, Franklin E. ‘Firearms and federal law: the Gun Control Act of 1968.’ The Journal of Legal Studies 4.1 (1975): 133-198.

The author of this article Franklin E. Zimring is a criminologist and law professor at the UC Berkeley of Law. In 1968 the Gun Control Act was created with the purpose to provide federal, state, and local law enforcement officials fight against crime and violence. The rate of gun violence, however, has skyrocketed. This article studies the effects of gun control and studies the issues that have come to be after this act had been enacted.

Cook, Philip J., and James A. Leitzel. ‘Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy: An Economic Analysis of the Attack on Gun Control.’ Law & Contemp. Probs. 59 (1996): 91.

This article talks about the three arguments over the effects of reform called “Perversity, Futility, and Jeopardy” and why anti-gun control advocates don’t want our current gun laws. The first argument states that reform can have the opposite effect of what was originally intended. The second argument states that there will be no effect at all. The third argument states that reform will work however it would come at the price of the people’s constitutional rights.

Jacobs, James B. Can gun control work? Oxford University Press, 2002.

This article talks about the infamous question “Will gun control work?” Jacobs gives an in-depth view of the politics involved in gun control and examines the chances that legislative action to control illegal firearms will be successful. He systemizes the legislative initiatives that have already been acquired but also addresses the issues that we face constitutionally, politically, and practically and how effective these laws will be in a society not fully devoted to the cause. He addresses the potential issues and struggles with implementing laws that not everybody is on board with.

‘Gov. Cuomo Strengthens New York’s, Gun Laws.’ USNews.com, 4 Sept. 2019. Gale In Context: Science,https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/apps/doc/A598432920/SCIC?u=pgcc_main&sid=SCIC&xid=ebe4667a. Accessed 12 Mar. 2020.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently signed two bills in relation to New York’s gun control laws. The bills state that out-of-state people who are buying guns from New York must agree to mental health background checks and police are allowed to have a copy of the buyer’s firearm application. He speaks about how while Washington just stands around and watches the gun violence epidemic forming, New York is taking a stand and enacting stricter gun control laws to help limit unnecessary disasters. These laws allow police officers to search someone and to see whether or not they own a firearm before responding to the scene. New York has also enacted two other laws, The Red Flag law allowing the court to revoke gun privileges from someone who is deemed not emotionally fit for a firearm, and the SAFE Act which denies felons and people with mental illnesses from purchasing a gun.

‘Study: Stricter state gun laws keep firearms out of hands of youth.’ CNN Wire, 21 Sept. 2015. Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/apps/doc/A429354136/GIC?u=pgcc_main&sid=GIC&xid=31d8d5d7. Accessed 12 Mar. 2020.

This CNN article addresses how stricter gun laws lower the chances of youth getting a hold of firearms. Teens who live in states that have less restrictive gun laws have a higher chance of living with someone who has a gun, having easier access to getting a gun or having one of their own. The easier access to guns means that more teenagers will be able to carry guns. Strengthening the gun control laws in these less restrictive states and limiting and or reducing adult gun ownership will lower the chances of these firearms getting into the wrong hands. In this article, it is believed that laws that require adults to have guns locked and inaccessible to youths and higher age restrictions for guns can help decrease gun violence in teenagers drastically because they want to have these guns to make themselves feel safe. The point made is that strong gun control laws for these adults lower the use significantly for children.

“Do tougher gun laws lead to ‘dramatically lower rates of gun violence’?’ Washingtonpost.com, 17 ct. 2017. Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/apps/doc/A510274145/GIC?u=pgcc_main&sid=GIC&xid=790450b6. Accessed 12 Mar. 2020.

This article studies a gun violence article written using facts to prove a point that stricter gun laws do have a strong impact on lessening gun violence. States more involved in the movement for stricter gun laws have a much lower rate of gun violence. This article addresses both sides of the gun control debate. One side claims that it is their right to bear arms and many of the gun control laws aren’t even making an effect. The other side states that we need stronger gun control laws after the recent mass shooting and that we need to get easily accessible guns out of the hands of criminals and those who don’t know how to use them safely and properly. It talks about the facts on both different sides. Stronger gun control laws do work and repealing gun laws has an increase in gun violence. After each different shooting, there is always an argument between both political parties that guns are our rights versus guns are hurting more than helping

‘State lawmakers propose stricter gun laws to keep firearms out of criminals’ hands.’ CNN Wire, 6 Feb. 2020, p. NA. Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/apps/doc/A613316577/GIC?u=pgcc_main&sid=GIC&xid=2b975991. Accessed 12 Mar. 2020.

After two police officers in Hawaii were shot and killed it prompted lawmakers to address the concern over firearms in regards to the public’s safety. There was a large discussion about what laws they could implement to keep gun violence in check. One gun control measure that was mentioned was notifying the police when someone who owns a gun has passed away and what will be happening to the gun and where it will be going as well as the thought of completely banning 50 caliber machine guns and ammunition. In an attempt to get rid of ghost guns, they are trying to create another bill where building a gun with no serial number would be considered a felony. It also touches bases on the concealed carry law and the legal and emotional consequences even for those who are responsible gun owners.

Fund, Children’s Defense. ‘Stricter Gun Control Laws Can Prevent Youth Violence.’ Violent Children, edited by Roman Espejo, Greenhaven Press, 2010. At Issue. Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/apps/doc/EJ3010032232/GIC?u=pgcc_main&sid=GIC&xid=dd29623c. Accessed 12 Mar. 2020. Originally published as ‘Firearm Deaths Among Children and Teens Increase for the First Time Since 1994: 3,006 in 2005, Protect Children, Not Guns Report,’ Protect Children, Not Guns Report, Children’s Defense Fund, 2008, pp. 2-7.

This article consists of the Center for Disease Controls statistics between firearm usage and juveniles in the early 2000s. The studies show that after the Assault Weapons ban expired in 2004 there was a large spike in gun violence in children and teens. It not only speaks about gun violence in the community but specifically targets the youth and how these loose gun laws affected them. Three thousand children died in 2005 from homicides, suicide, and accidental situations and a majority of them were Caucasian and African american, not including the five times as many children affected by nonlife-threatening gunshots. They provide options and examples on how to protect our children from gun violence such as supporting gun safety measures, removing guns from children’s access or from the home, not glamorizing violence, and using nonviolent means of communication, alternative social networking and groups for kids keeping them off the streets and most importantly raising awareness on these real issues.

‘Do We Need Stricter Gun Laws?’ New York Times Upfront, vol. 152, no. 2, 16 Sept. 2019, p. 22+. Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/apps/doc/A601763179/GIC?u=pgcc_main&sid=GIC&xid=6167ef66. Accessed 12 Mar. 2020.

This article compares two different real-life stories about whether stricter gun control laws are needed. The section about agreeing with stricter gun control laws addresses the El Paso shooting where 22 people were killed in a Walmart in Texas and on the same day where an Ohio man killed 9 people and injured many others with an AK-47. It shares the fact that at least 100 people are killed by gun violence per day and how the only way to end this violent epidemic is to enforce stricter gun laws with the goal to make it impossible for those trying to buy guns with the intent to harm or misuse. On the opposing side stating that guns help keep people safe they share a story about a woman named Susan Gonzalez who hated guns. Two burglars broke into her home and her husband kept a gun without her permission and they fired on the two men threatening them. This attack changed her views on gun control saying that her husband’s gun saved their lives. They address many other stories of people fighting off criminals and using their guns for good. They make the statement that no matter what laws are passed criminals will still get firearms

‘More in the U.S. now want stricter gun laws.’ UPI NewsTrack, 14 Jan. 2013. Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/apps/doc/A314758870/GIC?u=pgcc_main&sid=GIC&xid=1e89e8ae. Accessed 12 Mar. 2020.

This article speaks about the dissatisfaction of a vast majority of Americans in relation to gun control. After a gunman killed 20 children at a Connecticut elementary school there has been a large increase in the support of stricter gun laws. Over the past five years, there has been a rise in discontentment with the current laws and more support towards the movement of more security from the firearms standpoint. This article correlates with all of my previous annotations showing that Americans aren’t very happy with how current gun situations and laws are being handled. Most of the gun control issues are because of the many different shootings in the articles above. El Paso, Connecticut, etc.. have the American people scared and concerned for themselves and their children.

‘Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives.’ Guns and Crime, edited by Christine Watkins, Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/apps/doc/EJ3010015248/GIC?u=pgcc_main&sid=GIC&xid=0c910b82. Accessed 12 Mar. 2020. Originally published as ‘Ten Myths About Gun Violence in America,’ LCAV.org, 2009.

This article speaks about the federal gun laws and what they do and don’t allow in regard to guns. The United States gun laws are the least restrictive in the world and have the highest amount of firearm deaths. The federal law hasn’t banned military assault rifles. A military assault rifle as seen in the “ Do We Need stricter gun laws?” article was used to kill nine people in Ohio as well as still not banning 50 caliber weapons after the 2004 assault weapons ban expired. The Consumer Producer Safety Act also does not cover firearms therefore there are no health or safety standards for firearms manufactured here in the States but it exists for all other types of products in the United States. It addresses the loopholes in our system and how we need to not only enforce our gun control laws but strengthen and make them impenetrable. It also speaks on the topics of sensible gun laws such as Virginia’s one gun per month law and Maryland’s “Junk gun” law.

