Evaluation Essay on Women against Gun Control and Million Mom March

Introduction

The Million Women’s March was a protest that was organized on October 25, 1997. The march involved half a million people on Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The theme and purpose of the march were family and unity. The full-day march consisted of prayer, music, and inspirational speeches. Family and unity are very important and the march wanted to show that to the world. Also, they wanted to show what it means to be an African American Woman in America. It was hard being an African American woman at that time because of rights and respect. “After the civil war, black women were discriminated against because of their skin color and because they were female.” As America expanded, women of color continued to bear the double burden of racism and sexism” (Doreen Rappaport, 179). The African American women on the march wanted the overall focus to be on their circumstances, trials, achievements, and success. This sought to bring African American women together to fight for equality. In the fight for equality, black women have always been on the front lines. Although their contributions to the Civil Rights and Women’s Movements were sometimes overlooked, their strength, resilience, and courage cannot be overstated. Black women have a unique perspective on the intersection of race and gender, as well as their own experiences of oppression. The women featured in this article are linked by an intricate network of activists from several generations. This march led to African Americans having a stronger mindset and growing mentally. The research question for the extended essay is How did the Million Women’s March change the mindset of African Americans? This research question is worthy of investigation because it challenges the existing viewpoints and research of this march on African Americans and even others impacted by this movement. The Million Women’s March changed the mindset of African Americans in them having self-determination and focusing on family and unity. Important activists were involved and it impacted many African Americans as a whole.

Who was involved and who was impacted by the march

African American women were involved in the march and two important activists organized this march. Phile Chionseu and Asia Coney were the organizers of the Million Women March of 1997. These are both activists. Phile Chionesu is a grassroots activist who organized the march and she is also the chairwoman for the Million Youth March that occurred in 1998. Another important march that is well known is the Million Youth March. The Million Youth March was held by Phile Chinese and it was a peaceful crowd of about 2,000 people that turned out Saturday for the Million Youth March, a controversial march and rally that ended with violence a year ago. Many African Americans looked up to the words of the Chinese. “The success of the march will depend on all of the black women who attend. Something had to happen for black women” (Phile Chinese). The other activist that organized this march is Asia Coney even though she was not well known she was asked to work on the march with Chionseu. Asia Coney has social media to connect with others and is still helping out in the community. She is president of the Resident Advisory Board. The Resident Advisory Board supplies the residents and the PHA with a forum for sharing information about the Agency’s Annual Plan. Specifically, African American women and teenage girls were impacted greatly by the march. Much research has shown that 94 of 1,000 African American teenage girls are victims of violent crime. The purpose and mission of the march were for them to have self-determination. Self-determination is the process by which a person controls their own life. The Million Women March was formed in response to the male-only march, the 1997 women-focused event was developed by a team of Philadelphian women. The march was day-long and the program was full of prayer and music and speeches. People still attended the march despite the cold temperature and the light rain that occurred this October. The people wanted to show this important event and support it. The supporters had flags, hats, and buttons with their march logo to show their support. This march changed the mindset of African American women completely. It helped them come together and share their voice and know about their worth. “This is going to be a historical event,”(Wessita McKinley). Wessita McKinely is the spokeswoman for the Washington-Virginia-Maryland organization, to The Associated Press. “They’re just coming to support their sisters, to see what they can do as a collective effort to better ourselves, our race, our families, and our country.”(Wessita McKinely). The attendees of the march knew that it was going to make a big impact and change the lives of many from just seeing the number of people that were there and spreading the word. To give a brief overview of the event of the march, in 1997, two local grassroots activists, Phile Chioneu and Asia Coney, had the bright idea to organize a march to bring attention to the good, the bad, and the ugly issues that black women were facing at the time. The issues that they believed were ignored by mainstream women’s organizations. It was a rainy Saturday, and the march was a day-long event that included multiple speeches, performances, and other things by local community organizers and civil rights activists. Now going into the keynote speakers of the march. The first of many keynote speakers, Representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat who is president of the Congressional Black Caucus spoke on one of her favorite subjects, the proliferation of drugs in America’s inner cities. The second featured speaker was Winnie Madikizela-Mandela. She spoke for 20 minutes on the shared history of African and American women. She pays attention to the need to ”conquer the avarice of globalization that threatens our forests, our water and our flora and fauna.”(Winnie Madikizela-Mandela.)

Why did this march occur in importance?

But Despite having little star power or preparation, the small idea grew into a massive event. “It drew hundreds of thousands of women to Philadelphia, with estimates ranging from 500,000 to 2.1 million”(Jones, Ashley). They marched from the Liberty Bell to the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Despite its unexpected success, the event did not make headlines again until recently, when a grandmother from Hawaii decided to create the Million Dollar Mile. Despite its random success, the event did not come back until recently, when the grandmother from Hawaii decided to organize the Million Woman March in Washington, D.C. the day after the Inauguration. After some complained that the name deviated from the original event in Philadelphia, organizers changed the name of this year’s protest march to the Women’s March on Washington. The original Million Woman March took over Philadelphia’s streets 20 years ago. The million women’s March from 2017 was well known more than the million women’s March from 1997 that this paper is based on. This march is more of a community action to achieve a certain goal. The 2017 women’s march is based on a political action that took place and the women held a march to state their opinion. A million women’s March was a march based on women stating their opinion on a matter. This march focuses on African American matters such as being an African American woman in the 1990s. However, history may repeat itself on Saturday, January 21, when an estimated 20,000 people marched down the Benjamin Franklin Parkway to fight for women’s rights. The march has great importance in history. March protest is a type of protest or demonstration that generally involves a group of people walking from an assembly point to a destination, usually culminating in a political rally, and often evoking a military march or parade. “The march was envisioned and intended to help bring social and economic development and power throughout the black communities of the United States, as well as to bring hope, empowerment, unity, and sisterhood to women, men, and children of African descent globally regardless of nationality, religion, or economic status”(The New York Times). The march was meant to have a positive impact on everyone in the black community and for them to showcase their power. Unity was one of the main keywords for the march. Unity is the state of being united or joined as a whole. The march was not just a gathering of black women, it was much more. “ Their common goal was the rebuilding of black communities. Chionesu and Coney hoped the march would counteract negative images of African American women in popular culture and the media.”( Black Past) Several important people attended the march including Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, former wife of South African President Nelson Mandela, and California Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Their common goal was the rebuilding of black communities, and having self-empowerment and self-pride. Many people said great things about the march including ”It’s exhilarating,” (Laceilia Scott), a 50-year-old secretary from Baltimore County in Maryland. Based on the New York Times, “The rally brought together women from across the country, some wearing jeans and sweatshirts.

