This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
This is an ever growing problem of violence faces Americans. The streets are becoming a battleground where individuals are been beaten for their belongings, women are terrified and viciously attacked and raped, teenage gangsters are shooting it out for a patch of territories to sell their illegal drugs, and innocent children are been caught every day in the crossfire of drive by shootings which end up in seriously injured or die. Society cannot look the other way and ignore the damage that these criminals do to the society, and people must take appropriate actions to try to stop these horrors. This paper will analyze different aspect of this problem the nation is facing.
Gun control may be called the acid test of liberalism. All liberals who call or think themselves as the true one must favor stricter gun controls. After all, does the United States of America have the most heavily armed population on the earth? Is the United States of America the world's most violent people? Surely, these facts must be at least casually connected. Therefore the apparently desperate need to do something about the vast quantity of firearms and firearms abuse is a major concern.
Guns are been used in an enormous number of crimes in this country. In other places in the world with stricter gun laws, gun crimes are rare. Many of the firearms or weapons involved in crime are cheap handguns, and sometime called Saturday night specials for which there is no legitimate use or need.
The public is deeply concerned on the issue of gun control; anti-gun control activists believe or think that it is each and every American's individual right to bear arms. The Second Amendment to the Constitution proves that the people have a choice to own weapons. A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, and it is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Advocates of gun control said that even with multiple gun control laws already in existence, the serious problems are due to firearm misuse each and every day. Furthermore, the controls that have been designed have not been sufficiently effective or progress. Therefore, those who favor gun controllers argue, we need more uniform into the legislation, more extensive gun controls, and effective enforcement.
Various pro-gun control organizations argue on methods of gun control needed. For more examples, there are individuals who would ban all weapons as well as those who take a less radical stand and who would simply increase the controls on firearms. The moderate gun control individuals or groups propose measures such as requiring an individual to successfully complete weapons safety course before being allowed to possess a gun or the individuals have to wait for a mandatory period of time before taking possession of a gun.
Today, there maybe over more 20,000 different gun control laws in existence, ranging from those enacted by counties and states, and to those enacted by the federal government. When gun control is ineffective and tougher sentencing of criminals or offenders and stricter parole policies should do far more to combat crime.
Statistics prove that Canada has less violent than the United States. Fewer weapons are only part of the story. The inner city slums of the United States of America are murderous, and bombed out looking places. When Americans visit Canada's big cities, they often ask where the bad individuals are. The answer usually is, there really aren't any slums, because the lack of violence there reflects it.
According to the Economist magazine, blacks are 12% of the United States' population, and account for 48% of murders, mostly because the inner city blacks are killing one another. Most of these guns were not purchased from retail gun stores. Gun laws will not keep guns out of these ghettos (The Economist, 1993).
One of the founding fathers included Second Amendment from the Constitution, because it was made very aware of the fact that there might once again come a time when American citizens would have to fight for their freedom.
Of course guns fall in the wrong hands or hands of criminals are harmful. But taking away guns from honest individuals or law abiding citizens do nothing to solve the problem of those who would misuse guns. Criminals will always have guns or find ways to get them, whether we accept it or not. Even in other countries where guns are completely illegal, criminals will simply manufacture or smuggle weapons. The Soviet Army was unable to successfully impose gun control on the small country of Afghanistan. In the United States of America today, criminals import weapons (guns) that law abiding citizens are banned from possessing.
What would happen if a nation with guns in every household? The nation is Switzerland. The Swiss does not have to fight a foreign war for over hundreds of years (the last fight in Switzerland was a one month affair in 1847), and their crimes rate is among the lowest in the world. The United States of America can only envy their record.
To carry a firearm in the state of California, it requires a permit commonly called Carry Concealed Weapons. CCWs are issued by the discretion of the chief of police of a city of the County, or a sheriff of the County, where the applicants live. As long as the applicants or individuals passes the background check provided by California Department of Justice (DOJ), and a chief of police or a sheriff may issue permit to applicants.
In California where Carrying Concealed Weapons permits are obtainable, some studies reveal that the following: when more individuals were armed, the crime rates dropped down proportionally. It is not a surprise that when more citizens are armed there is less crimes. The examples from California and Switzerland were evidence to the fact. Some freedoms have already been lost in this country; can we afford to lose more? With many firearms regulations are now in the books, we do not need more gun control laws. We need to start enforcing the laws that we have now.