‘Md. Democrats pushing to strengthen state’s already strict gun laws.’ Washingtonpost.com, 10 Feb. 2016. Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/apps/doc/A443041701/GIC?u=pgcc_main&sid=GIC&xid=10a5906b. Accessed 12 Mar. 2020.

This article focuses specifically on Maryland and how it will strengthen its state’s gun laws. The Maryland Democratic lawmakers came up with many different bills to propose. These proposed bills focused on keeping campuses gun-free and figuring out solutions on how to keep firearms out of the hands of felons, mentally ill, and dangerous people. Another proposal stated was not issuing firearm permits to those on the FBI’s watchlist as well as repossessing domestic abusers and felons firearms and weapons within 48 hours of being convicted of a crime. Stronger background checks will also be put into effect for purchases of rifles and shotguns. Our State governor Republican Larry Hogan was endorsed by the NRA, however, states that he will not be getting rid of our current gun laws. These bills all must go through Hogan to either be signed vetoed or accepted without signature.

Leftwich, Juliet A. ‘Gun Control Laws Reduce Violent Crime.’ Violence, edited by Louise Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/apps/doc/EJ3010171249/GIC?u=pgcc_main&sid=GIC&xid=f1bf1e2c. Accessed 12 Mar. 2020. Originally published as ‘Pro-Gun Logic Is Wrong on the Facts,’ The Recorder, 2006.

This article addresses the loopholes in the gun control discussion, restricting access to guns, claiming self-defense when it comes to having a personal gun and protecting the public. There are many loopholes when it comes to firearms such as private sellers not having to run a background check on the person wanting to buy the gun. As addressed in the article “ Stronger gun control laws will save lives” guns and ammo are not associated with the federal consumer product safety act and no federal health or safety standards for firearms. Federal laws also do not require gun owners to be licensed or their handguns to be registered. The self-defense claim when it comes to guns is the number one response when asked about why a person is pro-guns. Guns can be used for a wide variety of options, good or bad. When deciding to use it in the correct way, a gun can make you feel safe and secure when needed to defend yourself. The state and local governments have an obligation to protect the public from gun violence. Requiring gun safety courses, implementing the one gun per month law, and background checks for private sales can all help reduce the chaos caused by gun violence and the current laws in relation.

Gorman, Linda, and David B. Kopel. ‘Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Not Reduce Crime.’ Guns and Crime, edited by James D. Torr, Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.pgcc.edu/apps/doc/EJ3010015220/GIC?u=pgcc_main&sid=GIC&xid=6c3c01ff. Accessed 12 Mar. 2020. Originally published as ‘Self-Defense: The Equalizer,’ Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, vol. 15, Winter 2000, p. 92.

This article is written about how stricter gun control laws will not affect the rates of crime. This is written for more of a pro-gun activist scene. It highlights guns as a means of self-defense and the easy maintenance that comes with owning a firearm. It addresses how we could learn and adapt some of Japan’s laws when it comes to gun safety and rules. Unfortunately, we will never live in a world without crime, but living in a society where the government eliminates all firearms ultimately makes rule-abiding citizens choose between protecting those they care about or themselves. They reference Japan’s low crime rates as success with having a personal gun. They address the history of Japan’s low homicide rates but high suicide rates as well as the history of guns in Japan. Japan’s gun owners must complete a licensing obstacle course and have a separate locker for guns and ammunition. Members of any political or activist groups are immediately disqualified from being able to obtain a firearm. This article has a brief coverage of the UK, Canada, and Australia’s gun laws in comparison to our country’s rules.

As the years pass by, everyone can come to the conclusion that Gun Control has been a big issue. Everyone knows that so many crimes are taking place based on shootings that fall under Gun Control. Gun Control has been the highest topic the whole US is talking about. However, nothing is being done no matter how many crimes happen. Weapon rights in America have been at the center of wrangling for almost a number of decades, and this is often regularly since the talk hits near to homes of so numerous United States inhabitants. Consider guns being weapons that are not one or the other great or terrible, but it’ll all depends on who is behind that gun that’ll take action.

Guns are an imperative portion of the security of Americans, but the dangers exceeded the benefits. Whereas a few individuals take advantage by owning a weapon, numerous guiltless individuals are murdered by enrolled guns. Take for example, the Walmart shooting that took place on August 3, 2019, when a man from Dallas traveled all the way to El Paso and ended up attacking/ killing innocent Hispanics. The dispute that weapons guarantee people and debilitate guilty parties from breaking the law doesn’t surpass the negative comes about of owning a weapon. The American Structure need not be adjusted to reflect advanced laws that don’t allow weapons to the common open. As of right now, an overabundance of gun laws in choosing what should be included within the laws.

There are about 200,000 rules about guns, but others say otherwise. Knowing that there are about 200,000 gun-control laws has likely discouraged lawmakers from making more laws since they were beneath the dream that weapons were as of now completely controlled. But rather than examining the number of laws that are in existence, it would be far better, higher, stronger, and outstanding thought to look at the different effects of the laws that are in place. While we have as of now learned that about a quarter of all Americans possess a weapon. Understanding this utilization will shed light on the esteem Americans put on owning a gun. Whereas weapon proprietors are a major portion of the wrangling, those who don’t possess a weapon are moreover influenced by laws that seem to control their utilization. However, a few individuals contend that not as it were are there viable reasons to permit somebody to claim weapons, there’s the thought that the American Constitution says United States residents have the right to bear arms. It is contained within the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states that individuals are permitted to have their weapon rights secured against the danger of the government requiring control over their arms. As long as the Second Amendment exists, the government has no authority to require absent the proper to bear arms, as long as the individual with the weapon hasn’t been restricted because of their past. The Constitution places the same sum of security on the weapons because it does on a person’s right to free discourse.

Many individuals state that Gun Control is too late based on how many people are already owners of guns. Weapon supporters contend that whether or not the Economist really concurs that weapons ought to be a right in America doesn’t matter, since it is as well late to require out of the American culture what characterizes it. Individuals have this opportunity for a reason, just as they have the correct to self-defense. Without weapon rights, individuals are at a chance of being taken advantage of by those who discover guns through illegal implies. Taking absent gun rights is like preparing an armed force with butter blades, since the adversary may be coming to the doorstep, and the foe is prepared with guns weapon supporters contend. They say the Colorado Butcher and comparable violations have nothing to do with weapon laws since the weapons utilized in that act weren’t legal, besides. There are measures that have to be met in directing which sorts of guns are passable, but to ruin each gun based on cases including weapons that aren’t lawful. It’s more vital now than ever to characterize whether the Second Amendment is as substantial nowadays because it was when the Structure was composed. Without censuring the commitment to ensuring the correct to bear arms, the United States is making clear to the United Nations and everybody else what the U.S. position is on weapon proprietorship. Anti-terrorism laws are amazingly critical, and they are broadening and getting to be more refined each year. They have to be carried out whereas changing what numerous accept is a critical right within the United States nowadays.

Gun control laws are continuously brought up as a hot point after a gathering of individuals are shot at. If gun laws are put into put, they anticipate offenders from getting their hands on weapons. When a catastrophe happens, laws avoiding weapons from being terminated would spare numerous people’s lives. But the address that hasn’t been replied to is whether one ought to boycott guns or discover ways to anticipate unsafe individuals from terminating them. They open is sided on the supposition of constraining the get to guns among children, individuals with mental illnesses, and savage offenders. Those who are children don’t have the development to utilize a gun within the redress way, and numerous of those who are savage criminals are likely to utilize the weapon to hurt others. However, the issue isn’t as dark and white as that might lay it out to be, since there are numerous individuals who don’t drop into any of the categories of socioeconomics that are prohibited who utilize the weapons against guiltless individuals. In getting back to the U.S. Preeminent Court’s thought that the Moment Amendment allows a person the right to bear arms, appears that it is exceedingly troublesome to order laws that apply by and large to the open with respect to owning a gun. The courts also are in the back of longstanding disallowance on the ownership of weapons among individuals who have mental ailments. Take, for example, people who were diagnosed with mental illness and attempted assassination at the time who was President Ronald Reagan, Rep.Gabrielle Giffords, and John Lennon. Based on that, it shows all individuals who have mental illnesses are perilous, in spite of the fact that this isn’t the case. This would avoid a complete statistic from being able to buy a gun. For this reason, there are numerous escape clauses and ranges where these sorts of laws aren’t effective.