General Aim

It was to bring all African American women together to address issues they have and things that interest them. It allowed everyone to take part and share their voice on the issues. Some of these issues included the economic deterioration of African American communities, the importance of nurturing young children in a positive environment, finding a collective voice in politics and the civil rights movement, and strengthening black families. It was important to spread the message about this march to everyone so the people relied on each other, flyers, mainstream media, articles, black-run media, the internet, and their mouths to spread the word. The leaders of the march Chionesu and Coney hoped the march would counteract negative images of African American women in popular culture and the media. Reflecting on the Million Man March, a well-known march that happened two years earlier than the Million Women March. The Million Women’s March did not rely on big names or the celebrities of the civil rights movement to fuel attendance. The march was a success and has been considered a ”social phenomenon” due to the way it was organized and how the women came together. ”The Million Women March continues to inspire African-American women across the nation to work for their improvement as well as that of their communities” (Phile Chinese). They wanted to send a message to the world, “send a bold message to our new administration on their first day in office, and to the world that women’s rights are human rights,”. The general aim for the march was unity and family because it is important for people to stick together especially if they have the same opinions and thoughts of something. The march’s aim is to demonstrate gender equality, civil rights, and other challenges faced. The march was sought and intended to help bring social development, even economic development, and power throughout the black communities of the United States, as well as to bring hope, empowerment, unity, and sisterhood to women, men, and children of African descent globally regardless of nationality, religion, or economic status.

My thoughts and why I choose this topic

When we were asked to choose a subject for this extended essay. The topic of History came to mind because it is interesting to learn about the past and what happened during past periods. Learning about African American history and what African American women had to go through. In the past, African Americans struggled to let their voices be heard so they used community action to help with that. Such as protests and rallies. Specifically, they used protests, rallies, and marches to connect with others and share their opinions. I am very interested in African American history and the marches so that’s why the Million Women March came to mind. Marches have a big importance and they are to achieve specific goals. Protest marches have a big impact on the community and they work. African American rights and marches go back into history, After the civil war, black women were discriminated against because of their skin color and because they were female. Ida B. Wells was one of a growing number of black southern professionals, who experienced Reconstruction’s failure to equalize opportunities for blacks, and saw the gradual person of her people’s hard-won liberty. She fought against the growth of Jim Crow Laws, Jim Crow Laws promoting segregation by race on public transportation and in schools, public facilities, and restaurants. Choosing to focus on this specific march because, at the time in Philadelphia, this was one of the largest gatherings of women. The march was seen on C-Span news and the organizer Phile Chionseu was seen giving inspirational speeches. Many recordings of the march were shared on media platforms and articles. Many famous African Americans and activists showed up and took part in the march. Despite having only a few months to carry out their plan, many influential Black women attended, including U.S. Representative Maxine Waters, activist and writer Sista Souljah, Jada Pinkett Smith, and Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Nelson Mandela’s former wife. The women held up signs that stated “Black is Beautiful”, “The black man is awake”, and more. Organizers are correlating their mission with the faces of the African Union – an organization of African nations and interested parties dedicated to advancing the agenda of African people and who are planning a women’s empowerment action plan. Chionesu explained, ‘So what we’re about to present is not something we want to be looked at for one day,'(Phile Chionesu). So she wanted this march to continue to spread after one day. The weekend would include a Declaration of Violations rally on Friday at 5th and at Market Street — a ‘speak out’ protest to draw attention to human rights violations against black women throughout the diaspora throughout history. It is interesting to see what African Americans went through in the 1990s and the change that is happening around the world. Looking at the images it shows that say “Black is Beautiful”, My Black Is Beautiful was created to celebrate and uplift Black culture, but also to challenge the biases associated with Black culture. From the images, the signs also say “Your rise is our rise ”,“ The black man is wide awake”, and “ Rise up woman ”. There were many people there and many African American women sharing their feelings through speeches, music, and sayings.

Overall Reflection on the March

In conclusion, the Million Women’s March changed the mindset of African Americans greatly. It encouraged them to be self-empowered and self-determined. The march was focused on African American women but other races were involved and supported the marches. Overall the purpose of this march was for the family and unity of the black community so they can all come together and share their thoughts. Marches are a way to show community action on a topic or thing. Nearly two decades before, the Million Women’s March continues to inspire African-American women across the nation for them to work for their own improvement as well as that of their communities. A million women march focused on the discrimination and how badly African American women were treated in the 1900s. It is important to hear the thoughts of the black community and marches are a good way to show the thoughts. The march’s mission was to bring attention to African American women and their voices. This march was seen in many articles including “The New York Times” and articles from Philadelphia. It had gotten a lot of attention. Marches have a huge impact and get lots of attention from many. Other speakers stated that the march would only have a long-term impact if everyone went home and worked in their own communities. ‘This will all be for naught if you return to your communities and do not get involved if you do not put petty jealousies aside if you do not continue to organize and mobilize,’ (Leona Smith), the president of the National Union of Homeless. This day will be meaningless.’ Overall many will say this march from 1997 was a success and changed the mindset of many to this day. (Phile Chinese). “The way this is designed, we will literally be doing various kinds of activities and events for the entire year.” This time, organizers are planning their mission with the heads of the African Union. The African Union is an organization of African nations and stakeholders dedicated to advancing the agenda of African people planning a women’s empowerment agenda for 2020. ‘So what we’re about to present isn’t something we want to be looked at for one day,’ The Million Woman March reunion is set to take place on a Sunday, beginning at 5th and Market Street, in front of the President’s House memorial. Marchers will make their way to Washington Square, also known as ‘Congo Square,’ where Africans were held and sold as slaves during the colonial era. This march will continue to bless the hearts of many and for people to see the growth of community action. Women’s marches have been going back for decades but this march stands out because so many people attended and it was one of the well-known African American marches. The Million Women’s March changed the mindset of African Americans as a whole. It encouraged them to be self-empowered and self-determined. The march was very significant and had lots of positive feedback from the people that were at the march and the people that had witnessed it. During that time in the Philadelphia news articles, a million Women march was everywhere and was popular. Many say that It was formed in response to the million man march which was a male-only march. Every woman gathered for this day-long march to show their support. Many saw how important this women’s march is for history and for black women to state what they felt was wrong with society. They sought the sign of unity which we needed to say “Chicagoan Deborah Echols ”.

The power of the Million Man March concept has been duplicated countless times in America and around the globe “Yet in Philadelphia, a small committee of unknown women activists brought together Black women to address the pressing issues of interest to them”.

Informative Essay on Gun Safety

What’s the Problem? What do we know about it?