The government put in place many gun control laws, but some of the laws were made to make the public feel safer. For instance the government has banned some assault rifles, but they were not even used for most gun related crimes. The government passed another law called the Bradey Law. The Bradey Law allows five day wait on the purchase of a handgun so a check can be done on the personâ€™s background.
None of these laws seem to decrease the amount of deaths caused by hand guns. The media play part in more laws being applied against guns and ammos. The media also helped to have bullets that may penetrate bulletproof armor get banned, but the bullets were made especially for law enforcement and licensed dealers. All of these laws should be made unconstitutional because it goes against individualsâ€™ right to bear arms. They should find some other ways to deal with gun related crimes and violence.
The United States of America was founded by people who believe that owning guns are to protect what they think is right. The constitution gives everyone the right to bear arms and protect themselves. Laws against guns should be unconstitutional but the laws were made because it is what some individuals want.
The ban on assault rifles was in effect in the May of 1994. Many assault style weapons and broad categories encompassing many more semiautomatic firearms were among that were banned. Some weapons were banned, and were only used for three percent of all gun related crimes in 1993. Most of the crimes include murders were committed with handguns. The only reason for making to set these laws was to make the people feel good and safe.
The reason for many to wait on obtain is to make sure no criminals or mentally disturbed individuals can buy guns. Did anybody really think that solve any of the problems? Many do not think so. The law prevented about 45 thousand individuals from getting guns. This number does not even compare to the number of deaths caused by guns. If the government really wants to stop the amount of killings, they would have to enforce gun education and enforce stricter punishment on murders.
The media continue to play hugh part in gun control. If the news reported something was bad or wrong, people would always take their side and views. Rhino Bullets were banned also because of the media. What many individuals did not hear or understand was that they were for law enforcement officers and licensed dealers only. The bullets were banned because of lack of information. Society is the one who suffers because most people got the wrong image about the Rhino Bullets.
When individuals are dealing with the interpretation of the Constitution, there are many views they can take. They can view the Constitution as a living document or in its original understanding. The main understanding that people are guided by is what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they created them. The Constitution may also be viewed as a living document, in which the interpretation should be surveyed in light of today's social and politics environments. Bill Clede ideas seem to be guild by the idea of the Constitution being a living document.
When the Second Amendment was written, it already had a major impact on this country because state and national governments were unable, and were lacked the power to protect the people. The Amendment gave the power to the people to have guns for protection. As Mr. Clede points out, it was not the intent or purpose of the Amendment to give unlimited rights to the people. Many do not believe that the people are responsible enough to have the unlimited rights they seem to have under the second amendment. Clede stated that does not mean that the government can constitutionally prohibit all weapons, but it probably meant that the government can reasonably regulated and limit their use. Many individuals agreed with Clede's point. The nature of the Constitution is very vague. The second amendment stated that a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of Free States, the right of the individuals to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Constitution never defined or gives examples of what a well-regulated militia is or types of weapons deemed reasonable for protection. It should be left to congress, or more importantly the Supreme Court to interrupt this vague language. Many individuals think that the government could reasonable regulate guns, without compromising the second amendment, but like Clede, some believe congress should concentrate more on who is using the guns and not guns themselves.
Patrick Henry felt that all of us should preserve our public liberties, and if need be by force. Patrick Henry stated that the great objective is that, every man be armed. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams also had the same views as Patrick Henry that every man should have the right to own weapons (guns) for private self-defense. Our forefathers felt that it was very important for people to bear arms for protection of property, life, or limb. When they created a document that protected these rights, this seems to be evident because to right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment. Once again, this issue must be raised, and the forefathers foresee a time when this freedom that they embraced would not cause such wide-spread crime in the country. Individuals asked how can they maintain their individual rights, and yet get the guns out of the hands of convicted felons, drug addicts, and people who are mentally impaired from owning guns as Clede described. Many self-respect gun owners are in favor of a waiting period before the purchasing of any type of gun. Clede has clearly taken the stand of some type of tighter control on the sale of weapons, but without touching the Second Amendment.
A major problem that has been addressed in Clede's statement is that no matter what changes, the element in this country will always be, any individual be able to obtain guns. Perhaps individuals should take a closer look at the manufacture of guns and why they are manufactured in such abundance when the numbers of guns already surpass the population of this country. Although state and federal laws forbid the ownership of automatic weapons, but they can easily be obtained for the right price, and always to the criminals in our society. These are the problems that should be made aware of, not the outright banning of guns.