The Gun Control Act has a motivating force for states to control weapons by making it unlawful to offer a gun to an individual who is disallowed by state law. But not all states uphold those controls based on the mental illnesses that an individual might have. A few states have laws that as it were confine get to a concealed weapon. Those states who say otherwise, depend most regularly on the buyer distinguishing themselves as having a mental illness. This implies that in states complying with the government rules to not offer guns to individuals who have a mental illness, the individual who endures from the ailment is still able to get a gun since they don’t ought to recognize what they’re sick of. The limitation to individuals with mental ailments owning guns hasn’t brought down the crime or suicide rates. In any case, confinements that are all around connected seem to be more viable. Take, for example, those states with the hardest laws against guns have a much lower crime rate per capita than the states that have delicate laws. But the rules at the Supreme Court empower the control of the individual, instead of the gun. In other words, they need to find out who will not be using the gun properly and if necessary or not. The distinguishing proof of the people is basic to having gun laws that are successful. Guns ought to be kept out of their reach. But doing so could be a challenge. The cover confinements that are connected to everybody got to consider the rights managed by individuals through the Constitution. Moreover, those who may well be unsafe aren’t essentially included on the list. Precluded individuals regularly do discover a guns merchant who will offer them a weapon. As if it were a few states that have laws requiring a permit to buy a gun. Indeed when it is found that an individual who is confined from owning a gun has one in ownership, police frequently don’t have the specialist to do anything approximately the ownership. The greatest challenge in keeping individuals who have mental ailments absent from guns is ensuring quiet respect and protection. Releasing the doctor-patient privacy, and opening up laws that require the names of rationally sick patients to be enrolled at a central work area would debilitate individuals from being genuine with their specialists. A few individuals might not even look for treatment for their afflictions in case there’s the alter that they won’t be able to claim a gun.

Clearly, it is troublesome to apply a weapon control procedure that’s focused on people. Individuals are finding ways to claim weapons from merchants indeed in case they have mental illness or a criminal record. These merchants ought to be closed down and the opportunity that they are getting a charge out of presently ought to be checked by a governmentally enforceable law. Presently, rather than owning weapons, individuals can utilize domestic security frameworks to keep their families secure. Weapons are not a principle implied in guaranteeing the security of the open, and they obtain more hurt than great.

​The National Rifle Association (NRA) along with the gun industry has donated “between $20 million and $52.6 million” to American politicians (Hickey). The gun industry is one of the most lucrative industries in the USA. The NRA, gun shops, and other gun-related industries are the reason why many congressional members are against strict gun control policies. [Needs a bit of a transition here. Try talking about how this impacts the politicians’ vote and their creation of laws related to guns] However, as a citizen who cares about the well-being of society, we need to stand with those who are thinking about the people instead of their own business. Due to the increase in gun crime, US citizens should elect congressional members who will pass necessary laws on gun regulation.

American history has strong interconnection with guns, and this relationship starts during the period of the first settlers. The ancient people used guns for hunting protection from large predators and hostile native peoples. Shooting skills were a necessity for survival in the days and acquiring those skills was considered a rite of passage for young men. If a boy could shoot well, he would be ready to start a family of his own. He would be able to hunt and provide food and protection from wild animals. Nowadays defining the purpose of gun is not easy as the ancient time. Sports, self-defense, and hunting are on the top list of gun purposes at the current time. However, most of the statistics that is shown recently show that guns are being used more to kill people than they are used for hunting purposes.

The guns which are used in the present time are more lethal than the ancient time. In 1364 the first firearm “matchlock” was introduced to America. This firearm is used only by the militia. The matchlock has powder inside a little pan where the rope will be burned. It is not fun to use this material during rain. Then comes wheel lock which is easier to use but expensive to produce. “Flintlock” solved a long-standing problem. Sometimes in the late 1500s, a lid was added to the flash pan design around 1750. Dueling pistols are the first real firearm that is closer to the modern firearm. The first multi-shoot firearm was developed by Samuel Colt. This gun was more reliable, accurate, and way cheaper than other guns. Then Spencer repeating is used during the civil war and could fire 17 shots in 5 seconds. This gun was approved by President Lincoln, his approval lead to a high sales of the gun. Since then till now guns were being updated from time to time. The time they take to re-shot and the material they are made up of make it preferable to kill. The industry of firearms is also increasing, as well as the crime rate (“Gun Timeline”).

America has the highest crime rate compared to other developed countries. “According to one with a firearm in 2011. In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses, and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.” Why is gun violent crime high in America? The accessibility of gun and the design of gun that is being developed lately can be the factor for the increasing crime rate in America. I remember in one of the talks show a guy from the FBI office mentioned gun numbers exceeding the population number.

Middle and late adulthood in America is characterized by high depression and suicide. “Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns. Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that to a higher percentage of 11,547 in 2006” ( Selgatdoe). The reason for the pick of gun crime is the availability of guns in the wrong people’s hands. If America has a strong policy to regulate the owners of the gun, the crime rate will change. Firearm private sellers are legal sellers, however, the fact that they are not regulated is causing a big problem. Since they are not regulated they are good choices for the criminals. “85% of all guns used in crimes and then recovered by law-enforcement agencies have been sold at least once by private parties.” One of the most reckless and unimportant types of gun shops is the online one. To make this idea strong we can investigate the Florida school shooting incident. The suspect who commuted this crime purchased the gun in a legal way and he also passed the background check. This boy was 18 when he bought the gun which is very legal however he needs to be 21 to buy a handgun. The state regulation of Florida state indicates that individuals who are 18 and above can buy any type of gun. Before shooting at the school, he wrote on social media that he is going to be a professional school shooter. If there was a strict background check, they wouldn’t have a hard time determining who the criminal is and they will be able to trace what the suspect had been posting on social media before it happens. However, those people who care about their own business claim that a background check will take a long time, and will result in damage to their business. They also mentioned that the individual being threatened will be exposed to crime until they will get the gun. This sentence is giving discard to the benefit of police officers.

Violence is everywhere in the world; in every country, city, town, and village there is some form of violence. In my lifetime, there have been countless deaths and injuries due to gun violence. We happen to live in a country where gun violence is among the most prevalent in the world: The United States of America. Today, gun control and gun violence have become a controversial issue in America. The issue of gun control has been debated for a long time, probably ever since they were invented. It is a small, yet extremely dangerous factor in our lives. The ‘right to keep and bear arms’ could be beneficial and problematic at the same time. While many believe that the second amendment, ‘the right to keep and bear arms’ provides security and self-defense, I believe that gun ownership leads to deaths, violent crimes, suicide, and homicide outside or inside homes. People committing crimes have nothing to do with gun control; in fact, gun control laws have made it easier for them to kill, injure or hurt helpless citizens who abide by the laws of our state.

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.” (Mr. Riyan) This amendment was proposed by James Madison and ratified in 1791. The purpose of this constitution is to provide power to state militias or national guards. Starting from the moment when this amendment was ratified until now there was endless argument raised by different parties. In the past time the argument was between the federalist which support the amendment vs the anti-federalist which support states having more power. The meaning and interpretation of this constitution are raising arguments even in the current time. When one side of the group say it is intended to protect individual right the other half group will say it is ratified to protect the people’s right.

Teenagers who are fighting for the safety of other schools which didn’t face mass shootings were called with discussing names. For example, David Hogg is a survivor of a massacre and he is an icon of children’s crusade appearing on many tv shows. He had been targeted by nasty conspiracy theories just because he is fighting for the safety of the people. He was called an actor with his own crisis. The elders were supposed to be leaders of this movement. However thanks to NRF and other congressional members the kids were exposed to double trauma from the incident.

Unfortunately, violent public shootings are commonplace in America. According to the CDC, ‘One person is killed by firearms every 17 minutes, 87 people are killed during an average day, and 609 are killed every week” (RAND Corporation). This is one example to prove that gun violence is out of control. In fact, there’s been an increase in mass murders occurring everywhere due to guns. Which has brought our attention to the gun violence in our nation. They say guns are for protection, but in reality, there seems to be more murder associated with them. There’s a controversy that it’s the people’s right to bear arms, but others argue that there needs to be greater gun control. As author Pascal Emmanuel Gobry stated both sides are wrong in the gun debate. Here’s why,“ Liberals declare that if only we regulated and banned guns like Europe does, there wouldn’t be any more gun violence. Conservatives insist that the solution to gun violence is more guns, and just more guns” (Gobry). I am writing to you because I believe gun violence needs to come to an end. So, I propose that the right to bear arms needs to be taken away, and the U.S. needs to ban gun ownership. Since guns do no good for our nation other than kill the innocent. Gun violence has been increasing in our nation, as many innocent people had been killed.

The effect of gun ownership on crime is theoretically ambiguous. It could either be the case that gun ownership increases the cost of crimes and thus discourage potential criminals, or it could also be that gun ownership rates make it easier for criminals to obtain guns, and thus causes more lethal crimes to occur. Today we need to step in and help teens and young adults who are suffering from dual trauma. They are being bullied just for standing up for their right.

In conclusion, gun control in the United States is essential because of security reasons. Handguns given to civilians have sparked a debate in recent decades due to mass shootings that have taken place. Therefore, from the recent incidents, there could be serious negative implications in the future if gun control measures could not be effectively handled. There are those who support the idea of concealed handguns and those who challenge it for security reasons. Since the number of public shootings has increased in the past years, the government should establish laws necessary to prevent these scenarios to gain public confidence and avoid future catastrophes.