In the United States, situations are arising where children are being killed by guns either accidentally or by a school shooting. This creates concern among Americans about the safety of their youth. With these concerns, comes much debate over solutions. One possible solution that is largely debated over is gun control and whether or not it truly serves its purpose: reducing the amount of gun violence. It attempts to do so by introducing restrictions on gun manufacturers, gun possession, and gun sales and has even attempted to ban firearms altogether. This is done in order to deter people from purchasing more guns and reduce the number of firearms in society. With the reduction of firearms, there should have also been a reduction in gun deaths, especially among children. Instead, in response to increasing gun control, there are significant increases in gun sales. This occurred in California in response to more gun control. “Gun sales have surged in recent years, driven by sales of both handguns and long guns…long gun sales increased 75% and handgun sales increased 30% (probably in anticipation of the passage of several California gun regulation laws)…In 2016 more than 1.3 million guns were sold in California, reaching an all-time peak” (State of California Department of Justice). This means that the amount of guns in society increases, instead of decreases, increasing the possibility of a child being exposed to a gun. The reason for this increase is because of the second problem gun control faces: the consistent worry from the public that gun control is a threat to their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Along with specific restrictions made to firearms, there has also been talk of banning all firearms. Although the public agrees that something should be done to ensure the safety of our children, the talk of banning firearms creates panic among the public. In response, there is opposition to gun control out of fear that it would lead to the removal of the Second Amendment. This inevitably led to debate over what the Second Amendment actually protects. “The crux of the debate is whether the amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units” (History). However, the Supreme Court addressed this dilemma, where they held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home (District of Columbia v. Heller). With this decision, it is ensured that the right of the people to bear arms should not be infringed. This makes it extremely difficult to attempt to decrease the number of guns in the United States, especially if Americans will only buy more every time new gun control policies are introduced. A policy must be introduced that not only prevents gun violence but reassures the public that their Second Amendment right is not under attack. This can be done by, instead of directing our attention to firearms specifically, rather we should focus on gun safety.

What are the Solutions?

Instead of further Gun Control policies, we should introduce more Child Access Prevention policies and Gun Safety policies. These policies will propose two new requirements that could aid in preventing gun violence. Under the Child Access Prevention policy, it would extend background checks to not only check the owner of the firearm but to check the children living in the home of the owner as well. If there is a child in the home or a child that has a registered mental illness, the owner is required to have a specific safe to store the firearm. In order to ensure that gun owners are not restricted from their right to bear arms just because they cannot afford the specific safe, these gun owners will be offered discounts in order to purchase the safe. These discounts will be funded by taxpayers.

The Gun Safety policy would require public schools to have Gun Safety classes. These classes would educate children and young adults on how to safely handle a gun and the consequences of pulling the trigger. This would not require children to interact with a gun in any way.

Are they Effective?

Child Access Prevention policies have been a major topic for discussion for quite some time and have shown to be very effective. “Numerous studies over the past 20 years have found that child access prevention laws can reduce suicide and unintentional gun deaths and injuries among children and teens by up to 54%, with the greatest reductions occurring in states which require safe storage of firearms” (Giffords Law Center). Child Access Prevention laws are very effective in preventing children from having access to a firearm. And with the new policy that is being introduced, will also address homes with children that have specific mental illnesses as well. After the past school shootings that occurred in the United States, it was discovered that some of the shooters had significant psychological issues that were ignored. If steps were taken in order to prevent them from obtaining a firearm from the home, these shootings could have been prevented. It would also shine a light for the parents onto their children, in order for them to notice and address the issues their child is dealing with. This new policy would require these gun owners who have children in the home, especially children with specific mental illnesses, to have a proper gun safe that denies them access. The technology of safes is becoming more and more advanced as time goes on. Today, gun owners can purchase safes that require fingerprints only in order to have access. And these kinds of safes run in a variety of sizes from a small case that carries only one gun to a large safe that carries a numerous amount. So gun owners are not required to buy a large safe in order to have a firearm in the home. However, if a gun owner can not afford the gun safe, they could be offered a discount for the safe so that they can still ensure the safety of their child and still practice their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The Gun Safety policy is a policy that would introduce a Gun Safety class in schools in order to educate children on firearms. This policy is not new, as schools across the country are also introducing these kinds of classes in their schools as well. One example would be how a hunter’s safety course is being introduced in two middle schools in Butler County, Iowa. “The week-long training program will train students on a variety of survival skills, including gun safety…” (Fox News). The reason for this is that, even with gun control policies, the number of guns being introduced into society is still increasing. This increases the chances of a child coming into contact with a gun once or twice in their life. And if this were to occur, it would be better for the child to understand just what they are dealing with, and not treat the firearm as if it is a toy. “The bottom line is: kids who are unfamiliar with guns are more likely to play with them and pull the trigger, potentially injuring themselves or others. But those who grow up with guns or who are trained in firearms safety, get it. They are better prepared. They may not know everything there is to know, but they’ve been exposed to it enough to respect firearms and to be cautious and careful. And that’s exactly the kind of safe, responsible citizens our country needs” (USCCA). However, not only would it educate students on how to be safe and report to an adult if they ever encounter a firearm, but it would also offer help to children who have been going through bullying or depression.

Essay on Republican View on Gun Control

In the words of the famous artist, Nas, “How do you like me now? I go below it’s that thing that moves crowds making every ghetto foul, I might have taken your first child, scarred your life, crippled your style, I gave you power, and made you buck wild.” (I gave you power) When you first read that line, you might be looking confused as to what Nas could possibly be talking about, but there is something that is plaguing this country and that’s gun violence. It is unfortunate that gun violence has become ingrained into America’s culture and that the alarming numbers continue to rise with frightening regularity. Gun violence has evolved from simple unfortunate shootings to school/public mass shootings, and time and time again we as a country mourn the dead, talk about creating change, and then go silent. This is a cycle that needs to be broken and done away with if we are actually serious about making an attempt to heal the scars that guns have placed on this country. Gun ownership in the United States is rooted in the Second Amendment of the Constitution: “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.” In hindsight, I wonder if this was something that the forefathers of our country had envisioned, and just like it all started with the leaders of the country, it is up to Congress to get even more serious about creating a society and culture of peace. The issue of how to strike a balance between gun rights and public safety has been a political hot potato for years, and one that Congress has dealt with gingerly, if at all.

In 2018, there was at least one mass shooting a month, more than 20 overall. Reading that you should have jumped back and thought wow really? The deadliest mass shooting so far has occurred in October 2017 at a Las Vegas music festival, resulting in the deaths of 58 concertgoers and injuring hundreds more. Just about 16 months before that, a gunman armed with a handgun and a semi-automatic rifle murdered 49 people and injured 58 at an Orlando nightclub in what was then the country’s worst mass shooting. And with each new mass shooting from Columbine to Sandy Hook; Fort Hood to Virginia Tech, the heated conversation over gun control continues to be discussed. So the question becomes what is taking Congress so long to bring change? After the pain and grief that was caused by the San Bernardino incident, the next day, the Senate rejected a proposed bill to “tighten background check requirements” just like they did in the Sandy Hook shooting. One small gun control measure undertaken by the Trump administration was the banning of bump stocks, a tool that allows semi-automatic rifles to fire as fast as automatics, after the Las Vegas shooting. The ban, which took effect in March, requires existing bump stocks to be turned in to the government or destroyed. Republicans generally oppose any type of gun control legislation, where only four of 54 Senate Republicans voted in favor of the 2015 background check bill. A quick look at history, that the only major acts to be passed by the government in regard to gun control were the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act. In 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act (NFA) in reaction to growing gang violence throughout the 1920s. The act taxed the sale and manufacture of a variety of guns, which were often used in criminal activity. Due to legal discrepancies, Congress decided to pass the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was a U.S. federal law that regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers. President Donald Trump has repeatedly pledged to protect Second Amendment rights and often warns gun owners that their Second Amendment rights are “under assault.” In an April speech to NRA members, Trump announced he would not ratify America’s participation in the international arms trade treaty, which would provide some international oversight on arms sales. In opposition to the Republicans, the newly democratic-controlled house has made passing gun control legislation a priority. So far, the House passed two measures with some bipartisan support that strengthen and expand the background check process. The house also passed a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, opposed by the NRA because of the bill’s measure that seeks to prevent domestic abusers from obtaining guns. In June 2016, democrats mounted a successful filibuster that forced Senate Republicans to vote on four gun control proposals none of which passed. The last major piece of gun control legislation to make it into law was the assault weapons ban, passed in 1994 as part of a larger crime-related bill approved by Congress and signed by then-president Bill Clinton. But the ban, which applied to the manufacture of 19 specific models of semi-automatic firearms and other guns with similar features, expired in 2004, and repeated attempts to renew it failed. You see the main problem is that Congress is forgetting the number one rule when it comes to public administration and working in government, which is, it is all about the well-being of the people. Instead of including and engaging with the public, they do not keep the public in mind and in simple terms, selfish.

