The problem of Gun control in America

The caper of Gun control in AmericaThis is an ever growing problem of forcefulness faces Ameri nookies. The streets argon becoming a battleground where individuals argon been beaten for their belongings, women argon terrified and viciously attacked and raped, juvenile gangsters ar shooting it out for a patch of territories to sell their illegal drugs, and innocent children ar been caught either daylight in the crossfire of drive by shootings which end up in seriously injured or die. Society cannot enumerate the other way and ignore the damage that these criminals do to the society, and commonwealth essential concord appropriate actions to try to stop these horrors. This paper pull up stakes analyze different aspect of this problem the country is facing.Gun control may be c alled the acid test of liberalism. All liberals who call or hark back themselves as the true one must favor stricter shoot controls. After all, does the linked States of America use up the most hea vily armed population on the earth? Is the United States of America the worlds most tough people? Surely, these facts must be at least casually connected. Therefore the apparently desperate carry to do to a greater extent or lessthing 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 blast laws, flatulence crimes are rare. Many of the firearms or weapons involved in crime are cheap present accelerator pedals, and some(prenominal)time called Saturday night specials for which at that place is no legitimate use or need.The public is deeply concerned on the issue of torpedo control anti-gun control activists believe or think that it is each and every Americans individual right to usurp arms. The Second Amendment to the ecesis proves that the people live a choice to own weapons. A well-regulated Militia, being required to the security of a Fr ee State, and it is the right of the people to moderate and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Advocates of gun control said that notwithstanding with multiple gun control laws already in existence, the serious problems are due to firearm misuse each and every day. Further more, 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, thither are individuals who would discharge all weapons as well as those who take a less radical stand up 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 credit line before being allowed to possess a gun or the individuals have to wait f or a mandatory period of time before taking will fountain 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 giving medication. 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 slice of the story. The in state of ward city slums of the United States of America are murderous, and bombed out looking places. When Americans visit Canadas big cities, they often read where the bad individuals are. The answer usually is, there really arent any slums, because the lack of violence there reflects it. fit in 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 extraneous guns from honest individuals or law abiding citizens do nothing to exculpate the problem of those who would misuse guns. Criminals will constantly 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 regular 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 possess ing.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 natural law 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 wh en more citizens are armed there is less crimes. The examples from California and Switzerland were evidence to the fact. Some freedoms have already been confused 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 sire 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 persons background.None of these laws seem to decrease the touchstone of deaths caused by hand guns. The media play part in more laws being applied against guns and ammos. The media as well helped to have bullets that may distribute bulletproof armor get banne d, but the bullets were made especially for law enforcement and pass dealers. All of these laws should be made un war paintal because it goes against individuals 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 portrays 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 across-the-board 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 put up these laws was to capture 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 acquire 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 case 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 i ndividuals are dealing with the interpretation of the Constitution, there are many views they can take. They can view the Constitution as a musical accompaniment 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 todays 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 un finded rights to the people. Many do not believe that the people are resp onsible 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 Cledes point. The nature of the Constitution is very vague. The second amendment stated that a well-regulated militia, being requisite 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 significantly the Supreme Court to interrupt this vague language. Many individuals think that the government could reasonable regulate guns, without elastic the second amendment, but like Clede, some believe congress should concentrate more on who is use the guns and no t guns themselves.Patrick Henry tangle 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 protect 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-res pect 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 Cledes 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 easy 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 directly banning of guns.