Works Cited

1. Hickey, Walt. “How the Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 16 Jan. 2013, www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1.
2. “Gun Timeline.” PBS, Oregon Public Broadcasting, 2003-2014, https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/technique/gun-timeline/. Accessed 1 May 2019.
3. Selgatdoe. “According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467321 Persons Were.” According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467321 Persons Were, www.coursehero.com/file/p1g00sm/According-to-the-National-Crime-Victimization-Survey-467321-persons-w.
4. “The Relationship Between Firearm Prevalence and Violent Crime.” RAND Corporation, www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html. Accessed 10 Apr. 2019.
5. Strasser, Mr. Ryan. “Second Amendment.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 5 June 2017, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment.
6. “The Relationship Between Firearm Prevalence and Violent Crime.” RAND Corporation, www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html. Accessed 10 Apr. 2019.

The Second Commandment of the US Constitution gave the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The American idea of the right to bear arms has since then been debated and introduced a new debate on gun control. The article, “Gun Control: An Overview”, defines gun control as it is used in the United States as, “any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens”. Not only social but political debate over the question of how much gun control is appropriate has been an extreme topic for several decades. Discussions on the topic tend to revolve around three major talking points: sociological, ethical, and legal dimensions.

Gun violence has become a major issue within our society and has increasingly gotten worse. There have been many school shootings that have taken place because of faulty guidelines on gun control. BBC News education correspondent Sean Coughlan, states in a recent article, “At the beginning of 2018, Education Week, a journal covering education in the US, began to track school shootings- and has since recorded 23 incidents where there were deaths or injuries”. Many citizens have expressed their concerns on gun control to the government, demanding there be further guidelines put in place to conceal and carry; but this has also raised conflict among those that believe changing the law could be an act of neglecting their constitutional right. Not only have there been mass shootings in schools but within public settings as well. In this social, explosive society we live in today, gun control is one of many hot topics being discussed. People are very passionate on both sides of the spectrum. We, as a society, are conflicted on whether we should be allowed guns, or ban them altogether. I believe much has to do with life experiences and one’s background in determining if one is for, or against gun control.

It is more than just having a gun to show off, or to be cool. To many people, having guns expresses the main foundation this country was built on; freedom. According to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, it protects the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15th, 1791 as part of the Bill Of Rights. There are some today that argues only the police and military should have guns because of the word “militia”, but the people are the militia. If our country was attacked, all Americans would take up guns, if we still have them, to fight and protect our land and families. Unfortunately, those who live in places like China cannot own a replica of a gun, let alone have a real one. Those brave enough to protest throw rocks, Molotov, and anything they can possibly get their hands on at tanks and anything else the government throws at them. Those citizens would rather die than live without their freedom to choose. What is amazing is that those in charge will disarm their citizens, but keep armed security guards around them. In the United States, each state has its laws surrounding whether or not it is legal to carry weapons. In some states, open carry is permitted, which means that a firearm can be carried out in the open if the citizen of that state meets all the requirements of that state. In other states, concealed carry is allowed which means that a person can carry a legal weapon in their vehicle or on themselves but it must be hidden from sight. The people need weapons to protect themselves, their families, and our country. Crimes happen every minute of every day, everywhere. No one wants to be a victim. For example, anyone’s car can break down in the middle of the night on a deserted road and there is no cell service to call for help. It is up to us to protect ourselves when no one else can. Not only is owning guns our constitutional right but guns are also used for sports. Though it is rapidly decreasing, hunting is one big reason people want guns to be around. Hunting is something families have enjoyed for decades. Not only that, it is how the people originally got their food.

Even if guns were banned, that is not going to stop crime. The criminals now have the weapon, and the people have nothing. Chicago is one of the strictest cities with guns, and by the end of 2015, Chicago’s crime rate has risen up to 18,600 per 100,000 people. It is often joked how Chicago is the crime city, murder capitol, and other things it has been nicknamed. People are killed by the hundreds every year there, but the criminals do not care about the laws set in place. Evil will find a way to prosper. Chicago is not the only place where shootings occur. For example, to name a few mass shootings in recent years in the United States, One of the largest mass shootings in the United States was the Las Vegas shooting during a music festival that killed 58 people and injured 413 people. The shooting that occurred at the gay nightclub in Orlando, Fl killed 49 people and injured at least 53 people. The Texas church mass shooting involved 26 people killed within the church. The mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fl leaving 17 people dead and 17 others injured. A shooting at Walmart in El Paso, Texas killed 22 people and at least 24 people were injured. The deadly shooting at a football watch party in California that recently just happened on November 18, 2019, resulted in 4 dead and 6 injured. 2019 has been the first year since 2016 with an average of more than one mass shooting a day. Mass shootings and the killing of innocent people with guns are the number one reasons guns should be prohibited or at least locked away. For those who are against ownership, it is understandable. As stated earlier, what happens to someone in life can shape and mold their opinions and what they believe. Being a parent of a lost child due to gun violence at a school shooting, theater massacre, etc, having gun regulations would be something a parent or loved one of the victims would simply want. Accidental gun deaths, suicides, etc, are all reasons to want to ban these guns. There are those who are not objecting to banning all guns, but just assault rifles, like the one used in many of the mass shootings.

Will banning these guns, or guns in general, stop the problem? Unless society can find a way to control greed and powermongers, we will not have the answer. In the hands of one person, a gun could be a lifesaver. In the hands of another, it could be a lifetaker. More and more laws are passed to stop the violence, but crime continues to grow. Citizens used to feel safe with police protection, but even police are being targeted. There have been many incidents where police have used their guns in an unnecessary manner. Shooting victims for no reason and leaving their loved ones heartbroken. Many people once felt protected whenever the police came around but now in today’s society, a person may feel uncertain about how to feel. Not only have police taken advantage of guns but many others with gun licenses have well. Depending on someone’s place of living can be their answer to the use of gun control. If one lived in a nice, suburban area, they might not see the need for weapons. On the contrary, if one was born in the country where they grew up using guns for hunting, and protecting themselves from whatever lurks in the woods, they would tell you why citizens “need” guns. The people left Europe for freedom and the right to own land, worship as they please, have their own government, and not be taxed to death. Without guns, these accomplishments would not have been possible. It was a noble cause back then, however, guns are used for unnecessary bloodshed in today’s society.

How and why is it getting so bad? What happened to the days of common sense and responsible people? There is no one answer to this because human nature is unpredictable. Even though one might be for gun ownership, and one might not be, we should all collectively celebrate that we live in a country that gives us the right to choose. The people have a chance to change what is wrong, and they have the opportunity to fix their problems. The pros and cons of gun ownership are a double-edged sword, and what one has experienced or been through will determine which side each person decides to stand on. Each person should get to choose whether they are for, or against gun control, and that is what freedom is about.

Against Gun Control

What purpose does our government serve? The U.S. Constitution beautifully declares this, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”(U.S. Constitution, Preamble). The inauguration of the U.S. Constitution was put in place to protect its U.S. citizens and their natural-born rights. However, can we the people, really rely on the government to fulfill this act of protection when the actions of our own government compromise our rights? For example, the issuing of stricter gun laws. The government should not keep inducing gun laws, as stricter gun laws and licensing will not effectively stop criminals from using violence, for this reason, the government should focus more on reforming the penalties dealt to criminals convicted of gun violence.

First and foremost, imposing more gun control laws, that is breaking the promise to protect our rights- our constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights notably specifies U.S. citizens’ unalienable rights, one of which is the right to bear arms. The second amendment states “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” (U.S. Constitution, Art. 2). It is clear here that every U.S. citizen is born with the right to own firearms and that the government shall not impede upon this right. But, when gun laws keep being imposed, that makes it impractical and nearly impossible for an American to own a gun. In 2010, a case arose when Otis McDonald, a retired maintenance engineer, wanted to purchase a handgun for personal home defense purposes, but was unable to due to Chiago’s requirement that all handguns be registered. Furthermore, making it more impossible was the fact that the city of Chicago was refusing all handgun registrations after the banning of all handguns in 1982 (Duignan). During this time in Chicago, the prohibitions and restrictions of handguns limited Americans to only certain firearms. So how would one protect themselves from an armed robber if you can’t legally arm yourself for situations like this? Should the government be able to dictate what guns people can get? Of course not, but the government advocates this by saying that stricter gun laws will prove favorable in reducing crime and violence. In reality, gun control fails to deal with either.

As stated before, an increase in stricter gun control laws will not solve the issue of violence. Take the city of Chicago for example. The state of Illinois has some of the tightest gun laws in the country and is one of seven states to require: a background check, licenses or permits to purchase any firearm, extensive waiting periods, etc. In 2016, statistics showed that Chicago had over 4,000 shooting victims- that’s about 25.1 gun homicides per 100,000 residents (Kurtzleben). Even though Illinois had some of the strictest gun laws, it still had plenty of crime and violence in those six years. This goes to prove that gun laws do not resolve the issues of crime and violence. Another issue to debunk; after the many recent chain of events of mass murders, it is often speculated or assumed that mental health is the root cause. But according to these two doctors, “Surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes” (Metzl and MacLeish). Thus proving another point that in this case, as well as numerous others, the human is mentally unstable, making them the threat, not the gun.