Since the gun control acts that we have in place are not doing the job, I wanted to propose other possible alternatives that Congress can follow in order to ensure a safer world for the people. Step one would be to increase and make stricter background checks, ensuring that no criminals or anyone with a mental discrepancy are allowed to have a gun, even someone with a history of violence. Step two would be to create a policy that bans military-style assault weapons while limiting ammunition capacity. A ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines might also make some difference to the lethality of mass shootings. “The best rough estimate for a long-term impact of the ban, researcher Chris Koper suggested, might be a 1% reduction in shootings, or 650 fewer people shot per year.” (Beckett) from a public health perspective, even a marginal reduction would be worth it. Getting these militarized weapons off of the street and decreasing the amount of ammunition will significantly reduce the harm done. Lastly, I would create a ceasefire program. Gun violence usually has the highest ratings in economically struggling neighborhoods, and the only way to end the violence is by simply communicating and bridging the gap between the community and law enforcement. “This’ ‘ceasefire or focused deterrence” strategy, first launched in Boston in 1996, requires coordination between police departments, prosecutors and community members in the neighborhoods most affected by violence.” (Ashcroft) While bridging the gap, not only are you portraying public participation, but as the leaders of the community, you are showing them that you care and want to engage with them positively. As a result of this, not only do you build trust with the community but hopefully gun violence will decrease as well.

No one really cares about gun violence until it actually happens to them or to someone they care about. Can you imagine staring into the eyes of your loved one as their soul leaves their body? Can you imagine saying “Bye honey, I can’t wait for dinner tonight”, and not thinking they would miss their last supper no pun intended. Congress needs to remember that its job is to serve the people and take accountability for many of the deaths and mass shootings in the world. How can the government be concerned about serving the public, if the public is too busy serving tears and flowers at funerals? It is time for Congress to step up and take the initiative to be more serious about gun control to protect our country and with some of those mentioned alternatives we can push for that change. The future belongs to those who prepare for it today and that is essential in this case where it is imperative for Congress to be proactive, rather than reactive.

Gun Control Thesis Statement

Gun control is a very popular topic in today’s media. Webster’s dictionary defines gun control as the “regulation of selling, owning, and use of guns”. Gun control has recently become a major topic of discussion around the United States because of the recent increase in mass shootings. People are outraged that citizens, such as people with mental illnesses, are capable of getting their hands on an automatic weapon with little to no resistance. Sometimes the public is misled by statistics presented by the media. Therefore, the current gun regulations should be upheld.

The background of gun control is important for one to understand. The first step at regulating guns from the executive branch of government came from President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He passed gun legislation imposing a tax on the purchase, making, and transportation of all firearms and attachments. This was the very first attempt to decrease gun violence by creating laws to make it harder to obtain such weapons. The legislation set laws that the United States still uses today. Another example of executive action on gun control would be President Bush’s ban on imported semi-automatic rifles in 1989. Bush’s ban would help create more strict laws attempting to regulate the distribution of guns. These regulations were the stepping stones to what gun regulation is known as today.

As time went on, gun control became a more popular topic to discuss. The Logic Of American Politics, says that “in the court case of District of Columbia v. Heller, it was decided that the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, was not a group right but rather an individual right” (308). People have a choice on whether to own a gun or not. According to a New York Times article, it states that “With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases’”. This quote, in response to the proposition of the Brady Bill, implies that with guns comes strict conduct. This bill required a 5-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun in order for law enforcement to do a background check. Support from a lifetime NRA member and a former president was enough to get the Brady Bill passed. The bill was eventually put into commission and eventually passed by former president Bill Clinton. The passing of the law became one of the most important changes to gun control since the creation of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Guns are not the major problem that is hurting the United States. If we had better control of the problems people have that lead them to suicide or commit crimes, we could change the amount of gun violence happening. According to Pew Research, 30% of all Americans own guns. Although everyone owns a gun for different reasons, the majority of people who own a firearm own it for protection or self-defense. If you look at Australia, a country that has gotten rid of guns completely, the numbers of knife-related violence have skyrocketed. Australia is the perfect example of how taking away legal guns does not equal less crime. Another statement from Pew Research states that “six in ten gun-related deaths in the United States in 2017 were suicides and 37% of gun deaths came from crime”. Guns are not the problem we should be worrying about. We need to find more efficient ways to help people who are hurting before they have to take that extra step.

Another problem with the statistics about gun control is the fact that they are easily manipulated by the media. When many people see newspapers or articles with the word gun included, they come to the conclusion that guns need stricter laws. The media does a great way of portraying all the negatives guns have. According to Pew Research, 30% of all Americans own guns. Although everyone owns a gun for different reasons, the majority of people who own a firearm own it for protection or self-defense. Police officers have saved multiple people from dying by using their guns. They use their weapons to protect Americans from the crummy people in our country. Taking away guns will not necessarily reduce the amount of crime committed, but it will reduce the number of people capable of deterring those criminals. Furthermore, stricter gun laws would increase the amount of crime committed.

According to PBS, the United States is ranked 20th in gun violence in developed countries. This includes suicides and accidental misfires along with homicides and mass shootings. With this information, the people of the United States want stricter laws on guns. However, the Second Amendment of the Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms, making the order of gun control unconstitutional. The Constitution is just and has been the building block for America since its creation. The right to bear arms should not be altered because of the problems our society is causing itself. We need to come up with an alternative way to fix these problems instead of banning guns from people.

In conclusion, the gun regulations we have now should not be modified. The United States has been using these gun laws for hundreds of years and the problems we’re having now can be mended by different methods. We can get people more help before using a gun for suicide is the answer. Guns help protect our country and our citizens and without them, the United States could be in danger. Gun laws in America should be upheld and sustained.

