Gun control argument and counter argument

Adna Bertrand Rockwell 1, words White advocates should consider gun control. Now before the gentle reader sees red, blows his top, or goes about losing his religion, hear me out.

Gun control argument and counter argument

Make Sure You Know Your Gun Control Arguments For and Against Share The gun control debate is fueled by opposing sentiments, between those who support gun rights and individuals with anti gun sentiments.

The arguments are rooted in different philosophical applications as well as statistics and facts regarding how firearms can impact society. It is important to keep mind that even though there are strong and valid points to be made for both sides of gun control issues, this has proven to be one of the most debated and intense battles that has been fought on the political forefront.

Though minor advances and pitfalls have been taken by both factions, the debate of gun control issues is one that is still deadlocked, and will probably continue to remain stagnant in taking significant steps toward either side of the argument.

At the crux at both arguments are underlying questions as to what is to be ultimately accomplished in choosing either side of the debate. Firstly, how are firearm restrictions to be implemented without violating the Second Amendment of the Constitution is one that is considered central in terms of political and legislative in determining how to approach gun control issues.

Gun control argument and counter argument

Secondly, a more recently considered aspect is how gun control limit or restrict crime, if at all. Empirical evidence and statistical facts have proven valid points for both sides of gun control issues, making it extremely difficult to determine an obvious effect or answer.

The right to bear arms has proven to be somewhat of a thorn in the side of the gun control debate for both sides, but particular those who favor gun control.

Anti gun control factions are unwavering when it comes to interpretations of the Second Amendment that do not coincide word for word as it is written in the Bill of Rights. The National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America are two groups that defend the constitutional provision with all Gun control argument and counter argument their resources.

Gun control activists will often pose three concepts regarding the Second Amendment as it is written: The provision is outdated and obsolete; furthermore, its ambiguity lends for confusion and different means for interpretations of the provision, and must therefore, be amended to coincide with the times and be more explicit or simply be eradicated.

Gun control argument and counter argument

Regarding the inclusion of "regulated militia," arms are to be kept for the sole purpose of defense of tyranny or militaristic attempt by the government to suppress the people. To that extent, firearms should otherwise be restricted from other uses with few exceptions.

The right to bear arms is not absolute; it should be subject to regulation under certain requirements, such as when the commonwealth may be possibly threatened.

This provision does not support the use of military-style weapons--such as semi- and fully automatic weapons--by regular civilians because they are not needed in the realms of self-defense and protection or hunting and recreational use.

Though this interpretation may serve to have applied logic in an organized and well-thought out manner, anti gun control supporters will claim that the violation of the Second Amendment is a reason why such a clause was introduced in the Constitution; for the people to protect themselves from any form of violation of civil liberties and freedoms.

Popular Pages

Though the interpretation of the right to bear arms is subject to bias and convenience, the arguments posed by each faction have strong and valid points that must be considered to the full extent in order to understand all of the gun control issues. One of the arguments that is getting the most attention in recent times is gun violence and children or minors.

Whether it would be that children have access to firearms and acquire them with malicious purpose or intention to commit a crime, or simply accidental discharge of a weapon by a small child finding a parents handgun and playing with it, firearms are becoming more of a serious concern in regards to children finding ways to get their hands on them.

Events as the Columbine High School and Virginia Tech shooting made this argument become more of a national awareness of the gun violence by young people. Gun control supporters subsequently rallied to propose more restrictions and laws to further limit the availability of firearms.

Anti gun control factions responded by making it a responsibility for parents to educate their families of the dangers of firearms and guns, particularly if they were firearm owners themselves. They claimed that laws and regulations would not bar children from acquiring guns if the education was not there in the first place.

Though certain provisions may be taken, such as storing guns in gun safes or applying trigger locks to the weapons, it is more important to educate people about firearms, especially children.

Anti gun control supporters stressed that it is the responsibility of the parents to educate their children about guns, and even go as far as teaching them how to appropriately handle firearms so as the can develop a personal sense of fear and respect for them, ant not regard them as toys.

Another common argument posed by gun control activists is that the government has a duty to society and the people to keep firearms away from those individuals that should never be in possession of firearms.

There are already laws in place listing restrictions placed on certain people, such as convicted felons, that prohibit their possession, purchasing, and carrying of firearms.

Though these restrictions may infringe on some slight level upon civil liberties, the cost will prove worth the price if guns are kept out of the hands of criminals. Gun rights supporters will argue that more restrictions placed upon already strict gun laws will simply prove to be useless; criminals will always find other means in obtaining what they want or need, that is why they are criminals and operate on the fringe of society.

More laws and regulations will simply prove to be a hindrance and inconvenience to those who are legally allowed to handle firearms, and thus, infringing on their civil liberties. The proposal of having all firearms registered with the appropriate governmental authorities is an issue that has also been suggested by gun control advocates.

They claim this will make gun owners more accountable for their actions, and limit the availability of firearms only to responsible individuals. The registration of firearms will only affect criminals and it would aid law enforcement in keeping track of who owns and possesses firearms.

If the government is to start monitoring citizens at this level, then what would stop them from monitoring other aspects while further intruding and violating civil liberties?

Furthermore, a registry of this scope would eventually be paid for by tax payers, where the money can go to more important and expedient causes. Lastly, one the more recent gun control issues focused on by gun control supporters is in respects to semi-automatic weapons. Though there is already a ban implemented on automatic weapons, semi-automatic firearms are just as dangerous.The “gun’s don’t kill people” argument is flawed because it sidesteps the debate.

The issue is not whether guns can spontaneously kill people on their own. How to Win an Argument With a Gun Nut EVERY Time! Wanting to regulate and control a certain type of gun or accessory doesn’t mean you want to get rid of ALL guns.

About 59% of Americans (41% of Republicans) support a ban on assault weapons, 58% (40% of Republicans) want to ban hi-cap magazines, and 26% of Americans would support a ban on. A counter argument is any argument that is opposed to your thesis. It explains why your thesis – in part of in full – is incorrect, and uses evidence and logical reasoning to undermine your thesis.

Lesson 1A: Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions. Defining an Argument Gun control is a bad idea because if you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns.

A cat lover could now counter the dog-as-better-pets argument by showing that the hidden assumption upon which the relevance of (P1) relies isn't necessarily true. The Turn Against and Turn Back Body Paragraph: Counter Argument to Gun Control. MAIN IDEA: Some others may argue that we should not violate the 2nd amendment by restricting gun ownership.

A Counter-argument is argument that is opposed to your own thesis, it is usually the view of one person or multiple persons who disagree with your position or choice. One example of counter-argument is the debate on gun rights vs. gun control, on one's views, they believe that if a person that has a.

In the midst of the gun control arguments and counter arguments, it is important to know what gun control is. Gun control is a law that is used in deciding whether a citizen can own a gun or not. Gun control is a law that is used in deciding whether a citizen can own a gun or not. A counter argument is any argument that is opposed to your thesis. It explains why your thesis – in part of in full – is incorrect, and uses evidence and logical reasoning to undermine your thesis. Apr 21,  · This support for gun control, by the way, is pretty bipartisan: even with controversial stuff like reinstating the assault weapons ban, roughly half of Republicans are in favor, along with a majority of Democrats and Independents.
4 Charts that Prove the Mental Illness Argument Against Gun Control is Bunk | Benjamin Studebaker