In the U.S. alone, there have been over 18 million concealed carry permit holders accounted for in 2019. According to a 2018 article by National Shooting Sports Foundation, it was reported by the National Carry Academy that concealed carry permit holders obtained through the NCA jumped 120 percent, with women making up half that number… (Keane). A study on feminist criminology by Jennifer Carlson, concluded by her seventy-one interviewees said “During my interviews, gun carriers told me that guns leveled differences among men and between men and women and allowed women to defend themselves against crime as much as men” (The Equalizer?). Both studies support the importance of having a gun, as it is the only “equalizer” between two humans with contrasting physical differences. In the spring of 2019, in Tulsa, OK, a woman reported shooting and killing her attacker. Both the man and woman could be seen through CCTV footage vigorously struggling with each other, then a break happens, the attacker reengages, but falls to the ground and that’s when the woman takes the shot and finishes her attacker. The outcome would’ve been very different had she not had her gun on her. Maybe the government should consider the safety of our women and elders before inducing more gun laws.

There are plenty of Americans who’ll tell you that having more gun control laws, that’ll equate to lower rates of crime and violence. Between the years 1999 through 2016, there were 213,175 homicides (CDC). With the given stat, although it is a valid and valuable point that fewer guns may mean fewer gun deaths and can be argued, it needs to be made clear that having more gun control doesn’t mean a reduction in crime or violence. In fact, in an interview with John Lott, author of “More Guns, Less Crimes” states the opposite “There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates”. He makes it a point that there is a direct correlation in criminal behaviors to the number of gun owners, as they are less likely to engage in criminal activities knowing that the ratio of people exercising their right to own a firearm is rising.

The bottom line is, having gun control only infringes upon our second amendment, does nothing to solve the actual issue of violence, and contravenes U.S. citizens’ freedom to bear arms for self-protection. Not to mention, criminals, no matter the law, will not abide by them. Every American is born with the unalienable right to bear arms and is a right that cannot be taken away. The purpose of the government is to protect those rights, yet, they’re the same ones violating them. Perhaps it is time for all of America to join hands in rejecting these compromises, so that further violations of our rights are not encouraged, making it so we can focus on real solutions such as reforming harsher penalties for criminals convicted of gun violence!

When an individual or a nation thinks about the United States, what is the first thing that comes to mind? “Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” We can all agree with that right? Well, what if I told you that life and liberty were at stake? That’s what gun control is all about. This social issue brings to light the lives lost to gun violence. In today’s day and age, mass shootings are not uncommon. Gun control has become a national issue. The freedom to bear arms or “the right to bear arms” has sparked national controversy. Modifying the pre-qualifications of owning a gun would help this issue immensely. Gun control is one of the most controversial social issues that we, as a people face in the United States of America. According to the New York Times, although the U.S.A has the busiest and third-largest military in the world, including; The National Guard, The FBI, Homeland Security, and The Police, recent acts of violence have made gun control a huge part of American history and not in a good way. Recent mass shootings in public places such as schools, malls, and concerts have become more common every year. The nation being divided by labels such as Liberals and Conservatives also weighs in on gun issues. As well as the revenue made directly and indirectly from firearms and ammunition sales in the U.S. Last, but not least, gun trafficking. These are all examples of how pre-qualifications would ultimately help present-day society.

Recent mass shootings at schools and public places have caused a loss of hope and fear in our society. Citizens of these Unites States have demanded tighter control of firearm ownership. No other developed nation comes close to the rate of U.S. gun violence. Data from the Gun Violence Archive reveals there is a mass shooting 9/10 every 10 days on average. To my understanding, a mass shooting is defined as four or more people shot in one incident, not including the shooter. The only commonality to mass shooters to date is that all of them have been men. Most commonly, white from varying backgrounds, have mental health, and criminal histories (New York Times. Victor,2018). But mass shootings can be anyone with a firearm and can happen anywhere. Dr. Michael Stone, a New York forensic psychiatrist, found that about half of the 200 mass murderers he had studied had no clear evidence of mental illness before the attacks (New York Times. Victor,2018). About a quarter displayed signs of depression and psychopathy. Many mass shooters receive some form of mental health treatment for years prior to their killing spree. According to Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 61% of mass shootings occurred in the home, 10% occurred partially in the home and partially in a public location, and 29% occurred in public spaces like schools, malls, or bars between 2009-2018. The rate of deaths in America by guns each year is over 30,000. Two-thirds of those deaths are suicides. According to Becket and Glenza McCarthy, Americans are 25 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than in any other developed country (McCarthy, Beckett & Glenza 2017). Tom Kertscher, a writer for The Politifact Journal, writes that the most recent estimate cited by gun statistics experts puts the figure at 265 million guns in the USA as of January 2015, when the population was 320 million. 31% of the US population carries a gun with about 3% owning half of them, including the estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between 8 and 140 guns.

This brings the number of mass shootings to light. There have been 45 deaths caused by mass shootings last year alone. According to data acquired from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive, there have been 385 mass shootings this year in the U.S. and a whopping twenty-nine of those shootings were mass murders. That’s more than the number of days in a single year. Although school and house worship shootings seem to be all the news reports, offices, restaurants, and stores hold the majority affected.

There are mass shootings that spark talk on gun reform, proving gun control is a huge issue in the United States. For example, the mass shooting on October 1st, 2017 at Harvest Country Music Festival. This mass shooting resulted in 58 deaths and hundreds injured in the Vegas shooting. This mass shooting was named the worst mass shooting in American history. On February 14th, 2018; a gunman open fired at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida; leaving 17 students dead and many injured. On June 12th, 2016 a gunman opened fire, killing 49 people and wounding 53, at Orlando Pulse nightclub. Because of these horrific events, it is clear just how much of a social issue, gun control really is.

In American society, it is unlikely for people to step out of their homes in fear of a stray bullet or a car losing control and causing bodily harm. While on the other hand, it isn’t unlikely for someone to have a firearm ready to defend themselves. There are differences between these two types of people. Anyone who expresses any desire for change toward gun control is considered a Liberal. According to Webster’s dictionary, a liberal is a person of a broad mind not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms. It is also defined as an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights. As mentioned above, the lack of gun control is affecting communities in a downward spiral. Which is why liberals advocate for equal rights. On the other spectrum, a Conservative portrays himself as a defender of individual rights granted by the Constitution. Ironically enough, this is the same Government, which enacted the Patriot Act, and stripped Americans from many individual rights. According to Webster’s dictionary, a conservative is a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes. The lack of individual security regarding gun control divides this nation into these two groups. This is exactly why it is imperative to recognize it as a social issue.

The revenue made directly and indirectly from firearms and ammunition sales in the U.S. is very difficult to regulate but by implementing more gun control, there would be more preventive measures and possibly fewer deaths by gun violence and mass shootings. Revenues made directly and indirectly from firearms and ammunition sales in the U.S. fall short of the total cost for gun-related injuries and death. Thousands of firearms are stolen yearly and end up in the hands of people with the intent to use them for other reasons than self-defense. Weapons made in the U.S. or purchased from foreign countries abroad with the intent of selling in the U.S., end up in the hands of criminal organizations in Central and South America. In the firearms and ammunition impact report for 2018, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) details the significant economic impact gun and ammo sales have on the country and state’s economy.

According to the NSFF, during the past decade, the industry has grown by the unprecedented numbers of Americans choosing to buy firearms and ammunition, exercising their fundamental right to bear arms. The NSFF represents the interest of firearms and ammunition manufacturers. Many countries in the world have adopted new rules and gun-related crime or death is minimal compared with the U.S. Some of the adjustments have included: determining whether a buyer of a firearm is mentally and physically capable to use a gun responsibly. Other countries, like the U.K., also have a limit on the amount of firearms and ammunition a citizen may purchase. According to BBC News UK, certain guns in the U.K. are unavailable to citizens unless given permission from the government. Unlike the United States, the people of the U.K. do not have “the right to bear arms.” These citizens need a very good reason to purchase a firearm and the police must agree to it.

The last reason gun control is and always will be a social issue is gun trafficking. Mexico is a country plagued by criminal activity and the violence generated by crime organizations demands an increasing number of weapons. This being so, criminals can only find weapons through illegal channels in Mexico. The United States has 8,827 licensed gun dealers in the southern states. The drug cartel violence in Mexico has been fueled by thousands of guns illegally trafficked from the United States. Reports based on a statistical analysis of the firearms demand at the U.S. southwest border, between 106,700 and 426,729 firearms were purchased annually in the United States and trafficked to Mexico. Criminal violence associated with drug trafficking has escalated in Central American countries during the last decade, and the number of arms trafficked toward those countries has also increased.

In retrospect, gun control is a serious social issue and should be recognized as such. Recent mass shootings in public places such as schools, malls, and concerts have affected our society. The nation is divided by labels such as Liberals and Conservatives. The revenue made directly and indirectly from firearms and ammunition sales in the U.S., as well as, gun trafficking. There are so many ideas for safer gun control to prevent death by guns. Numerous countries have adopted a safer environment since changing their gun-owning policies and regulations. How many mass shootings does this country need to face in order to modify the pre-qualifications of owning a gun?