Works Cited

  1. Bartels, L. (2019, March 6). Knife crime: Recent data on carriage and use. Retrieved from https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi417.
  2. Gramlich, J., & Schaeffer, K. (2019, October 22). 7 facts about guns in the U.S.
  3. Holmes, S. A. (1991, March 29). GUN CONTROL BILL BACKED BY REAGAN IN APPEAL TO BUSH. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/us/gun-control-bill-backed-by-reagan-in-appeal-to-bush.html.
  4. Kaplan, S. (2018, March 12). Congress Quashed Research Into Gun Violence. Since then, 600,000 People Have Been Shot. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/health/gun-violence-research-cdc.html.
  5. NRA Foundation. (n.d.). NRA Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.nrafoundation.org/about-us/.
  6. Santhanam, L. (2018, August 28). There’s a new global ranking of gun deaths. Here’s where the U.S. stands. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands.

Exemplification Essay on Guns Save Lives

Guns are the things that we humans see but don’t do anything to stop it but show sadness. “There are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rappers, haters, campus killers, airport killers … I ask you: do you trust the government to protect you”? “LaPierre, Wayne (Executive Vice President and CEO).” NRA On the Record, 24 May 2016, http://nraontherecord.org/wayne-lapierre/. Another big cause of gun violence is Racism a big controversial topic going on worldwide that causes people of different ethnicities to cause harm to each other because of skin color or different ways people do things.

Gun control has affected many lives across the U.S. and in other countries. Gun control has many more problems than what it’s shown as on the helpful side of carrying a gun. The U.S. has had over 21 mass shootings in 2019 this year and there was nothing but devastation. This is the inadequate side of gun control the side that people see but tend to not show interest in. For example, the mass shooting in Florida at Stoneman Douglas High School killed 17 and injured 17 but still no change in the government’s firearm policy. “We need you and your colleagues on both sides to come together with us and find compromise if we are ever to solve this epidemic that is plaguing our country.” “Chris Grady, 19 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School senior”. The list of things that are slowly hurting families and causing centuries of depression for our nation is nowhere to be solved because of lack of involvement until one of their own is put in one of these situations causing a threat to their family.

Gun control has negative effects but can be helpful in the hands of someone who is trying to use it for safe purposes like protection. We can just say that gun control is negative when we haven’t introduced the positive things that have happened from someone being able to carry a firearm. For instance, a father uses his concealed handgun to stop a mass shooting in a McDonald’s in Alabama and a man uses his gun to stop a racist gunman outside a Kentucky Kroger. Pratt, Erich. “Gun Owners of America: Guns Save Lives Every Day.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 5 Aug. 2019, https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/05/gun-owners-america-guns-save-lives-every-day-editorials-debates/1916643001/. The good things are what people forget about when bad things happen, so they tend to only focus on the negative aspect of the concept of gun control and let the good side fly out their heads like it never happened. Cases allowing kids or some people who aren’t in their right mind to get a hold of a gun and cause mass destruction to their self or too many people aren’t that person’s fault but the license holder of the gun’s fault for not keeping their gun up and away from certain kids or people that aren’t posted to be near firearms.

In conclusion, guns are an unsafe thing to be around at the end of the day and a bad thing to use to deal with something. You the reader need to take a stand now before something bad happens where you get in trouble or you hold the gun putting someone else’s life in trouble. Do you think you are in a safe world?

Gun Violence Research Proposal Essay

Analytical Research Paper Proposal

Moms Demand Action, a grassroots movement of moms, released a gun control public service announcement in April 2013. The PSA was published five days before the Senate voted on nine gun control reforms. Moms Demand Action draws attention throughout the use of school children in their PSA. The two children are placed in the middle of the PSA and are kept at the focus. One of them is a boy holding a Kinder Surprise Egg while the other child, a girl, is holding an assault weapon in her hands. From the dark background, a bright light is illuminating them which automatically directs the audience to pay attention to the sad looks on children. Probably by just looking at those innocent kids, this PSA is strong but there is a small detail hidden inside the text and the image that makes this PSA more effective in its purpose. At the top of the image is stated that “One child is holding something that’s been banned in America to protect them. Guess which one.” “Guess which one” is written in red font compared to the white font used for the rest of the image. By analyzing the red font, the audience is not only dragged to think about which object is forbidden, the Kinder Surprise Egg or the gun, but it could also be making a correlation to blood. Through it, Moms Demand Action campaign is making parents or every American citizen that children having access to assault weapons could end in blood. Now if we see again the children, the boy holding a Kinder Egg is wearing a red shirt which symbolizes that the boy might be a possible victim of gun violence.

Moms Demand Action’s powerful and successful PSA on gun control utilizes ethos, pathos, and logos and seizes the opportunity to highlight the absurdity of gun laws in the US through the juxtaposition of lenient gun laws and over-protective American parenting. Seeing a little girl with her finger on the trigger of an assault weapon would quickly grab the parents’ attention because it is an extremely disturbing sight to see. A parent would want to make sure that this would never become a reality. Parents do not want to see their children in possession of a deadly weapon. The pathos appeal is very apparent throughout this advertisement. The piece is aimed and tugging at the heartstrings of parents and guardians who want their children to be safe.

Furthermore, by incorporating a logical view into the argument, the audience is persuaded through the use of facts and logical reasoning. Moms Demand Action incorporates logos into this advertisement by appealing to the audience’s sense of logical reasoning. What sense does it make for a small chocolate egg to be banned while it is perfectly acceptable for large assault weapons to be accessible to children? If a child’s safety is so important that we, as a society, ban chocolate why aren’t other numerously irrational objects banned? The PSA gives the impression that it is easier for children to get their hands on dangerous assault weapons, but they are nowhere near allowed to get their hands on a piece of chocolate. These questions arise in the audience’s mind after viewing the text. Why aren’t assault weapons banned if these meaningless objects are banned? What sense does that make for the safety of the youth of America?

Through various rhetorical tools and the careful incorporation of text and images in this PSA, it persuades society to reconsider its priorities regarding children’s safety and as a community, we need to do something to prevent our children from being hurt. This ad sends out a powerful message and the compelling need to reform gun laws to protect the lives of our families.

Gun Control Persuasive Speech

United States politics are constantly changing over time. Initiatives and referendums are processed and are underway frequently. These allow citizens of the United States to place new legislation on a popular ballot, or a ballot that was previously passed by a legislature for popular vote. For Americans to vote directly on legislation, allows people to feel a sense of freedom and like their opinions matter. People like to be able to fight for what they believe in, and when they do many others speak up and will follow. Gun control today has become a huge part of American society and a very hard criminal justice policy reform to agree upon.

Result of the many school shootings that have taken place in the last few years, there has been a push for stricter gun control laws. Many people don’t feel safe in today’s society. The government has been listening to the people and has already passed some laws. There are some people who are opposed to stricter gun control laws. Many gun enthusiasts don’t believe that gun control laws will resolve the problem. They claim that only law-abiding citizens would obey the laws – and they aren’t the ones creating the problem (Ausman & Faria, 2019). This group presents some good arguments for eliminating current gun control laws.

