Experts in this subject field are ready to write an original essay following your instructions to the dot!Hire a Writer
In any presidential election debate, the need for effective gun safety legislation has become a never-ending topic of discussion. The increasing number of lone-wolf attacks by snipers in the United States has sparked debate over the need for stricter rules. Following the Las Vegas massacre, a controversy erupted, pitting Republican lawmakers against evolutionists and several civil rights organizations about the need for stricter gun safety laws (Michael Boylan). In order to enhance defense and tame lone wolf attacks, an appropriate gun safety system, in my mind, must be enforced. It is essential to introduce stricter measures to make it difficult for those who do not deserve the license to hold firearms. More stringent vetting procedures and study on the applicants need to be put in place. Even though there is no directly linked evidence that this will reduce crime rates, the fact that lone wolf attacks are carried out by people with questionable character and with a legal possession of licensed firearms show the loophole in our gun control law (DeGrazia).
Currently, approximately 25% of Americans have guns. This amount is huge. The argument about having a gun for self-defense is losing meaning. America would be safer if no one had weapons but the custodians of the law. With that, the police will be doing their job. Children related accidents with guns are now on the rise. With stricter gun control measures such occurrences won’t happen. Tighter gun control will undoubtedly lead to the reduction of such accidents and eventually reduction of crime. This may be both directly or indirectly.
However, there is an argument that putting stricter amendments on the already existing gun control legislation is an offensive attack against the second amendment. The amendment provides citizens’ rights to own firearms for self-defense (Mark Tushnet). Those who oppose stricter gun control amendments also claim that there is no assurance that the enactments of stricter gun control laws will regulate crime. They argue that it is our responsibility to the community at large to flush out terrorist and other crime suspects before they commit crimes using their guns. This person can still carry out their harm with or without arms. There are laws prohibiting people of questionable character including former criminals from acquiring weapons (Blocher). Giving stricter regulations will deny rights to those who deserve to own firearms. In addition to that, the motivations for crime are more than the access to guns. Crime is more of a moral or mental issue, and guns are just there to facilitate murder. For that case controlling our mentality is of more importance than gun control. It is a tight line to call however stricter gun control measures should be put in place (Burke).
Blocher, Joseph. "Firearm Localism." The Yale Law Journal 123.1 (2013): 1-265.
Burke, David Edward. Why The Arguments Against Gun Control Are Wrong. 5 October 2017. 5 December 2017. .
DeGrazia, David. "The Case for Moderate Gun Control." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 24.1 (2014): 1-23.
Mark Tushnet, J.D. "Interpreting the Right to Bear Arms — Gun Regulation and Constitutional Law." The New England Journal of Medicine 358 (2008): 1424-1426.
Michael Boylan, Don B. Kates, Ronald W. Lindsey, and Zbigniew Gugala. "Debate: Gun Control in the United States." Clinicl Orthopaedics and Related Research 471.12 (2013): 3934-3936.
This sample could have been used by your fellow student... Get your own unique essay on any topic and submit it by the deadline.
Hire one of our experts to create a completely original paper even in 3 hours!