The debate on gun control has been a hot topic in the past several years, especially after the seeming rise in gun violence. Mass shootings at schools, government buildings, and concert venues are just some of the larger locations affected by gun violence. Is there really a rise in gun violence or is there just more media coverage? Firearms have a long history in this country and have many positive uses. The gun control versus gun rights debate is a very broad subject, consisting of the many uses of firearms, gun laws, and their specifics, and whether gun laws do more harm than good.

The United States and firearms history together is intertwined all the way back to the conception of this nation. If it had not been for firearms, the founding fathers and other patriots would not have been able to fight and ultimately win independence from Great Britain. Even before the Revolutionary War firearms had an even more important use that is just as important in today’s modern world, hunting. Even with widespread supermarkets and grocery stores many families still rely on hunting to put food on the table. Deer, squirrels, rabbits, ducts, raccoons, and even bears are just some of the animals that are hunted to provide for families. Protection from criminals or even aggressive animals is another very important use of firearms. A small pistol could be very useful while hiking in woods in the situation of a rabid fox or raccoon, or a rifle to protect any livestock from coyotes on a farm. Criminals are also less likely to break into a house or business that they believe may have armed inhabitants. In a research study sponsored by the United States Department of Justice, James Wright, and Peter Rossi questioned 1,800 convicted felons’ opinions of citizens being armed with firearms. 33% of the surveyed criminals stated that they had been scared off, shot at, shot, or apprehended by a victim possessing a firearm and 69% knew or knew of a criminal who had experienced the same. Also, close to 80% of convicted felons state that they do intentionally avoid citizens’ homes and businesses who may be armed. “Plinking or the informal target shooting done at nonstandard targets such as tin cans, glass bottles, and balloons filled with water,” and competition shooting is the favorite pastime of many Americans. These past times are not just fun, but completely safe if gun safety is closely practiced. The last use of firearms to be discussed is that firearm ownership assists in protecting the freedoms and values of this nation, which will be further explained in the next paragraph.

The first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified on December 15th, 1791. One of the most important amendments to the Bill of Rights is the 2nd amendment, which states: “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.” This can be interpreted as saying that mass gun ownership protects the citizens, values, and freedoms of this nation from possible foreign or domestic threats. As discussed earlier, if it had not been for firearms, the founding fathers would not have been able to gain independence from the English Empire. Fredrick Douglas, who was a civil rights leader after the Civil War, stated: “A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.” Throughout this nation’s history, there have been several gun control legislative measures. The National Firearms Act was passed by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1934. This gun legation introduced a tax to be paid on any short-barreled rifles or shotguns (less than 16 inches), fully automatic weapons, and suppressors. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 made it mandatory for background checks to be performed and completed prior to any firearms being purchased from a licensed dealer. The first ever gun ban was introduced in 1994, it banned the manufacture and purchasing of semi-automatic assault rifles including the AR-15, AK-47, and 17 others, it also banned a magazine capacity higher than 10 rounds, this ban lasted a decade. The most recent federal gun law passed is President Trump’s ban on “bump stocks”, which was passed in 2019. However in the last several years, several new and controversial laws have been proposed that would further restrict access to firearms, these include but are not limited to: outlawing conceal carry, red flag laws, and a new assault rifle ban.

While stricter gun control with less access to firearms may seem like it would help curb crime and gun violence, recent studies show that it may increase both. For instance, England banned all handgun ownership and quickly saw a 50% increase in homicides committed with firearms. Also in England where gun control is strict over 59% of homes are involved in burglaries annually versus 28% in the United States. In contrast, 2500 women who were residents of Florida attended a handgun training event that was highly publicized in 1966. Shortly after this, rapes fell from 36 per 100,000 to 4 per 100,000. There also seems to be a higher risk for mass shootings in gun-free zones, roughly 98% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. In recent news, there was a mass shooting a in government building which happened to be a gun-free zone. The gunman was a disgruntled employee who brutally shot and killed 12 of his co-workers before police even arrived on the scene to stop him. One can also look at past world history to show the correlation between strict gun control leading to violent crimes, even crimes committed against citizens by their own government. 20 years following the USSR enacting strict gun control, 20 million Russian citizens were killed, Nazi Germany passed strict gun restrictions in 1939 and by 1945 over 13 million Jews had been systematically murdered, and most recently in 1994, the Rwandan government confiscated firearms and executed roughly 1 million people of the Tutsi tribes.

In today’s world, it seems every time one turns on a television or a radio there is talk of a mass shooting of a school, movie theater, or government building. It is completely understandable for politicians and citizens alike to want to ban the very items used to create such tragedy. Firearms can be very dangerous, but when used properly they are extremely useful in acquiring food, protection, and even maintaining freedom and liberty from a possible tyrannical government.

I. Introduction

• A. Background info: Since the mid-2000s, firearm savagery has been an intensifying social challenge in the United States. There have been more than one hundred mass shootings between 2000 and 2019, happening in localities such as retail stores and churches.
• B. Background info: The speech of Emma Gonzalez to Gun Advocates and Legislators saw her call out Trump and NRA for failing to set up harsher laws to prevent such a horrendous occasion for instance that in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
• C. Background info: Then there is Kaitlin Bennett, a pro-firearm dissident, who has no conciliatory sentiments for defending our privileges as well as never conceding. She calls Parkland broods socialists as they look for weapon control based on feelings. In undertaking such, she accepts they never rehearse their subsequent amendment right where in this manner are never considered a part of us’. (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
• D. Thesis statement: Kaitlin Bennett and Emma Gonzalez permit their addressees to concentrate on firearm regulations at the pro-gun rally and counter-firearm rally through an able utilization of rhetoric writing together with their progression of complicated circumstances.

II. Body Paragraph 1

• A. Topic sentence: The message Emma wants to get across has its key for interpretation in the rhetorical approaches utilized by her through her dialogue.
  • 1. Passage: “We haven’t already had a moment of silence in the House of Representatives, so I would like to have another one. Thank you.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: A quiet thought is changed from custom to political demonstration. Emma shows a snapshot of political mindfulness.
  • 2. Passage: ‘Every single person up here today, all these people should be home grieving. But instead, we are up here standing together because if all our government and President can do is send thought and prayers, then it’s time for victims to be the change that we need to see.’ (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: Here, Emma communicates outrage and disappointment towards the President by bringing up individuals remaining with her and “should be home grieving”. Oratorically, “thoughts and prayers”, are intended to comfort the grief-stricken in any case.
  • 3. Passage: “We certainly do not understand why it should be harder to make plans with friends on weekends than to buy an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. In Florida, to buy a gun you do not need a gun permit, you do not need a gun license, and once you buy it, you do not need to register it.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: In this passage, Emma puts herself in the personality of a youngster and utilizations the instance regarding how the energetic way of life has a greater number of obstructions than the legitimate capacity to purchase a firearm.
  • 4. Passage: ‘I read something very powerful to me today. It was from a teacher. And I quote: When adults tell me, I have the right to own a gun, all I can hear is my right to own a gun outweighs your student’s right to live. All I hear is mine, mine, mine, mine. Instead of worrying about our AP Gov chapter 16 test, we have to be studying our notes to make sure that our arguments based on politics and political history are watertight. The students at this school have been having debates on guns for what feels like our entire lives. AP Gov had about three debates this year.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: She acquires a legitimated voice from an instructor and therefore, speaks to the isolated gatherings of scholars and educators, children and grown-ups, and unites them both overall. Emma is additionally giving a more ethical belief towards knowledge and experience which is increased by “studying our notes”, “debate”, and apprentices’ experience “during the shooting” which thus enables them to talk about this issue all the more extensively.”
  • 5. Passage: “I found out today there’s a website shootingtracker.com. Nothing in the title suggests that it is exclusively tracking the USA’s shootings and yet does it need to address that? Because Australia had one mass shooting in 1999 in Port Arthur (and after the) massacre introduced gun safety, it hasn’t had one since. Japan has never had a mass shooting.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: Through this passage, the tone of Emma reflects direness as she adopts a relative strategy to the United States contemporary standing contrasted with the remainder of the world. She mirrors the disgraceful certainty that occurrences of weapon viciousness have been truly positioned as a guide for the general population to monitor yet almost no preemptive procedures have been made.
  • 6. Passage: “I watched an interview this morning and noticed that one of the questions was, do you think your children will have to go through other school shooter drills? And our response is that our neighbors will not have to go through other school shooter drills.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: This section of her discourse is where Emma is delivering a source of inspiration by reacting to the inquiry “Do you think your children will have to go through other school shooter drills?”. She puts her neighbors at the focal point of their motivation as opposed to talking about her potential youngsters, accordingly, she is presenting the present as a point in a stint for rolling out a transformation for what is to come.