One of the main arguments that anti-gun control groups make is that they have a constitutional right to own guns. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that all American citizens have the right to bear arms (Ausman & Faria, 2019). There are many people who think that guns should be banned altogether. According to the constitution, this can’t be done. All people have the right to own a gun if they want to. If the people are given this right by the Constitution, then this right can’t be denied.

The government hasn’t gone so far as to ban guns completely yet, but they have started to pass some laws aimed at controlling guns. One thing that they have done is to require a waiting period and a background check before people can buy a handgun (Ballotpedia, 2017). Gun dealers use a computerized instant check system to perform background checks (Ballotpedia, 2017). Information often gets lost leading to courts lacking specific information on a criminal, which makes these background checks not efficient enough.

Another thing that the government is considering is mandatory gun locks. They claim that gun locks would reduce accidental shootings, especially for young children. Gun enthusiasts don’t think this would be the case. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 1996, there were only 44 accidental gun-related deaths for children under the age of ten (National Center for Health Statistics, 1997). There are about 80 million gun owners in the U.S. The fact that there are so many gun owners in the U.S. and so few accidental deaths would suggest that the vast majority of gun owners are extremely careful with their guns anyway (National Center for Health Statistics, 1997).

Personally, I do not agree with having no gun control in America. I think that gun control is needed in today’s society. Crime has gotten out of hand in this country. It is far too easy for criminals to obtain guns. We need to place some restrictions on the purchase and ownership of guns. If we just put more effort into gun control, we can really make a difference. There are many arguments about why gun control is a good thing.

School shootings have really opened people’s eyes to the need for gun control laws. If people can’t feel safe in school or in the workplace, then there is a serious problem. At this point in time, the vast majority of Americans favor stricter gun control laws. The United States is a democracy, which means government by the people, for the people. If the majority of people in this country want more gun control, they should get it.

The government has already instituted some gun control laws. These laws include waiting periods, background checks, harsher penalties for committing a crime with a gun, and increased restrictions on dealers. These laws have had some positive consequences. According to Planty and Truman, the murder rate in the U.S. dropped 7% in the past year (Planty & Truman, 2013). Most of this drop is due to a decrease in murders involving firearms. Also, fewer guns were used in robberies, which were down 10% (Planty & Truman, 2013). In 1994, the federal government passed the Brady Bill. This bill restricts gun purchases and requires a background check for all potential gun buyers (Planty & Truman, 2013). Since it took effect, as many as 300,000 gun sales have been denied (Planty & Truman, 2013). The fact that these laws have had a positive effect shows that the government is on the right track by enacting gun control laws.

To close, one of the most inspiring things I’ve seen so far was The March for Our Lives Movement. This march was 100% a student-led demonstration. Kids across America came together to march for their falling classmates or peers. This movement caught the eye of the mainstream media and the public eye. Children today are protesting for stricter gun laws and legislation is finally listening and creating potential laws to prevent gun violence in the United States. As I said before, United States politics are constantly changing, and these initiatives and referendums will change the future of gun control. The laws are not only in the government’s hands, now Americans are listening to our youth.

Should There Be Stricter Gun Control Laws Essay

Currently, gun control has developed into a topic of controversy. In today’s society, shootings have turned into the new norm, and shootings are occurring every month. It looks like guns have turned into a critical issue, or is it something else? There is a continuous situation of conflict, political crisis, attacks, and personal threats. All of these factors affirm that a person should have access to the resources that can ensure his or her safety. On the same platforms, the people who think that all the conflicts and issues in this world are due to the fact that humans are given the chance to practice security attempts themselves and it has made them too free to be afraid of killing others. Gun control is a two-folded topic, each with a thought-provoking assertion, which has made this issue unresolved even in the century of the most advanced departments of knowledge, thinking, and industrialization.

Certain crimes like mass shootings can be kept from happening in several means.

Gun control is one of the most sensitive and controversial topics that is being discussed occasionally. Unfortunately, the aspects of this topic are too wide to collect, and every time this topic is left undiscussed and unanswered. Nowadays, many of the people think that gun control should be limited. The underlying meaning of this statement is found in the lines of the US Constitution, which says, “In order to form a perfect union of people, with established justice that can ensure domestic tranquility and provide common defense, the blessing of prosperity and liberty needs to be secured as it can bring prosperity” (Luca et al.). It is not just a quote but a matter of fact that is demonstrated as well as an answer to everyone trying to understand guns and why their control should be limited.

In addition to this, there is a concept that it is not the people but the motivation to kill people that makes violence occur. As per this logic, it is affirmed that, without guns, fewer shootings will exist, taking into consideration that humankind will have to plan long and complicated instead of buying a gun and killing the culprit within four to five minutes. In order to know what can be done, if there were another mass shooting, we should look at the evidence we have on the effects of gun regulations. “Guns kill more than 38,000 people per year and cause approximately 85,000 non-fatal injuries” (Kevin Loria). Limited gun control really works. A scientific thorough analysis in this article finds that states that have right-to-carry laws have increased the number of shootings. When people are around guns, the chance of using guns for shooting or accidental shooting is increased. Though this affirmation is considered a cause of promoting utilitarianism, others cling to the theory that society trained people to be vicious and that their brutality is conveyed through the use of firearms. The reality of this fact is seen in the form of the shooting drills that are given to the students at schools. In real life, the shooting drills are training pupils to articulate their aggression in a more brutal way. There are questions about why an average person needs a firearm while the government conducts all the possible efforts to build the improvement of security for the citizens. Every so often, concerns about security come up and the government makes considerable effort to address them.

In addition, it is pointed out that controversies come up when teenagers are noticed with firearms and weapons when it is not expected and teenagers should not carry them. This instance is also a question of the attention that the government gives to the people because if there were significant security checks and accountability, students and youngsters might not have access to guns this easily. There is an affirmation saying when someone acquires a gun, the government should attempt to sustain a complete check and balance so that the probability of misusing the firearm is slim.

Likewise, it is pointed out that there should be identification cards for people who purchase weapons so that the probability of getting to the criminals is increased in catching the culprits (Smith and Spieler). The more utilitarian views highlighted that it is human errors of understanding in reliance on the weapons that have brought death closer to human beings, it is also seen in the form of ideas presented by researchers. According to the Desert News, it is “announced that the Brady Campaign issued a 100-point scorecard” ensured that imposition of background checks, permit the purchase of guns, and a strict check and balance has reduced the rates of crimes because anyone who commits the crimes is sure of the punishment that he might be getting after being found as the criminal (Smith and Spiegler).

According to Gordon (2019), there is an urgent need to conduct some technical efforts because technology and advancement have made easy access to weapons, In such a case, the government and industries should attempt to conduct less stringent means toward gun control by reducing the size of the ammunition storage in the gun and reducing the ability of the firearm to shoot far off places (Gordon et al.). On the contrary, the people and critics, who believe that limiting gun control is not necessary because gun control is needed, have many disputes. The first argument is presented in reference to the US Constitution, which affirms that “every human being in this world and in this country is responsible for his/their own defense which ensures that someone should have the device or weapons of defense.” In addition, it is highlighted that critics have a strong belief in the philosophy that, “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy who is having a gun” (Sanjurjo). The stance of this anthology is reflected back to the theory that mentioned that guns do not kill people, people kill each other.

