Are you in High School, College, Masters, Bachelors or Ph.D and need someone to help in your homework? All you need is to ask for research paper help written by a specialist in your academic field. When you buy an essay online from My Essay Services, we offer you an original, nil plagiarized and unique paper written by a dedicated writer who is PhD or Masters qualified. MyEssayServices.com is an experienced service with over 9 years experience having delivered over 83,000 essays over the years.

Gun Control Sample Essay & Outline

Reports of shooting resulting in a large number of casualties often raise the issue of gun control. The efficacy of the approaches use towards the control of the gun access comes into sharp focus. However, there have been fewer instances of consensus on the access to guns and the control measures. The topic has been a hot issue whose feasible solution has been great hampered by the in adequacy of the interventions and the constrained focus adopted by the government in the control of access and use of guns (Roleff, 23-81).

Controlling the people that have access to guns is important in the reduction of incidences of shootings. This paper will evaluate the issue with the aim of pointing out the negative effects of allowing the unbridled access to guns.

When looking into the matter, one has to ask if the allowance of the people to have access to the guns is a contributory aspect to the development of the community. Close examination of the benefits of the gun ownership indicates that there are not benefits of owning a gun in most cases. Some situations may warrant gun ownership (Roleff, 23-81). However, most do not.
Often, families in the United States have more than one gun in their possession.

Owning the guns is cited as one of the means of protection from invaders and criminal elements. However, ownership of guns does not transmute into effectiveness of the control. Essentially, the gun ownership leads to the increased risk for the families. It is often the case that most casualties in home invasions die from their guns. Therefore, the access to guns increases the risk as opposed to reducing it.

Gun ownership leads to the need for experimentation. The guns are not meant to scare away animals, as it is the case in the farmlands (Roleff, 23-81). On the contrary, they may be collections for ostentation. They may be used for sport hunting. Therefore, the requirement for the guns is not for the purpose of the protection, as most people would like to postulate.

The congress approach to the gun control issue is also wanting. The majority of the congress members have interests in the legislation. Most of them are gun owners. Their ability to pass the legislation on the gun control has been hampered by their stakes. Lack of consensus is also determined by the gun producing companies. The majority of the gun producers are big corporations. Enactment of any legislation on the regarding gun control is a threat to their business model. Therefore, the companies have become too invested in the congress in a bid to protect their rights. Insider focus and the protection of the companies has hindered the development of the right pieces of legislation that control the access to guns.

Gun producers often seek to influence the decisions of the congress by sponsoring some of the candidates to the office (Roleff, 23-81). The sponsored candidates do the bidding for the gun producing companies by ensuring that the interests of the gun producers are well protected. All arguments raised for the sustenance of the status quo as far as gun access and control is concerned are mere smoke screens meant to increase the access of the members to guns hence ensuring a stable supply for the companies that produce the guns.

Insider influences and short sighted and stakes in the entire debate have been the major hindrances of the gun control. However, the other issues that have defeated efforts to control the access to guns are the constitutional protection of access to guns. The nation was founded on guns trade (Fisanick, 1-56). The development of the nation has also had close relationships to the guns access. Therefore, the government has developed an accommodative approach to the guns production ever since.

The argument on the foundation of the nation on the uncontrolled access to guns is faulty. In the time when the people were allowed to access all the guns that they needed, the situation was different. It was a wild world whereby the need for protection was the main motivator for the access to guns. Being able to control, the people require use of the guns.

In the current times, the environment has changed significantly such that there is no need for the gun anymore. The law and order is higher compared to the time. The people can pursue other alternatives of getting justice without having to resort to the gun use. Therefore, the argument on the necessity of the guns has been passed by time. The setting and context of the law allowing unbridled access to guns has changed such that the applicability of the law is under sharp focus. How a person observes the law for the protection is now a controversy.

Gun access is a detriment to the society. In the poor neighborhoods, the ease of acquisition of guns and the cheap costs is one of the main reasons for the development of the violence levels (Roleff, 23-81). If the government is going to be successful in the control of access to guns, it has to ensure that it has set the right legislation's that bars the people from attaining easy access to guns. The focus has also to be on the outcome of the gun control (Fisanick, 1-56).

Guns are dangerous when they are used by people in an unstable mental state. Most of the incidences that have turned out to be catastrophic entails the access to guns by the people that are unstable mentally or are under the influence of drugs. When the law allows virtually any one to buy a gun in a departmental store, the society is placed in a higher danger (Henderson, 15). The unstable minded people can use the guns on the innocent people, as it was the case in the recent past.

The dangerous state of mind of a person could be mere intoxication. The gun access in the home can lead to fatal results. In the event that there is an argument while the person has access to the gun, the results can be fatal. The fact that the gun selling shop do not conduct due diligence before selling the guns makes it difficult for the differentiation of the people that can access guns. Therefore, it defeats the entire goal of gun access, which is to ensure that there is more security.

The requirement for a person to buy a gin are so low such that any persons that has attained the age limit can buy one. On the other hand, a person bearing a fake identity can buy a gun and use it to commit crime. Therefore, the gun access is more detrimental to the society than beneficial.

Access to guns has led to the development of other criminal activities that would otherwise be absent in the event that the access was not unchecked. One of the most common effects of access to guns is the development of street gangs. Street gangs are as effective as their firepower (Fisanick, 1-56). Therefore, there is a silent competition of attaining the highest levels of firepower. With the unchecked access to guns, the street gangs can buy the best guns and use them for the conduction of their illegal business.