III. Body Paragraph 2

• A. Topic/transition sentence: The activity is built on a dream for what is to come.
  • 1. Passage: “We are going to be the kids you read about in textbooks. Not because we’re going to be another statistic about mass shootings in America, but because, just as David said, we are going to be the last mass shooting. Just like Tinker v. Des Moines, we are going to change the law. That’s going to be Marjory Stoneman Douglas in that textbook and it’s going to be due to the tireless effort of the school board, the faculty members, the family members, and most of all the students.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: In this passage, Emma constructs a relationship between the educational committee, employees, relatives, and understudies that permits children and grown-ups to outperform their disparities in an exertion to make a significant amount of transformation.
  • 2. Passage: “There is one tweet I would like to call attention to. So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities again and again. We did, time and time again. Since he was in middle school, it was no surprise to anyone who knew him to hear that he was the shooter.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: Here she focuses on the shooter, his psychological sickness, and the plan to reprimand apprentices for having ‘ ostracized him ‘. Emma has the community contemplate the role that they played whenever the shooter managed a chance to submit such vicious acts, counting NRA and the President.
  • 3. Passage: “If the President wants to come up to me and tell me to my face that it was a terrible tragedy and how it should never have happened and maintain telling us how nothing is going to be done about it, I’m going to happily ask him how much money he received from the National Rifle Association. And divided by the number of gunshot victims in the United States in the one and one-half months in 2018 alone, that comes out to be $5,800” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: She essentially dissects how much cash per individual the President gets for each casualty of weapon brutality.
  • 4. Passage: “If your money was as threatened as us, would your first thought be, how is this going to reflect on my campaign? Which should I choose? Or would you choose us, and if you answered us, will you act like it for once? Do you know what would be a good way to act like it? I have an example of how to not act like it. In February of 2017, one year ago, President Trump repealed an Obama-era regulation that would have made it easier to block the sale of firearms to people with certain mental illnesses.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: She is inferring that cash is worth more to a senator than the life of the individual. On the off chance that their cash was as undermined as the life of the individuals, at that point possibly they would pick the individuals.
  • 5. Passage: “Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa was the sole sponsor on this bill that stops the FBI from performing background checks on people adjudicated to be mentally ill and now he’s stating for the record, ‘Well, it’s a shame the FBI isn’t doing background checks on these mentally ill people.’ Well, duh. You took that opportunity away last year. The people in the government who were voted into power are lying to us. And we kids seem to be the only ones who notice and our parents to call BS.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: “We call BS” is her method of articulation through the remainder of her discourse which is an infringement of behavior. Emma’s stating such foulness is an emblematic portrayal of her position as an adolescent.

IV. Body Paragraph 3

• A. Topic/transition sentence: Then again, Kaitlin Bennett, a second alteration activist, spoke at the big pro-gun rally in Tallahassee, Florida about having no conciliatory sentiments for defending our privileges and never settling
  • 1. Passage: “So, when John asked me to speak I kind of thought what am I going to say to a crowd of people in a short amount of time that could really explain how I felt? And I just spoke to the Parkland kids about 30 minutes ago and all I have to say is that I am sick and tired of this gun control {expletive deleted} being spewed by these commies.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: Kaitlin communicates her disappointment towards the Parkland kids, whom she alludes to as socialists, and their battle for firearm control.
  • 2. Passage: “They come from emotion, and I get the emotion. But I don’t get how they completely ignore the fact that they were in a gun-free zone. Ninety-eight percent of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: Here, Kaitlin emphasizes that the Parkland children are acting exclusively out of feeling and putting full fault on the administration for what occurred at the Parkland Shooting because of it being a ‘gun-free’ precinct. This infers that on the off chance that it was anything but a weapon-free area, that brutal occasion would not have occurred.
  • 3. Passage: “And when I was talking to them, they were unapologetic about wanting to take our firearms. And they say “Oh, we’re pro-Second Amendment,” and this and that, no you’re not! Don’t come over here telling me “I’m pro-Second Amendment, we just believe in checking this or more background checks.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: Kaitlin contends that the individuals who express that they are ace second alteration however demand more be done to fit the bill to buy a gun, are not supportive of second correction and accordingly are not an aspect of a similar association as her.
  • 4. Passage: “So, going forward in our activism, and especially young people, we need to be unapologetic, because they aren’t apologizing for anything. So, we need to do the exact same, and I know it’s been said a lot up on the stage about not compromising, and it’s so true.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: Here, Kaitlin endeavors to convince her addressees, particularly her more youthful addressees, to quit settling for the easiest option for the individuals who need to remove their guns.
  • 5. Passage: “So if you’re one of those {unclear} and “I support the Second Amendment, BUT…” no you don’t! And get out.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: Correspondingly, she would not acknowledge any individual who is happy to settle. She states she needs no sort of relationship with any individual who needs to make snags for somebody to buy a gun.
  • 6. Passage: “So I know I’m speaking to the choir when I say every single gun law is an infringement, I absolutely believe that. And I know it is weird coming from a little blond girl in heels who walks around with an AR-10 on her college campus, but it is, it’s an infringement.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: Kaitlin employs the expression “speaking to the choir” as a kind of evangelizing to her addressees, presupposing that each individual from her addressees is in concurrence with her that “every single gun law is an infringement”, that is, an infringement, on her right to bring with her a gun.

V. Body Paragraph 4

• A. Topic/transition sentence: There is a need for everyone to have a rifle towards protecting themselves since the government has failed to do so
  • 1. Passage: “Every single one of you should be able to stand here right now with a fully automatic machine gun listening to me speak. I absolutely believe that.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: Kaitlin finds nothing amiss with a horde of individuals at an assembly, each holding a completely programmed automatic rifle. Truth be told, she would like it as such. She specifies she will be returning to the college with one too.
  • 2. Passage: “So the only reason I’m here today is that the only reason I got invited and all of you know who I am is because I took a picture with a gun. That’s it.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: Kaitlin presents the explanation for her invitation which includes a photo of her strolling around college conveying a rifle. In doing so, she signifies the entitlement to carry weapons on campus as well as the right for ladies to shield themselves with a gun.
  • 3. Passage: “Yet…Yet because I did exactly what liberals don’t want me to do, I went viral because of a photo. It’s that easy. So, we really need to reach out to these young people. Get out on college campuses. Do a gun rights event. Just take a picture and post it online. People will listen. And so, where I’m coming from, you know it’s important to talk to the other side and try to change their minds, except for the Parkland kids because they’re getting paid, so unless you have a bigger paycheck than George Soros, you’re not getting through to them.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: In this sect of the speech, Kaitlin is explicitly focusing on the more youthful audiences to begin a crusade besides laws enacted for apprentices to have the option to convey guns on school grounds. Nevertheless, she explains to not waste time with the scholars who went to Douglas High School because except if you are a tycoon, they would not be persuaded. She accepts to focus on the individuals who are as of now associated with her locale with a similar mentality.
  • 4. Passage: “So, you know, coming off of that, they are kind of doing half the work for us. When they threaten me, when they threaten you guys, and they say, “Oh you know you deserve to be shot. I’m going to come to your house and find you” People stalk me in restaurants and take pictures of me and say they’re going to punch me in the head.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: Kaitlin assures her crowd that she does not live in dread with the provocation that she gets. It is right around a good feeling each time somebody compromises her since it gives her and the individuals she connects herself with more ammo to utilize.
  • 5. Passage: “So I guess, I know I’m running out of time, but I guess I want to leave with the fact that on college campuses, it is absolutely normal for someone to walk around with an Antifa jacket. Absolutely normal. They want… It’s absolutely normal for communists to walk around and just display it. It is disgusting. I support their free speech, but it’s absolutely disgusting. So, what we need to normalize, what we need to be normal on college campuses is firearms.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: Kaitlin employs the case of scholars strolling around college grounds putting on Antifa coats as being typical to support gun conveyance in colleges. She contends that until guns are not endorsed in colleges, ladies would not have the option to guard themselves against conceivable rapists.
  • 6. Passage: “So if you’re one of those, “I support the Second Amendment, but…” people, please leave. Because we don’t want you here. And I don’t want you representing something to where I’m going to have to fight harder when I’m older.” (Gonzalez & Bennett, 2018)
    • a. Interpretation: As she nears the end of her speech, Kaitlin once again excuses any individual who is said to help the Second Amendment with limits. She closes the discourse with her notorious statement ‘Come and take it’ which signifies come and take her firearm, she challenges you.

VI. Conclusion

• A. Restatement of thesis: From the above discussion, it is evident that Kaitlin Bennett and Emma Gonzalez permit their crowd to concentrate on firearm laws at the counter weapon rally and are supportive of firearm rally through an able utilization of rhetoric composition and their progression of intricate circumstances.
• B. So, what? Address the wider implications of your interpretation:
  • 1. The speech by Emma Gonzalez was composed of much anguish as well as distress. However, Emma utilized her sorrow and transformed it into governmental issues, which I accept was virtuoso as well as moving. She demonstrated her focus on numerous occasions with bad-to-the-bone realities, presenting to her crowd how the administration and the President were bombing their kin.
  • 2. The speech by Emma Gonzalez was not intended to take away guns from everybody, simply taking them away from inappropriate folks. She was unable to push enough that it is so hard to be a social youngster yet very simple to purchase a weapon.
  • 3. Correspondingly, Kaitlin Bennett contended that no individual verifications be made to purchase a firearm. A gun is not the main weapon that can enable a female to shield herself from an assault.