Many critics think that the misunderstanding comes from “mental conditions” because mass shootings at school are just the result of the mental disabilities that cause a person to conduct this behavior (Smith and Spiegler). Also, it is pointed out that more gun control will have no effect because the one who wants to commit the crime will do it in any way and the intention is strong much like smugglers and drug traffickers. According to Lott, historical data and statistics convey how prohibiting firearms is doing more harm than good to the general public. Lott writes when the prohibition of handguns took place in Great Britain, “…the number of deaths and injuries from Gun crime in England and Wales increased an incredible 340%, in seven years from 1998 to 2005” (Coia). In the analysis of the time period from 1997 to 2001, the rates and the incidents of crime doubled in the past when people were six times more at risk of being robbed and defrauded at gunpoint (Sanjurjo, “Gun Securitization and Gun Control Policies”). According to Sanjurjo, it is highlighted that gun control is something that causes people to be more radical due to the powerful intuitions of rebelliousness that cause a majority of all the crimes in this society.

A majority of utilitarians believe that every person in this world has the right to practice their will and have a free existence. This existence is also seen in the form of making self-related decisions and having a gun is one of those decisions; it is not acceptable to impose an absurd implementation of gun control because the public wants access to weapons to protect their lives as the government has failed to ensure their life safety. One of the reasons for this fact is that murder rates were reduced after concealed handguns were allowed to be carried. Also, the imposition of gun control measures is more like a prohibition on the passions and the choice of people because there are many people who want to have firearms for pleasures such as hunting (Sanjurjo, “Gun Policy Processes and Interest Group Politics in Latin America”).

Also, an article promoted that the stance of gun control has brought a dominant and prominent role to government officers who misuse their powers to ensure adherence to the laws. It is evident that the causes of violence are more common in the police officers rather than the other people who are usually threatened and accused of carrying weapons. Data collected from PEW research, in which it is highlighted that about 57% of the people think that gun control measures have brought more issues to their lives, proves this fact. The reason is, that they are just and obvious in their practices still, all the allegations and sometimes enforced allegations are associated with them. Such groups have failed to prove their righteousness, resulting in imprisonment (Sanjurjo, “Gun Policy Processes and Interest Group Politics in Latin America”).

Taking into consideration that people proposed arguments, in favor and against, gun control, a critical insight conveys that there is an urgent need to revise both grounds because both sides have some significant gaps. The government should take responsibility for enforcing both sides and then the citizens should be freed from the fear of any brutality targeting and victimizing them and the methods for limiting gun control should seem to be working. On the other hand, the government should be representative of its citizens; policies should be applicable and acceptable for an amateur without any issue. The government should conduct measures that can impact its citizens positively rather than making them more aggressive about the government. In conclusion, both government and policymakers should take the issue of “gun control” as a topic that can be well justified and well explained.

5 Paragraph Essay on Gun Control

Imagine, you were just out on your daily late-night job. And moments later a person jumps out in front of you moments later. Holding a loaded gun and says Give me your money. Well, you have just fallen victim to a mugging. A mugging that you have not had the time to react to. All you hear a moment later is a bang! The next minute you’re going up to heaven. Gun-related deaths are not uncommon occurrences. Gun control is a set of laws that regulate and prohibit the use, manufacturing, transfer, possession, and modification of firearms. According to UC Davis, “there were 39,707 deaths from firearms in the U.S. in 2019. Sixty percent of deaths from firearms in the U.S. are suicides. In 2019, 23,941 people in the U.S. died by firearm suicide.1 Firearms are the means in approximately half of suicides nationwide”. These numbers are ridiculously high! Some of you may have possession of a firearm or a family member does. This could mean that they or even yourself are against gun control. It is my hope to educate you on why stricter gun control laws are a positive. During my speech, I’ll talk about how the US would look without gun control laws, with gun control laws, and finally the benefits of having it. I will provide evidence that has been proven to show the benefits of gun control. After listening to my speech, I hope that you’ll be ready for gun control. Or at least open-minded to a certain level of gun control.

There are different types of gun laws that are present in the world. Many laws have different age requirements to carry and purchase a weapon. In this speech however, I will only discuss the US’s gun control laws. According to Lydia from The Hill “Under federal law, the minimum age to buy a handgun from a licensed dealer is 21. But the age limit drops to 18 if the gun is being purchased from a private, unlicensed seller, which could be a neighbor or someone online, or at a gun show”. Imagine now that this law is nonexistent. There would be tons of chaos in our country. All ages would be able to get their hands on firearms and it would be a national crisis. People would be killing each other, accidents would occur over the use of these dangerous tools, and many more horrific outcomes. Everyone remembers the worst mass shooting on US soil. October 1st, of 2017. “Around 10 p.m. Sunday (1 a.m. ET), gunman Stephen Paddock opened fire from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort on a crowd watching Aldean. Several weapons were located in the 64-year-old Paddock’s hotel room. Police reported at least 58 people were killed and more than 500 people were injured in the shooting” (Kalhan NBC). If gun control laws weren’t present in the US these types of mass shootings would occur way more frequently. Not only would mass shootings become more present. Laws such as safe storage requirements, a law that is meant to protect children and minors from accessing weapons would be gone. Many more gun control laws would be too. The death toll in the US would dramatically spike because there wouldn’t be any laws prohibiting the use of them.

Now, that I have told you what the US would like without any of our gun laws. I will now explain what it would look like if we were to increase our country’s gun control laws. I’m for gun control. Which means I want stricter gun laws. A good place to start increasing gun control laws is prohibiting minors from possessing a firearm until the legal age of 21. “A robust body of academic literature shows that the human brain continues to develop well past the age of 21, particularly in areas that may alter a person’s likelihood of involvement in violence against themselves or others. The parts of the brain responsible for impulse control, judgement, and long-range planning are among the last areas of the brain to fully mature, and in fact, may continue to develop until at least age 26. The developing brains of adolescents and young adults may put them at higher risk of making risky decisions. Hormonal changes can have significant effects on self-control, decision making, emotions, risk-taking behaviors, and aggressive impulses” (Giffords). Enforcing gun laws that would prevent people from purchasing/possessing firearms. Would lower our nation’s deaths due to firearms. For example, in 2010 12,996 people were murdered in the US. 8,775 of those deaths were due to firearms. These shocking statistics prove that violence from the misuse and abuse of gun privileges is a leading cause of death in this country. Not only will it help reduce rates of murder. Gun control and stricter gun laws according to Giffords “when mental health information is submitted to NICS, it can be effective at preventing firearm transfers by licensed dealers to ineligible people”. Stricter gun laws will also help stop minors from getting their hands on guns according to a source, “a gun in the home can be very dangerous, especially for children. Every year, nearly 1,300 children die from guns and many more are seriously injured” (Nation Wide Children’s). Mass shootings and children’s deaths could have been prevented if procedures hadn’t been taken so lightly.