Access to guns is also a major source of the influence of the drug trafficking. In fact, the two are complimentary to each other (O'Neill, 49). When the gangs have access to guns, they can spread their influence and control their parts of the streets. The gangs often clash with each other leading to the development of the insecurity. Therefore, the aim of the government of increasing security by allowing the people to access guns is self-defeating. The access to guns leads to the increases in the incidences of insecurity. It also increases the risk to the gun owners.
In most of the states, gun access is free to all the people that have attained the majority age.

There are event-training sessions on the ways of using the guns. In this case, the government sanctions the development of an underground movement of well-equipped and trained people that can cause immediate danger to the rest of the society

Gun access is also an issue in the event that the people accessing them have undergone the normal training (Fisanick, 1-56). The officers that have served in some of the tours in the war zones often are left to fend for themselves in the event that they were not recruited for the long term. The officers have the unique skill set that makes them threats to the national security. In most of the cases, they have mental issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder (Valdez, 41). Allowing them access to guns makes them more dangerous for the community.

In conclusion, gun control is a welcome move that has been delayed over the years. Uncontrolled checks on the access to guns is a major aspect that threatens to destroy the entire foundation of the American society (Fisanick, 1-56). The checks in place are minimal and they can be easily broken. The allowance of the people to sell guns freely is also an aggravating factor towards the development of gun control. Ability of the government to control the people that access guns with this arrangement is highly limited.

Work cited

Fisanick, Christina. Gun Control. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Print.
Henderson, Harry. Gun Control. New York: Facts On File, 2000. Print.
O'Neill, Terry. Gun Control. San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Print.
Roleff, Tamara L. Gun Control. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Print.
Valdez, Angela. Gun Control. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 2003. Print.

Strict Gun Laws are the First Step Towards Ending the Violence Sample Essay

The article “Nothing in the Constitution prevents sensible gun rules” (15 Feb 2018), the author expounds on the Second Amendment. The law is specific to the persons that can hold firearms. Unfortunately, licenses do not assure responsibility and permitted firearms eventually find their way into the hands of unauthorized shooters. I agree with Sunstein’s deduction on the imaginary restrictions imposed by the Second Amendment. Therefore, the government should have stricter gun laws to prevent the multiple afflictions occurring in the U.S.A.

Repealing the Second Amendment is inevitable as recent mass shootings in the U.S.A indicate that the law no longer serves the society. The number of guns owned by civilians during the creation of gun laws is significantly low in comparison to the current number of gun owners. Initially, gun holding was by militia with the intent of protecting communities from bandits and incidences of unlawful behavior (Sunstein 1). However, the number of gun owners has increased significantly since the law allowed civilians to buy arms in the act of self defense. It is, therefore, crucial to repeal the Second Amendment as it is out of date and inefficient in preventing gun violence.

Unlike the laws that govern them, guns have evolved over the years. A single incidence of violence results in a more significant number of casualties since they are more automated. It is, therefore, stupendous for the government to insist on utilizing gun laws that do not take this evolution into account. The government has tools to combat incidents involving handguns through the constitution (Sunstein). I share the opinion that nothing is stopping the government from implementing regulations that control the purchase, ownership, and utilization of firearms.

The society is not what it used to be in 1791 when the founders enacted the Second Amendment. The risk-benefit posed by the arming of civilians has since shifted. In contemporary times, policing is best left to the men and women in uniform who have better training. Furthermore, we have seen an increase in the number of people suffering from undiagnosed mental illnesses. Moreover, children get exposed to violent television programs which rob them of empathy. Therefore, the government cannot afford to utilize gun laws that do not consider the dramatic societal changes.

The USA is trailing behind other countries in matters relating to gun control. Incidences of gun violence are not exclusive to the super power, and countries such as Germany and Switzerland have experience with shootings. Germany reacted to a shooting incident by banning automated and semi-automated guns. Also, Switzerland amended its laws in 2008 leading to stricter rules on ammunition storage. I find it stupendous that the sitting president proposed the arming of teaching staff as a control after the recent incident in Florida. The government ought to emulate other countries whose regulatory measures are adequate rather than spend precious time playing politics with an issue that leads to preventable deaths.

Although it may seem counterproductive to have more guns I the hands of civilians, self-defense is slowly becoming a basic necessity. As a result, more people are buying guns and this increase the risk that the firearms will fall into the wrong hands. For this reason, gun laws should be a priority for legislators and especially repeal the Second Amendment. We need to accept that firearms are a common factor in today’s society and set rules and severe consequences for those who go against stipulated controls. Furthermore, self-defense involves more than just using the same weapon as one’s assailant. The introduction of programs teaching techniques for disarming a criminal is crucial. There have been incidences where people are shot using the guns they bought to protect them. For this reason, gun controls need to involve educational programs that minimize rates of shootings.

According to Sunstein, a ruling by four judges confirmed that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own guns. Even so, the opinions of the judges provided in the article indicate the federal, state and local governments are in a position to take decisive action. For instance, persons with mental illnesses should not handle firearms. Moreover, it is illegal to carry a gun to sensitive areas such as schools and government buildings by unauthorized persons (Sunstein). Therefore, the government is well positioned to regulate gun ownership. Stricter regulations will make it difficult for individuals to purchase firearms. Also, guidelines for the evaluation of person’s state of mind are essential in determining whether a person is responsible enough to own or handle a gun. Furthermore, keeping guns out of learning institutions will lead to fewer incidences of shootings in schools. Therefore, the government needs to apply strict regulations and controls.

References

Sunstein, R. Cass. “Nothing in the Constitution Prevents Sensible Gun Rules.” Bloomberg View. 15 Feb 2018.