Reference:

1. Gonzalez, E., & Bennett, K. (2018, February). To Lawmakers and Gun Advocates.

Weapon-related viciousness is brutality dedicated to the utilization of a firearm. Weapon-related savagery might be viewed as criminal. Criminal savagery incorporates murder, attack with a destructive weapon, and suicide, or endeavored suicide relying upon ward. Non-criminal savagery incorporates mishap or inadvertent damage and demise. Additionally by and large incorporated into weapon brutality measurements are military or para-military exercises. The United States of America is the second largest country in the world. America is home to 334 mass shootings this year in 2019.

75% of the universe’s 875 million firearms are regular citizen controlled. All around, millions are injured and slaughtered by the utilization of firearms. Ambush by guns brought about 180,000 passings in 2013 up to 128,000 passings in 1990. They were also 47,000 unexpected gun-related passings in 2013. Paces of fierce passing by a gun run from as low as 0.03 and 0.04 per 100,000 populace in Singapore and Japan. While in Honduras and Venezuela, it’s 59 to 67% per 100,000.

In the course of recent years, weapon brutality has ascended to the bleeding edge of open awareness. A great part of the discussion has concentrated on firearm guidelines and keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of potential executioners, especially those with dysfunctional behaviors. Sadly, far less consideration has been committed to the effect of weapon brutality on exploited people. While people executed and harmed in abominations, for example, the Sandy Hook and Aurora Theater shootings are freely recalled and grieved, casualties of these disasters are not restricted to those men, ladies, and kids slaughtered, harmed, or present during these awful occasions. The results of weapon brutality are increasingly unavoidable and influence whole networks, families, and kids. With over 25% of young people seeing a demonstration of savagery in their homes, schools, or network over the previous year, and over 5% seeing a shooting, it becomes an issue of firearm guideline, yet in addition to tending to the effect on the individuals who have been damaged by such brutality.

Many mass shootings have happened in the United States just this year. 334 shootings happened in 2019 so far it’s possible for more to happen. What causes some of these shootings? Reasons vary and it could all depend on the people. Many people say that mental illnesses are why some people commit mass shootings. According to psychiatrist specialists, mental illnesses don’t cause mass shootings. Psychiatrists say people with more mental illnesses are to be the victim of a violent crime instead of committing it. This might not be the case for some others might commit it because they really do have a mental illness. The link between mental illness and mass shootings is less than 4%.

Gun violence has many causes, another one of the causes could be gangs. Around 50% of gang members use guns. People join gangs for money, protection, and recognition. Individuals from our general public scrutinize their own kin for this savagery while they keep on kicking back and fail to address it. These demonstrations of brutality have many contributing variables. Brutality in our nation today is raising since we don’t control the appropriation of the weapons sold. There are insufficient confinements on firearms sold lawfully. The illicit acquisition of weapons through the underground market is wild. There isn’t sufficient training on the use and capacity of weapons.

As of late firearm savagery has expanded fundamentally in different pieces of the world. There are more instances of youngsters and youthful grown-ups taking part in savagery or getting trapped in the crossfire. There has been banter about whether firearm laws are exacting enough and what else should be possible to lessen such acts from happening. With more lives being influenced all the time, more concerns emerge regarding how individuals can live safe lives when firearms are being utilized in expanding numbers. It is disgraceful to state that pretty much consistently you catch wind of a type of weapon savagery influencing individuals either in your old neighborhood or in another part of the world.

There are sure pieces of the world that have just restricted firearms and comparable weapons. The issue here is individuals can in any case pirate them. Different parts of the world have specific kinds of weapons that are illicit for residents to currently possess. Wiping out firearms from the condition is only a piece of the issue. You have individuals that are not ready to discuss their issues and make a hasty judgment way too early. This means individuals blow up over easily overlooked details or something that you ought to have the option to chuckle about. At that point, you have circumstances in which somebody is compromised, however, things raise too far rapidly.

Weapon viciousness has issues on various levels including inside neighborhood networks, politically, and worldwide. It is difficult to state where enhancements have been made. A few urban areas around the globe may report a decrease in weapon movement. Others shockingly observe an expansion that has harmed their piece of the world financially and socially. It would be an ideal world on the off chance that we could settle our issues without blowing up and going to the utilization of weapons. Meanwhile, individuals keep on seeking a superior future with fewer weapons in it.

‘We’re not doing what’s needed.’ President Obama promised to utilize his capacity to check weapon viciousness after the killing of 26 individuals in Newtown Connecticut. Chicago. In the very spot where the now President filled in as senator 4,265 individuals were killed in simply the city practically indistinguishable from Operation Iraqi Freedom which endured nine years, with an aggregate of 4,422 murdered.

Introduction

An issue is that gun violence is very high in the state of Pennsylvania over recent years. In Philadelphia, the percentage of homicides from just 2017 to 2018 has gone up 12% (FOX29). Gun violence will always be a problem but private sales policy makes taking someone’s life away easier. In Pennsylvania, an unlicensed seller may only sell a handgun or short-barreled rifle or shotgun to an unlicensed purchaser at the place of business of a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer, or county sheriff’s office (Gifford’s Law Center).

Policy

Private sales is a policy that connects to gun violence. The private sales creation is unknown because no law has been passed yet. Privates sales policy with guns is that someone with no gun license can sell a gun to an unlicensed person as long as there at a licensed dealer. This soon-to-be policy will be under the state of Pennsylvania in which the law will apply to all citizens in Pennsylvania. However, it’s not a law yet so people are resulting in background checks. The purpose of the background check is the approach of ensuring that guns are not sold to prohibited people. So people take their guns to licensed dealers and they are supposed to do the background check on the buyer (Giffords Law Center). Twenty Six states require background checks at the point of transfer here are 14 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. In some of these states, background checks are only needed on handguns and assault weapons (Giffords Law Center). These quotes show how people are using loopholes to get their hands on guns. This policy is being created to make it harder for someone to get a gun.

Issue With Policy

The issue with this policy is that background checks are not always being issued. This is an issue for the policy because if the purpose of making background checks is supposed to be harder for someone to get a gun but isn’t being applied to everyone that is a reason people are going to private sellers to buy a gun. This can be fixed by making background checks harsher and stopping allowing unlicensed people to sell to another unlicensed person through a licensed dealer. An example of harsher background checks is the checking of basically everything since little kid days so like hospital records. In March 2010, John Patrick Bedell strolled up to the Pentagon and started shooting at two police officers with a semiautomatic handgun. Months before the attack, he tried to buy a gun in California but was denied, after a background check showed he had a documented history of mental illness (Chris Kirkham). This quote shows that not all states are following the background checks that add to people who shouldn’t mentally have guns in their possession being able to get a hold of a gun. This can be more effective than the original policy because it’s making the process of a background check longer and more complex making sure no mental illnesses have previously been an issue or a present issue.

Connection With Issue

The weak policy allows people to take a quick and easy way to get a gun which if someone wanted to kill somebody they can. More than a decade ago there were two students who opened fire in a classroom on their classmates they had a semiautomatic rifle, pistol, and shotguns that they got from acquaintances that went to a local gun show. The students brought the guns with cash and no background check was issued during the exchange (Chris Kirkham). This quote shows how easily the students were able to get the guns and shoot their classmates. If this policy that connects with background checks were in place the kids wouldn’t have been able to get their hands on a gun to kill their classmates and this is where gun violence takes key at. Allowing someone to get their hands on a gun faster just leads to no good and innocent people get their lives taken away. In the previous example of the man who got denied buying a gun in California due to his history of mental illness was a perfect way of doing background checks. If the people in the Pentagon had gone by the state of California’s rules of a background check then those two officers wouldn’t have gotten shot. This connection between the policy and the issue is that it’s an easier way of getting a gun due to the private sales policy that it contributes to the high amount of gun violence. It will always increase because of how fast and easy you can get a gun which is a major reason gun violence is continuously rising in Pennsylvania.

Other Side

Some people may say that the policy is fine the way it is because it’s continuing the 2nd amendment the right to bear arms. Others might say that the policy is good because they are the ones that are benefitting from the sales. An example the NRA is a prominent source that strongly agrees with people having guns because they benefit from people buying guns even the people who participate in the private sales policy will see no wrong. The ones who disagree that the process of being able to get hold of a gun easily isn’t harsh enough are the ones who probably haven’t experienced the hurt of losing a loved one due to gun violence. Earlier in the essay I mention the homicide percentage went up 12% just from the years 2017 to 2018 (FOX29). In the state of Pennsylvania, more specifically the communities of Philadelphia are suffering from the constant killings that are involved in gun violence and no change is happening. But people will always use the 2nd amendment to back up why having guns is okay but won’t acknowledge that the majority of people with guns are unlicensed, so are they really using them in the right manner?

Action

Some actions I would take to solve this problem are getting in contact with our representatives of our state or just even our districts so that they can be informed and hear our opinions and push for change in our communities, do surveys that inform people on private sales then get their opinions on the connection of the policy and gun violence, lastly is form a group of kids in Philadelphia that want to make change on gun violence where we make it known worldwide about gun violence that it get to other kids from different states to form groups as well to make change in their states. I would use these as actions because if our people in the higher power have to constantly hear about gun violence all the time and from a bunch of teenagers they will eventually have no other choice but to take action in making laws or policies on gun ownership harsher. Everyone says that we are the voices why not use them to make change?