Now that I have shown what our country would be like without gun control and with it. I discuss the overall benefits of having gun control. There would be fewer mass shootings, fewer murders involving firearms, fewer accidental deaths involving unconcealed firearms, fewer people who are mentally ill/unstable obtaining firearms, and many more positive reasons to have gun control laws.

Now that I have educated you on gun control laws in this country and the serious issues of misuse/abuse of firearms. I want you to go out and make a change. If you own or know someone who owns a firearm make sure you have all the proper legal documentation, make sure you safely store your firearm, and make sure you conceal your firearm when out in public. Take these precautions, please! These are to help prevent anyone from getting injured or worse, killed. Educate your family members on how to handle a weapon safely. Go on protests to help encourage the government to implement more strict gun control laws. Make your voice heard. A change will not happen if you do nothing about it. Anything you can do to help get the word out about safer gun laws will help tremendously. I hope that my speech showed you the overarching benefits of having gun laws in place in this country. Thank you for your time. Have a great day everyone and remember change doesn’t happen overnight.

Gun Control: Informative Essay

Guns are innovative and versatile tools that have found many uses in various aspects of our lives. In rural communities, it is used as a tool to hunt and eliminate pests, as well as to protect against attacks from wild animals. Guns are also found to be used as recreational tools through their use in various competitive sports. In the urban setting, gun ownership is a means to protect an individual’s property as well as human lives.

In the United States, gun ownership is a fundamental aspect of the American identity and an expression of individual rights and freedom. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. However, the right to gun ownership and the relative ease of acquiring guns contribute to the prevalence of gun-related violence in the United States. Gun-related violence includes accidental injuries, assaults, homicides, suicide, and mass shootings. For example, there is strong evidence that an increase in gun ownership is followed by an increase in the number of homicides (Cook et al., 2011).

Everyday occurrences of gun violence like accidents, assaults, homicide, and suicides may not elicit a sense of urgency like in mass shootings, but cumulatively these incidences have a higher death toll than mass shootings. These different types of gun-related violence affect different population demographics. With homicide, guns are a problem in cities, particularly the minority communities, as compared to other areas (Cook et al., 2011). According to the CDC’s statistics, suicide is the driving force behind the increase in overall gun deaths in the U.S. Out of the 40,000 gun-related deaths in 2017, 60% are attributed to individuals committing suicide using a gun. The popularity of guns used in suicides is because of the availability and the relative ease of acquisition in the U.S. and their higher efficacy compared to other methods of suicide. These gun-related suicides largely affect elderly and middle-aged white men. (Gajanan, 2018).

Like many issues, gun control has become one of the battlegrounds of different political ideologies. Major gun control measures started with the Gun Control Act of 1968. This was after the assassination of Martin Luther King and President John F. Kennedy. The National Rifle Association (NRA), a non-profit group that defends the interest of gun owners, had taken a more active political stance in counteracting the restrictions introduced by the Act.

Through the collective effort of the NRA, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 was passed. The new Act modified the Gun Control Act to allow the legal interstate sales of rifles and shotguns, eliminate specific recordkeeping requirements for ammunition dealers, and increase ease private sales of guns without a license. Even today, the NRA is still active in protecting the interest of gun owners by adding the use of mass media to its arsenal (Waxman, 2018 Gray, 2018).

In 1993, Kleck and Patterson studied and compared various gun control policies to determine their effectiveness. They determined that effective gun control policies revolve around gun owner licensing, stronger controls over illegal carrying, stricter local dealer licensing, bans on possession of guns by unfit people (criminals and mentally ill people), and discretionary add-on penalties for committing felonies with a gun. These policies are not only effective, but also relatively moderate, popular, and inexpensive. Policies like waiting periods and gun registration don’t appear to affect rates of gun-related violence (Kleck & Patterson, 1993).

The success of proposing better gun control policies and effectively enforcing them is highly dependent on the predominant public opinion. Mass shootings have become the poster child of gun control advocacy due to both the sensationalism given to it by mass media and the sense of urgency offered by the advancement and accessibility of mass media. Though public discourse is the first step toward policy change, using mass shootings as a gauge to create effective gun control policies is flawed and harmful (Fox & DeLateur, 2014 Kleck, 2009). Normal gun restrictions like restrictions on gun shows, child access prevention laws mandating locking up guns, and bans on assault weapons will unlikely prevent or deter the occurrence of mass shootings.

For example, gun control measures enforced in schools like locker searches or the use of metal detectors at school entrances will not be effective against mass shootings – a single instance of planned gun-carrying into the school is enough to bring down large numbers of victims. Mass shootings are characterized by premeditation and planning. There is a persistent desire to acquire guns as tools of murder. The gun control measures enforced merely delay gun acquisition, like waiting periods, which merely place minor obstacles in the mass murderer’s way (Kleck, 2009).

This gauging undermines the merits of existing gun control policies and makes them seem ineffective and a waste of time. Some advocacy groups, particularly the NRA, use this to their advantage to discredit the effectiveness of gun control policies and silence those who have different opinions. A notable example is the NRA advocates that gun control laws are not the answer to gun-related violence during the wake of the mass shootings in 2018 (Gajanan, 2018).

Gun control and other initiatives may not stop the next mass shooting, but they can still improve the well-being of millions of Americans. However, effective reduction of gun-related violence will involve extreme steps that the public will be unable or unwilling to take, which as the abolishment of the Second Amendment (Fox & DeLateur, 2014). It is an essential reform – the removal of semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession making it illegal to purchase them.

The effectiveness of reform like this can be seen in the gun control reforms that the Australian government passed after the 1996 gun massacre in Tasmania. Chapman et al. 2006 studied Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms to investigate its effectiveness with regard to the reduction of the prevalence of gun violence. They found that by comparing the 18 years before the gun law reforms with the 10.5 years afterward, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia before the reform and no incidents in the 10.5 years afterward. The rate of total gun-related deaths, homicides, and suicides improved the existing rates declined by at least twofold (Chapman et al., 2006).

Effective removal of guns in the possession of civilian owners is essential in order to ensure the efficacy of gun control policies. In the case of the Australian Government, 643,726 of the prohibited semi-automatic and pump-action rifles were bought from gun owners through the 1996-1997 Australian Firearms Buyback Policy. Public support for the policies was also a major contributor as thousands of gun owners voluntarily surrendered non-prohibited without compensation from the government (Chapman et al., 2006).

Guns are merely tools but have a great impact on our lives. Reducing gun-related violence is a complex issue that cannot be effectively solved by using just one approach. Significant reduction can be achieved through the effective enforcement of various gun control policies and the cooperation of the general public. Addressing the primary reason for owning a gun, the threat of violence may effectively eliminate the personal need to own a gun. It is essential that the public understand the importance of activists, professionals, and volunteer groups in changing and shaping the culture and norms with regard to gun control and ownership.